Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The climate change and global warming debate may be continuing in the real world but those employed by your tax dollars have jumped ahead to spending more of your money courtesy of Steven Chu.

Nothing like a good stimulus program to find more ways to spend tax dollars. God knows paying down the national debt or reducing trillion dollar plus deficits is a waste of money, right?

Here’s what one of Steven Chu’s bright ideas has paid for with your money.

New program will certify professionals in carbon capture and storage

RICHLAND, Wash. – Scientists and engineers will soon be able to receive advanced training and certification in burying and permanently storing underground the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as part of a recent stimulus award from the Department of Energy. The DOE awarded nearly $1 million to the Seattle-based Environmental Outreach and Stewardship Alliance (EOS) to develop a carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) curriculum that will be used to build a skilled workforce through regional training.

Imagine that! $1 million to develop climate change curriculum. And there’s at least $7 million more of your money to spend after that. That’ll recover America and create more jobs, right?

Funding for the EOS training project is part of more than $8.4 million recently awarded by DOE Secretary Steven Chu for regional sequestration technology training programs.

And we wouldn’t want to unnecessarily increase our carbon footprint with this project, right?

The project organizers also plan to make lectures and other relevant course material available on the Web for students who cannot attend in person, which will reduce the program’s overall carbon footprint.

Gee, do you suppose this planet-saving method is a proven winner? You know, is it a good idea and will it be effective, reasonable, beneficial and not break the bank?

PNNL is conducting laboratory and field research in the Pacific Northwest to assess the feasibility of permanently storing carbon dioxide in basalt, a type of igneous rock common in eastern Washington, Oregon and parts of Idaho.

Hmmm, seems as though someone is putting the horse before the cart…… again. There’s a pejorative remark about educators that states those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach. Have you ever wondered about public sector science? It may have been considered a noble endeavor for the public to fund scientific research. But these days one has to wonder if geeks and techies who work for the government were unable to get a job in the real world. Add to that the notion they may spend much of their time seeking funding to provide themselves with an income. Not much incentive to be good at science.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

On the Nomination (Confirmation of Cass R. Sunstein, of MA, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget )

The announcement above is from the US Senate and relates to, among other things, the popular discussion of President Obama and his appointment of ‘czars’ and other staff to his administration. No doubt as much dismissal of the process is uttered by liberal sources as concern about the process is voiced by the loyal opposition. So it all becomes a little silly. Or is it? Below is what appears to be an example of trying to dismiss the concern on the czar/appointee thing.

Get This Rat a Lawyer!

Glenn Beck says Cass Sunstein wants to give animals the right to sue humans. Really?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Monday, Sept. 14, 2009, at 8:49 PM ET

But, if you believe Fox News host Glenn Beck, it could happen here too.

Glenn Beck may be regarded as flamboyant by some critics or worse by left-leaning analysis. But he wasn’t wrong on the ACORN story was he? And he is correct on many things which means this blog is only leaving the door open in case he has been wrong on something. But when it comes to Cass Sunstein, the czar epidemic and the liberal response there is at least one evaluation of Mr Sunstein which is disturbing.

If Slate wants to downplay criticism of the Sunstein appointment it might be best to leave the whole thing alone. Even in their article referenced above they essentially agree that Sunstein believes animals have legal rights. And that leaves the door open for some really bizarre legal battles based on human history. Things could get out of hand considering humans EAT animals. Is there a need to say anymore on that topic?

What is of more concern regarding Cass Sunstein is the longer list of his publishing resume’. Of note is a book entitled, ‘ The Bill of Rights and the Modern State’, co-editor with Geoffey R. Stone and Richard A. Epstein, (University of Chicago Press 1992). One of Sunstein’s contributions to the book quotes Alexander Meiklejohn.

Meiklejohn is known as an advocate of first-amendment freedoms and was a member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Meiklejohn was selected by John F. Kennedy to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which was presented by Lyndon B. Johnson shortly after Kennedy’s death.

Sunstein’s quote of Meiklejohn is presented below.

The radio as it now operates among us is not free. Nor is it entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. It is not engaged in the task of enlarging and enriching human communication. It is engaged in making money. And the First Amendment does not intend to guarantee men freedom to say what some private interest pays them to say for its own advantage.

The radio, as we now have it, is not cultivating those qualities of taste, of reasoned judgment, of integrity, of loyalty, of mutual understanding upon which the enterprise of self-government depends. It corrupts both our morals and our intelligence.

Sunstein proposes ‘a New Deal with respect to speech’, freedom of speech, that is. You know, the First Amendment. For those of you concerned about the Fairness Doctrine and the liberal agenda to shutdown talk radio. You’re not crazy. Here’s what Sunstein says.

It applies much of the reasoning of the New Deal attack on the common law to current questions of First Amendment law. Such an approach would produce significant changed in existing understandings of the nature of the free speech guarantee. It would call for a large scale revision in our view of when a law ‘abridges’ the freedom of speech. At a minimum, it would insist that many imaginable democratic interferences with the autonomy of broadcasters or newspapers are not ‘abridgments’ at all.

And more of what the left may care to ignore on any discussion of Cass Sunstein is the remainder of his publishing resume’ which includes the following selections:

The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever, (Basic Books 2006)

The Partial Constitution, (Harvard University Press 1993)

Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, (The Free Press 1993)

Free Markets and Social Justice, (2002)

The Cost-Benefit State, (American Bar Association 2002)

Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (Basic Books 2005)

After the Rights Revolution: Preconceiving the Regulatory State, (Harvard University Press 1990)

(end of list)

And the left would also like to dismiss that vast right wing conspiracy focused on the free speech threat of the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives are more than a little concerned the current liberal majority has some sinister plans in mind that include destroying free speech and the remainder of the founding documents. Maybe all that talk of socialism is not so far fetched after all. Of course this blog never thought it was in the first place. The information above certainly supports that notion. But those of us who do not support the liberal agenda are labeled racists or Nazis or some other pejorative. Thanks libs.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

Is it simply a growing trend in conspiracy theories or is there valid evidence that election fraud is omnipresent in those countries of the world which allow citizens to choose their leaders? Reports on the latest challenges in an election deemed noteworthy by the various media is highlighted below.

There is mounting concern about the aftermath of Afghanistan’s presidential election. No results or even an estimated voter turnout have been announced by the country’s election officials. Partial results from some provinces are expected Tuesday, however. But the election overseers say official results may have to be delayed while they investigate a rising number of serious charges of voting fraud.

According to another report both sides make a claim of election fraud.

Both the campaigns of incumbent President Hamid Karzai and his top challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, accuse the other of illegal campaign activities and tampering with the voting process.

Earlier this year an election in Iran accompanied by subsequent charges of election fraud caused a ’stir’ that has not been satisfactorily resolved. It has been reported that the event is responsible for disruptions of alliances in the ruling elite.

Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi repeated her call for a fresh election in Iran, held under the supervision of the United Nations.

Speaking during a visit to South Korea, Ebadi said a new presidential election with U.N. oversight could help end the unrest that erupted after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed June 12 re-election.

Ebadi made similar comments during a protest speech in Amsterdam last month.

She also asked U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to visit Iran to receive a first-hand account of human rights abuses.

The secretary-general Monday sent what his office called a “customary letter” on his inauguration congratulating him, though the text would not be made public.

And then a contrast in claims of election fraud and media coverage on conspiracy theories.

Massive street protests by millions of peaceful demonstrators waving homemade signs and wearing bracelets displaying the color of their movement? At least 20 protesters gunned down by authorities and paramilitaries? Worldwide moral indignation stirred up by the international media?

Iran 2009? Yes!

Mexico 2006? Yes and no.

All aspects of the above scenario describe the Great Mexican Electoral Flimflam three years ago this July 2nd - save for the conundrum of worldwide moral indignation. Virtually ignored by the international media, the stealing of the Mexican presidential election by the right-wing oligarchy stirred little indignation anywhere outside of Mexico.

Imagine that. Something claimed as stolen in Mexico. With all the rants following elections in the US that disappointed the liberal masses comes a stunning development within the conservative ranks in America.

The primary question conservatives are afraid to ask is “What if the election is very close and Obama wins, then what?”

Will the McCain campaign protest? Is there a cadre of thousands of lawyers ready to jump on the ACORN voter registration fraud issue, or the Obama campaign pre-paid credit card donation debacle, or the many suspected votes cast for Obama by non-citizens?

Obama and his “thousands of attorneys” have answers to all these “trumped-up” complaints by the GOP. The DNC has convinced the Kool-aid crowd that Bush stole the last two elections, and they aren’t about the let that pass. So, hang on to you hats, and further down in this article you will find the Obama/DNC election fraud playbook.

WHAT???? Conservatives would consider leveling charges of election fraud???? Yes, it has come nearly full circle. Beyond the long standing American political rivalry between left and right there are other left and right battles making claim on election fraud.

Not to be outdone by anyone else Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez successfully cheated term limits for his electoral ambitions. As for the Russian Bear….

It has been 10 years since an ailing Boris Yeltsin promoted Putin from security chief to prime minister on Aug. 9, 1999. He was elected president the following year and in 2008 he handed the post — but not all the power — to a hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev.

Putin became prime minister again, allowed almost all the men he surrounded himself with as president to remain in power, and is still understood to call the major shots.

For what once appeared as an aberration in American politics, if not world public affairs, political corruption in the form of ‘vote early, vote often’ has risen to a level that reduces the discussion to one simple inquiry. If all elections are suspect does anything else in public debate matter? Or is this a new strategy to distract?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Many have said Social Security and Medicare are hopelessly flawed and will fail by going bust or bankrupt. In other words, we cannot afford to continue down this road. In their own words the ‘trustees’ of Social Security and Medicare admit that much. The problem is their prediction or forecast may go the way of most other government forecasts. It will be shown in retrospect, some years in the future, to be a woefully inadequate prediction and things will be much worse than they are currently being stated.

Even with that the excerpts from the report below confirm that government knows these programs are failing. And now they want to add government run healthcare for everyone. You have to be a complete fool to believe this can work. As of the date of this post, even with two committee’s in Congress agreeing on a healthcare bill, neither can determine how to pay for it.

No kidding. That is an always has been the problem with government programs especially Social Security and Medicare. We cannot afford to sustain them. In this green and sustainability crazy world how come those same ECO crazy activists and other liberals cannot find a way to make these programs financially viable? Because just like the other liberal fantasies they cannot make this stuff work. The math isn’t there. The math is not on their side. Even Obama’s own who are now trustees of SSI and the rest cannot keep this myth going. That is why they are working on news ones like healthcare reform. It is nothing more than putting lipstick on the old pig. Ain’t gonna work folks.

There are ways to solve the problem with healthcare but those realities are not being addressed. They do not fit the liberal agenda. With liberals in the White House and a liberal majority in Congress all that stands between us and total financial collapse is the American taxpayer. If you do not revolt now it will all be a moot point when the liberal agenda has been put in place by the POLS in DC. That is no exaggeration.

Please note, the trustees mentioned earlier are listed at the bottom of this post’s reference. Tax Cheat Timothy Geithner, Baby Killer Kathleen Sebelius as well as other less well known Obama tax problem, Hilda Solis and a left over from 2007, Michael Astrue are the part of the Obama brain trust in charge of stiffin’ you on SSI and the rest. How’s it workin’ so far?

The conclusion drawn here suggests current healthcare reform is a back door strategy on the third rail of politics. If you are unfamiliar with the terminology simply use you favorite search engine and specify ‘third rail of politics.’ Social security and Medicare are such controversial issues that for decades they have been kept alive with ridiculous infusions of taxpayer funds and no one will fight it for if you touch the third rail you will die. (at least politically speaking) If Obama and Congress are successful in passing their healthcare ‘reform’ it will eventually fold the other social programs into it and we will surely be completely beholdin’ to those who wish to control us and all we earn will go for supporting the state. Just like any other socialist country we will work for the state and they will provide all. All that is available that is, which won’t be much. It never has been with any other political experiment like this in human history. Just ask the former Soviet Union where from each according to their ability and to each according to their need was their founder’s mantra. Ya, keep telling yourself we’re not heading there. Obama is depending on that.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A SUMMARY OF THE 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC:

Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes our 2009 Annual Reports.

The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters.

The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083. Medicare’s financial status is much worse. As was true in 2008, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017, after which the percentage of scheduled benefits payable from tax income would decline from 81 percent in 2017 to about 50 percent in 2035 and 30 percent in 2080. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.

The projected exhaustion of the HI Trust Fund within the next eight years is an urgent concern. Congressional action will be necessary to ensure uninterrupted provision of HI services to beneficiaries. Correcting the financial imbalance for the HI Trust Fund—even in the short range alone—will require substantial changes to program income and/or expenditures.

Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two. Ensuring that the system remains solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the next 75 years would require larger changes because increasing longevity will result in people receiving benefits for ever longer periods of retirement.

Conclusion

The financial difficulties facing Social Security and Medicare pose serious challenges. For Social Security, the reform options are relatively well understood but the choices are difficult. Medicare is a bigger challenge. Its cost growth can be contained without sacrificing quality of care only if health care cost growth more generally is contained. But despite the difficulties—indeed, because of the difficulties—it is essential that action be taken soon, particularly to control health care costs.

By the Trustees:

Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary of the Treasury,
and Managing Trustee

Hilda L. Solis,
Secretary of Labor,
and Trustee

Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary of Health
and Human Services,
and Trustee

Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of
Social Security,
and Trustee

As stated here earlier the Senate confirmation process is entirely political theatre. And Judge Sotomayor presents her arguments in just that manner. Criticize society, the court, the country for being prejudiced and then to look impartial feature a few references which compliment the same people whom you hold in contempt and seek to nullify.

Announce your bias and explain you will try to control it yet will use it if the case before the court requires. How convenient it is to admit you advocate for what is important to you but will not allow it to influence your decisions on the bench unless you decide to allow it to influence your decisions on the bench as you believe the case requires.

I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

And of course the advocacy role of Sotomayor is not a new trend. Her stance on promoting her own cultural heritage is evident in the item below as well as her statements that special interest groups supporting her Latina views are necessary to promote her personal views along those lines. For someone who claims to want equality in America her track record suggests she only wants that equality for the groups she selects. And that is Sotomayor’s version of justice for all.

Anti-Latino discrimination at Princeton

By Sonia Sotomayor
May 10, 1974

On April 18, 1974, the Puerto Rican and Chicano students of Princeton filed a complaint with HEW charging the university with an institutional pattern of discrimination.

The facts of the complaint are these: 1) There is not one Puerto Rican or Chicano administrator or faculty member in the university; 2) There are two million Puerto Ricans in the United States and two and a half million more on the island itself. Yet there were only 66 Puerto Rican applicants this year, and only 31 Puerto Rican students on campus. While there are 12 million Chicanos in the United States, there were only 111 Chicano applicants and 27 students on campus this year; 3) Not one permanent course in this university now deals in any notable detail with the Puerto Rican or Chicano cultures.

That there is any question this nominee is not fit for service on the bench defies the evidence. Of course the latest news on her hearings suggests her attempt to characterize herself as something she is not.

Sotomayor Pledges ‘Fidelity to the Law’
Hearings Begin: Nominee for High Court Faces Senate Panel

By Robert Barnes, Amy Goldstein and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said yesterday that a simple “fidelity to the law” is at the heart of her judicial philosophy, as her confirmation hearings began with Senate Republicans delivering a surprisingly strong critique of her fairness and President Obama’s reliance on ephemeral qualities of life experience and “empathy” in nominating her.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What’s the story on economic recovery, foreign affairs and a shared view by the US President and Vice-President? The porkulus bill is working. No it’s not. ‘We misread the economy’. If the porkulus is not working and the White House misread the economy why would they be currently considering another one? And in foreign affairs are POTUS and VPOTUS on the same page. Seems Biden would give Israel the ‘green light’ for a strike against Iran nukes and Obama would not.

Could that be the famous ‘test’ everyone was talking about after Joe Biden suggested it some months ago? The following emphasizes the ‘public face’ of the White House on matters of out of control spending and the lack of sunlight contrary to liberal leaders suggestion that transparency and accountability have ended the culture of corruption in the nation’s capital.

Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a recovery act event outside the American Can Factory building in Cincinnati, Ohio, Thursday, July 9, 2009. Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)

Biden Acknowledges Administration ‘Misread’ The Economy
Washington Post - Scott Wilson - Jul 5, 2009
Vice President Biden acknowledged today that the administration underestimated the depth of the economic recession months ago as it prepared …

Biden: Administration “Misread” Economy

In an interview on ABC News’ This Week, Vice President Joe Biden said that although the Administration relied on consensus economic forecasts in crafting its economic stimulus package, the White House erred in its assumption about the unemployment rate. Biden said, “The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures in most of the blue chip indexes out there. … No one was talking about that we would be moving towards — we’re worried about 10.5 percent, it will be 9.5 percent at this point. … We’re much too high.” The remarks were tepidly reported by news wires and print sources, which also noted congressional criticism. The AP reports Republican congressional leaders “expressed disappointment about the impact of stimulus spending,” while Biden “cited the economic conditions inherited from the Bush administration.”

If the Obama/Biden admiinstration can ‘misread’ the economy how does that apply to their spending habits and claiming this will be good for Americans?

Vice President Biden outlined how the Recovery Act is helping Ohio:

“Roads plus teachers plus cops plus jobs equals a community — and that equals paychecks and prosperity. In other words, it equals a better future right here in Southwest Ohio.”

According to the GAO’s 2nd report on porkulus, education pork went to retaining staff and programs. Is this saving jobs or rewarding the NEA for their support? Those are public sector jobs not private sector. So how is that helping SW Ohio?

Later in the day in Saratoga County, he announced the release of over $275 million in unemployment insurance (UI) modernization funds authorized by the Recovery Act. Vice President Biden was joined in New York by Congressman Scott Murphy, who noted that in addition to addressing workers’ immediate needs by financing unemployment benefits, the Recovery Act is addressing the nation’s long-term needs as well:

“By improving our roads, bridges and water infrastructure, we are not only creating jobs in the short term, but building a base upon which we can attract businesses to our area and foster long-term economic growth.”

Again, the GAO report indicates all the money right now is going to transportation, education and Medicaid. Maybe there will be some jobs in the private sector in transportation but what will that accomplish for all the money being spent? Temporary make work jobs and timetables suggesting they are spread out over three years and may have no speedy effect on the economy. Plus GAO indicates accountability will miss the mark. In other words no sunlight is projected. Yet, below, the POLS continue to suggest Recovery.gov uncovers all. The ‘breakdowns’ mentioned have always been available. It doesn’t show the details needed to analyze performance so the campaign promises are not being met.

For additional information on the Recovery Act, including breakdowns by category, state and agency, please visit Recovery.gov.

And with all the misreading, lack of sunlight and no indication of positive performance, they want to do another out of control porkulus spending spree.

Obama Advisor Urges Another Economic Stimulus Plan
By Michael Bowman
Washington

The Obama administration appears to be sending mixed signals on whether a second stimulus package will be needed to pull the U.S. economy out of a deep and prolonged recession. Democrats and Republicans are expressing dissatisfaction with the impact of the $787 billion stimulus package President Barack Obama signed into law in February.

And what about the other issues? Biden seems to indicate Israel has the White House blessing to do a first strike on Iran’s nukes.

from VOA…..
US Vice President Backs Israel’s Right to Preemptive Military Action
By Michael Bowman
Washington

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden says Israel is entitled to decide for itself how best to respond to Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities. Mr. Biden also says America’s willingness to engage in dialogue with Iran is unchanged, despite Tehran’s violent crackdown on demonstrators following last month’s disputed presidential vote.

Vice President Biden says Israel has the right to deal with foreign threats as it sees fit.

But it seems Biden’s take is not a perfect fit with Obama on Israel and first strikes.

Obama: No green light for Israel to attack Iran
Tue Jul 7, 2009 4:29pm EDT

WASHINGTON, July 7 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday the United States had “absolutely not” given Israel a green light to attack Iran over its nuclear program, but he said Washington cannot “dictate to other countries what their security interests are.”

“It is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels,” Obama told CNN in an interview during his trip to Russia.

Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week” program on Sunday that Israel had a sovereign right to decide what is in its best interest in dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a comment seen by some as giving Israel a green light to attack.

Asked if that was the intent of his administration, Obama said: “Absolutely not.”

How’s that for a confidence builder on YOUR leader’s in DC? Unsure about the economy, foreign affairs but not about spending like there’s no tomorrow. And the way they’re spending your money there may not be a tomorrow. And their relative stances on foreign affairs do not paint a pretty picture for a tomorrow either.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has a press release, presented below, that expresses concern related to the so-called Recovery Act or stimulus or porkulus bill and GAO reports indicating earlier skepticism by opponents of the plan may be justified.

The GAO reports that 16 states and DC account for about 65% of the US population as well as an equal % of the ’stimulus’ funding under their scrutiny in this second report. Links to the information are provided below. This blog’s summary is short and sweet.

Three areas of government spending are covered. Medicaid, DOT highway infrastructure and education programs are the target of these billions of taxpayer dollars. With the possible exception of DOT projects the other two areas will not likely result in new jobs. Education funding is simply being used to ‘retain staff’ and ‘continue programs’.

And GAO is concerned that transparency and accountability measures will not meet the stated goals of ‘following the money’. They offer numerous recommendations dealing with the need for more accountability.

The view from this blog has not changed. Billions in ‘recovery’ funds provided by the taxpayer will be used as expected to fund government programs. What’s new? It is unlikely many jobs will be created but saving jobs of those protected by the Obama administration will occur. You are paying for their continued support of the current administration. For all of you being layed off in the private sector the recovery act will do nothing for you to this point. Elections have consequences.

Here’s an excerpt from the GAO reports that may whet your appetite for more information.

Accountability States have implemented various internal control programs; however, federal Single Audit guidance and reporting does not fully address Recovery Act risk. The Single Audit reporting deadline is too late to provide audit results in time for the audited entity to take action on deficiencies noted in Recovery Act programs. Moreover, current guidance does not achieve the level of accountability needed to effectively respond to Recovery Act risks. Finally, state auditors need additional flexibility and funding to undertake the added Single Audit responsibilities under the Recovery Act.

Here is the link for GAO on the Recovery Act….

http://www.gao.gov/recovery/bimonthly/index.php

Here is McConnell’s press release….

GAO Report Validates Stimulus Concerns

from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

‘Americans should be skeptical anytime someone in Washington downplays scrutiny and overplays speed’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Wednesday regarding the GAO report on the stimulus bill and the lack of transparency and accountability:

“This week’s GAO report on the administration’s Economic Stimulus plan validates the serious concerns that many of us repeatedly expressed prior to its passage. This trillion-dollar spending plan was neither timely, targeted, nor temporary, and funds were extremely difficult to track. This is precisely the result that concerned us when advocates short-changed the debate and overpromised on results, including assurances that unemployment, now approaching 10%, wouldn’t rise above 8 percent.

“According to the report, assurances on transparency were off base, as was the promise that we’d be able to accurately track jobs. The GAO report should add to growing public concerns about the Administration’s tendency to rush and to overpromise on results when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars and increasing the national debt. But it shouldn’t surprise anyone who followed the debate.

“Americans should be skeptical anytime someone in Washington downplays scrutiny and overplays speed. They have even more reason to be skeptical now.”

###

If you are or were concerned about government spending and specifically the bailouts and porkulus scams you have reason to be.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While a little late to the party gathering information on the story about Gerald Walpin being fired by the White House as Inspector General of Americorps turns up some other interesting tidbits.

Without looking for more, two pieces written by Walpin, one at the NY Daily News and one at the Wall Street Journal illuminate what may be something of a thing for Walpin. Apparently he finds it very distasteful that military recruiters are not that welcome on some school campuses. That is said since both pieces are on the same subject and written several years apart, one in 2005, the other in 2008.

Another accidental find shows 2008 campaign contributions for Walpin to the war chests of former Senator Dole, former GOP Senator Specter and Presidential candidates Giuliani and McCain.

The other noticeable trend is aside from the Washington Examiner and ABC News there does not seem to be much attention being paid by the remainder of the MSM on this story. That is not a big surprise.

So we have a guy who went to Yale Law School in the fifties who expresses principles in two reviewed articles, appears to be politically aligned with the right, defends the military’s right to recruit on campus and gets fired for exposing waste or corruption in the federal government which happens to be his job as an Inspector General.

It seems reasonable to assume that if one looks further based on this little bit of information more interesting facts and figures could be gleaned about Gerald Walpin. But what is of more importance of course is the original story. What waste or corruption did Gerald Walpin uncover or expose? Why was he fired? Who else is involved in the story?

Walpin had finished a report on a probe in Sacramento and one involving City University of New York. He was being fired by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. Both probes feature the ‘extensive’ misuse of Americorps funds.

Senator Grassley has entered the fray demanding perhaps any and all information related to this investigation. You can follow this if you haven’t already by clicking HERE.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

some other references…

Shame on Yale Law School for betraying its principles
By GERALD WALPIN
Thursday, March 6th 2008, 4:00 AM

The Wisdom of Solomon
Law schools adopt an Orwellian theory in an effort to keep the military out.
by GERALD WALPIN
Monday, December 5, 2005 12:01 A.M. EST

Some campaign contribution data for Gerald Walpin

One of Sotomayor’s now famous controversial quotes states she, for example, is more likely to arrive at a good decision than a male counterpart. Her spin is that even so judges must remove subjectivity from their legal interpretation. Damage control is not this nominee’s forte nor that of her liberal handlers. You know all this is now scripted whether is was or not before now.

So either Sotomayor can make a better decision than her male counterpart if allowed to inject personal bias or she will be objective and not reach a better decision. At least that is one way to interpret the spin. Either way, before or after the quotes, this is all political theatre which may already be arranged among the parties, political or otherwise, so the confirmation process is…..that’s right, moot.

Besides, other reports suggest Sotomayor’s nomination is a gift to Democratic politician’s from Barack Obama as the size of the liberal agenda may not allow shamnesty to come to a vote this year and this gives liberal POLS a leg up for the 2010 elections. Ya, whatever.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Leahy Asks Sotomayor to Clarify ‘Wise Latina’ Remark

By Shailagh Murray
1:40 PM ET on Jun 2, 2009

In his first meeting this morning with Sonia Sotomayor, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy asked the Supreme Court nominee to clarify a controversial statement that has drawn heavy Republican criticism.

The Vermont Democrat said he asked the 54-year-old judge what she meant when she stated in a 2001 University of California-Berkeley speech, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Some conservatives, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, have interpreted the statement to mean that Sotomayor relies on personal experiences in her judicial decision making; a few even suggest it carries racist overtones. Leahy said he asked Sotomayor for clarification. He said the nominee responded, “Of course one’s life experience shapes who you are,” but she added, “Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been.”

Although the report below can be characterized as disappointing is it really a surprise or shock? You don’t really believe most campaign promises do you? And when is the last time a politician told you there would be transparency, open government, oversight, accountability, disclosure or ethics in government that actually came to pass? (the next story while expected is of more consequence)

Obama ducks promise to delay bill signings

It seemed among the easiest of his transparency pledges and is entirely under his control, but President Obama is finagling his promise to post bills on the White House Web site for comment for five days before he signs them.

Given the most recent example of a SCOTUS nominee who did not perform as predicted as in David Souter does it really matter who is chosen? But it is certain that if a white male SCOTUS nominee were to say ‘ I would hope that a wise white American male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life’ the screams of racist or biggot or xenophobe would be heard clear into the next century. You know what you can do with the race card or diversity appeal which is nothing more than a political tactic used against those worried about being labeled racist or xenophobic. That worry doesn’t live on this blog.

As for Sotomayor being nominated by Obama and once claiming she will more often than not reach a better conclusion than her white male counterpart….. in this case that is Latina-speak for the decisions I make will favor those I favor. How’s that for reverse discrimination?

Barack Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Even before news of her nomination emerged, conservatives had highlighted a statement by her that the Court of Appeal was “where policy is made” – an indication she would see her role as being much more than strict interpretation of the constitution, which conservatives insist on.

A racially-charged statement in which she argued that her minority status made her more effective than white male colleagues was also being highlighted by conservatives.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said in a lecture at the University of California in 2001.

And as for the leaders of the US Senate who will take up the nomination of Sotomayor…..

Reid Statement On President Obama’s Nomination Of Sonia Sotomayor To Supreme Court

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today after President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court seat soon to be vacated by Justice David Souter:

“As Majority Leader, I will do all I can to ensure Judge Sonia Sotomayor receives a fair and respectful hearing and the Senate’s quick confirmation.

“I commend the President for selecting such an accomplished, qualified and experienced nominee to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor has had wide-ranging experience not only in the legal world, but in the real world as well, which has helped to ensure that her understanding of the law is grounded not only in theory, but also in practice.

“Both Democratic and Republican Presidents have nominated Judge Sotomayor to the federal bench, and the Senate has confirmed her with strong bipartisan support in the past. I look forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the first Hispanic and the third woman to sit on the Court.

“Justice Souter has been a friend of mine for a long time and powerful defender of our constitutional rights. Americans everywhere again thank him for his decades of service to the nation.”

McConnell Statement on Judge Sonia Sotomayor

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the President’s announcement of his intent to nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court:

“Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences.

“Our Democratic colleagues have often remarked that the Senate is not a ‘rubber stamp.’ Accordingly, we trust they will ensure there is adequate time to prepare for this nomination, and a full and fair opportunity to question the nominee and debate her qualifications.”

.
.

It is fair to say that Dems will vote for Obama’s pick and Republicans will not. But then it is never quite that predictable is it? So to defeat the Obama pick the GOP will need ‘no’ votes from across the aisle. One might expect that won’t happen. And what value is a filibuster worth?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

WASHINGTON D.C. — Utah Rep. Rob Bishop is at the center of the call for an investigation into Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Bishop says an investigation is the only way to get to the truth of the whole Pelosi-CIA issue. He sponsored a resolution to set up a special committee. The House voted down whether to consider that resolution on a 252-172 vote Thursday.
Funny how minority party requests for investigation of allegations made by the majority party’s Speaker of the House are called ‘distractions’ by the opposition but the majority party’s similar requests for investigation of minority party members is characterized as noble.
Congressman Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called the move by republicans an attempt to misdirect the American people.

“The Republican Party has been pursuing a policy of distraction,” he said. “It does not serve our country to have the kind of politics practiced that we saw today on the floor of the House.”
Below is the resolution sought by Rep Rob Bishop to investigate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. At the time of this post, the resolution but not the roll call vote was available on the House website.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 470

Raising a question of the privileges of the House.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 21, 2009

Mr. BISHOP of Utah submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, a Representative from California, served from 1997 to 2002 as Ranking Democratic Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence;

Whereas Representative Pelosi currently serves as Speaker of the House, a position of considerable power and influence within the Congress;

Whereas title 3 of the United States Code designates the Speaker of the House as third in line of succession to the Presidency;

Whereas Speaker Pelosi has publicly challenged the truthfulness of what she and other congressional leaders were told by Central Intelligence Agency officials about the agency’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists;

Whereas in an MSNBC interview on February 25, 2009, Speaker Pelosi stated, `I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogation techniques were being used’;

Whereas Speaker Pelosi’s public statements allege a sustained pattern of deception by government intelligence officers charged by law with informing Congress about the agency’s activities;

Whereas when asked at a press conference on May 15, 2009, widely reported by the news media, `Madame Speaker, just to be clear, you’re accusing the CIA of lying to you in September?’ Speaker Pelosi stated, `Yes’;

Whereas during the same press conference the Speaker subsequently stated, `So yes, I’m saying they are misleading, the CIA was misleading the Congress’ and further, `they mislead us all the time’ and `they misrepresented every step of the way’;

Whereas in a memorandum to CIA employees released publicly on May 15, 2009, Leon Panetta, the CIA Director, stated, `It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing the enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed’;

Whereas national and international media reports on this controversy have damaged the reputation of the House by raising questions about whether the effectiveness of congressional oversight may have been undermined through false or misleading statements by intelligence officials; and

Whereas in order to safeguard the reputation of the House it is imperative to reconcile as soon as possible the aforementioned contradictory statements by Speaker Pelosi and CIA Director Panetta: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That–

(1) a Select Subcommittee of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence shall be established to review and verify the accuracy of the Speaker’s aforementioned public statements;

(2) the Select Subcommittee shall be comprised of four members of the full committee, two appointed by the chairman of the committee and two by its ranking minority member;

(3) The subcommittee shall have the same powers to obtain testimony and documents pursuant to subpoena authorized under clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the House; and

(4) the Select Subcommittee report its findings and recommendations to the House not later than sixty calendar days after adoption of this resolution.

A little public service announcement from Blog @ MoreWhat.com is offered via this post. Most of you are probably aware that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been at the center of a controversy that initially focused on the longstanding debate over EIT or enhanced interrogation techniques and other more highly charged descriptions like ‘torture’ or the most referenced technique in the news known as ‘waterboarding.’ Those on one side of the debate characterize their position as one of moral high ground which only seeks to defend the US from terrorism based on what have long been our guiding principles and values that do not allow torture. Their opponents submit this is a thinly veiled attempt to engage in a political witch hunt shielded by lofty rhetoric designed to give the appearance that it is merely a search for justice.

Recently on the subject of waterboarding it was disclosed in the news that there are members of the armed forces and others who are subjected to waterboarding as part of their training. It was also reported that Col Oliver North is one who disclosed that he was waterboarded during his training. The obvious purpose of the training would be to prepare one for the circumstance that if captured they would be exposed to such methods by their captors. The point of mentioning this should be obvious. For all the noise made about EIT, specifically waterboarding, it would appear those in the ‘business’ are quite familiar with its widespread use and the likely probability they would experience it if captured by the enemy.

Speaker Pelosi has made claims the CIA lied to her or mislead her in briefings she attended as far back as 2002. A common opinion on the entire matter suggests Pelosi had a bit of a meltdown on realizing that her party’s intent to prosecute individuals who used EIT may cause her problems if it were learned that she did not oppose the use of EIT based on prior knowledge from briefings and the like or worse that she approved of them in the past.

Those on the other side of the debate gave Speaker Pelosi an easy out after her claims against the CIA. Simply provide proof of your allegations or present a public apology to the CIA and the matter will go away. Simply put she declined the escape route and holds to her original argument. When a call for an ethics investigation of Pelosi was defeated by her party, the Democrats, it begs the question of how serious the Dems really are on matters of ethics.

Nancy Pelosi is well known for her statements calling the previous majority of the GOP and the former Bush Administration the ‘culture of corruption.’ She has lauded her own party and herself as the New Direction for America and champions of ethics since the 2006 midterms. As recently as the first quarter of 2008 Speaker Pelosi has proclaimed herself and her party as leaders in ethics. The only noticeable result has been the addition of the Office of Congressional Ethics. With the information provided in the remainder of this post, readers are invited to take Pelosi up on her claim that the public is invited to participate in this process. Information and links are provided to get you started including press releases, legislation and the OCE.

Speaker Pelosi’s press release related to the OCE legislation:

Pelosi Statement on House Passage of Major Ethics Reform

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the House floor tonight in support of a landmark ethics reform bill establishing an outside, independent Office of Congressional Ethics. The resolution passed by a vote of 229 to 182. Below are the Speaker’s remarks, as prepared:

“Mr. Speaker, today, the New Direction Congress takes another step forward in ethics reform by making Congress more open and more accountable to the American people. By doing so, we continue to strengthen Americans’ faith in the institution of Congress.

“Since the Ethics Committee was first constituted in 1967, the House has set increasingly higher standards of conduct to guide Members because public office is a public trust.

“Just last year, on the first day of the New Direction Congress, the House implemented new and sweeping changes to the gift and travel restrictions.

“Last September, we also passed the historic Honest Leadership and Open Government Act—historic lobby reform that is now the law of the land.

“Today, the New Direction Congress will—for the first time—open the ethics process up to the participation of our fellow citizens, which will make this institution more accountable to the American people. I welcome their assistance.

“I commend Mr. Capuano and all of the Members of the Task Force for their service to the House. Congressman Capuano led this effort in a way that was bipartisan and sensitive to this institution’s history and traditions. The resulting legislation will greatly improve the ethics process.

“As someone who served on the Ethics Committee for six years, I have a full understanding of the burdens its Members bear. I also have a deep respect for those who have served on the Committee, both past and present. The recommendations before the House will only serve to assist them in their efforts.

“Adopting the Capuano Task force recommendations will provide the public—and the House—with the assurance that credible allegations of wrongdoing will be addressed by the Ethics Committee in a timely manner. It will also bring an additional measure of transparency to the ethics enforcement process.

“It creates this transparency without compromising the House’s constitutional prerogative to discipline its Members, without interfering with the work of the Ethics Committee, and without altering the substantive rules governing the conduct of the Committee’s deliberations.

“I fully recognize that bringing non-Members into the enforcement mechanism is not just a step forward, but also a significant departure from the traditions of the House. To those who have concerns, I pledge that I will work closely with the Republican Leader to ensure that we jointly appoint to the new Office of Congressional Ethics intelligent and honest men and women who understand the importance of non-partisan behavior and the compelling need to act fairly to protect the interests of the public, the House, and its Members.

“Finally, Mr. Speaker, I pledge that the House Leadership will closely monitor the work of the new Office of Congressional Ethics and continually review all reasonable proposals intended to guarantee the highest ethical conduct and a more effective and transparent ethics process. If additional changes are required, we will propose them.

“The panel proposed today is a reasonable step forward, which is why it has the support of leading reform groups, including Common Cause and U.S. PIRG. It responds to the needs of the House and the demands of public. It will restore confidence in our ability to carry out our constitutional duty to discipline ourselves and increase respect for the legislation that we produce. I urge its adoption.”

Here is a link to House Resolution 895 which establishes the OCE or Office of Congressional Ethics.

Here is a link to the Roll Call Vote for the legislation which was not a slam dunk at 229-182.

But the best part is the OCE website and the text offered here as well on how to submit information to the OCE

How to Submit Information to the OCE

The OCE will accept and review information concerning allegations within its jurisdiction.

The following information should be included in any submission:

(1) the name, address, telephone number and e-mail address, if any, of the person submitting the information, and the organization s/he is affiliated with, if any;

(2) the full name of the subject of the allegation;

(3) the date(s) the alleged conduct occurred;

(4) a concise statement of facts (or, the source of the information in the event that the person submitting the information does not have first-hand knowledge of the facts);

(5) the law, regulation or rule allegedly violated, if known;

(6) if applicable, name(s) and contact information for any potential witness(es);

(7) if applicable, copies of any documents related to the allegation; and

(8) a signed declaration acknowledging that section 1001 of title 18 United States Code (popularly known as the False Statement Act) applies to the information provided. A copy of the False Statements is available on the OCE’s website and can be provided on request.

All information will be reviewed by the OCE; however, submitting information does not trigger an investigation. The decision to begin an investigation (preliminary review) lies solely with the Board.

This blog encourages readers to submit information to the OCE. Do you suppose they would investigate Nancy Pelosi if enough members of the public submitted information to the OCE? It is recommended that anyone submitting to the OCE follow their instructions carefully and do so in a respectful manner. But by all means submit.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A Republican Congressman is given credit for initiating a move in the House to investigate claims of Nancy Pelosi that the CIA misled her on enhanced interrogation techniques during briefings in 2002. The Democrats in the House can be given credit for defeating the measure in order to protect Pelosi from the truth. Other accounts in the news suggest the GOP is not done chasing this illusive disclosure. But what demonstrates the real nonsense surrounding the missteps by the first woman Speaker of the House in United States history is her own words as immortalized in many press releases from her time as the leading House Democrat.

Below the news stories presented here are press releases from Nancy Pelosi touting her manufactured concern about ethics. She pounded the idea of a New Direction for America she claimed was the mandate from the public after Dems defeated the GOP in midterm elections in 2006. Among the never ending diatribe from this Speaker of the House was a constant reminder that Washington would be transparent, there was an end to a culture of corruption and that liberals had passed the strongest ethics legislation in a generation. Why Rep Rob Bishop needed to introduce a measure to investigate Pelosi when there is a mechanism for this within Congress seems to indicate what one might expect. Pelosi was talkin’ stupid since the beginning and only now do her words place her in serious jeopardy. But the outcome in Congress reported here only demonstrates that Dems will talk ethics but not conduct themselves in an ethical manner.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrats block probe of Pelosi

Boston Globe -
House Democrats today rebuffed the latest bid by Republicans to pummel Speaker Nancy Pelosi over what she knew about waterboarding and her accusations that the CIA misled her. The House voted 252-172 to block a GOP measure that would have created a …

House rejects probe into Pelosi CIA claims

The Associated Press -
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican push to investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claims that the CIA misled her in 2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects. The House voted 252-172 to …

House Rejects Call for Investigation of Pelosi’s CIA Comments

CQPolitics.com - ?27 minutes ago?
By Bennett Roth and Alan K. Ota, CQ Staff The House rejected a Republican resolution to investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’s assertions that the CIA misled her during a 2002 classified briefing on interrogation techniques. The debate over the resolution …

Bishop fails in seeking Pelosi probe

Deseret News -
By Lee Davidson Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, unsuccessfully attempted Thursday to convince the House to order an investigation into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claims that the CIA lied to her about whether it used torture. He introduced a resolution …

GOP will keep pushing for Pelosi investigation

FOXNews -
by Mosheh Oinounou House Republicans will continue to push for an investigation into Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s intelligence briefings despite failing Thursday to muster the necessary support for the effort. “I would expect to see more resolutions like …

The Pelosi Papers……

For Immediate Release
09/14/2007

Pelosi Statement on President Signing Landmark Lobbying and Ethics Bill into Law

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement this afternoon after President Bush signed into law the Honest Leadership, Open Government Act of 2007:

“Last November, the American people spoke clearly for change in the way business is done in Washington. And with the toughest lobbying and ethics reform in a generation signed into law today, we have delivered that change.

“The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 meets Americans’ demand for high ethical standards, transparency, disclosure, and accountability.

“Among many stringent provisions, it requires unprecedented levels of disclosure on the interactions between lobbyists and legislators; it bans gifts from lobbyists and limits privately-funded travel; it ends the pay-to-play scheme known as the ‘K Street Project’; and it closes the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.

“Honest leadership is not a partisan goal. It is the key to putting the interests of all Americans ahead of the special interests.”

For Immediate Release
01/31/2007

Pelosi Announces Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Minority Leader John Boehner announced today a special task force on ethics enforcement. The task force will report to the House by May 1 to consider whether the House should create an outside enforcement entity, based on examples in state legislatures and private entities.

“In the first days of 110th Congress, a bipartisan majority passed landmark reforms to restore accountability, honesty, and openness to the House of Representatives,” Pelosi said. “We broke the link between lobbyist and legislators and set our country back on a path to fiscal discipline. These strong rules are significant steps toward honest leadership; enforcing these rules is critical to ensuring every Member of Congress lives up to the highest ethical standard.”

The Members of the task force are:

* Congressman Michael Capuano (D-MA), Chairman
* Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX)
* Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI)
* Congressman Dave Hobson (R-OH)
* Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA)
* Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA)
* Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)
* Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN)

For Immediate Release
01/05/2007

Pelosi Statement on Passage of Ethics Reform and Pay-As-You-Go Budget Rules

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the passage of Congressional ethics reform and pay-as-you-go budget rules.

“House Democrats got straight to work this week by passing the toughest Congressional ethics reform in history. We have broken the link between lobbyists and legislation: banning gifts and travel from lobbyists and organizations that retain or employ them, banning travel on corporate jets, shutting down the K Street project, subjecting all earmarks to the full light of day, and reinstating the strict rules of pay-as-you-go budgeting.

“But these reforms are just our first steps. In the coming months, we will propose legislation to close the revolving door between government officials and lobbying firms and shine a light on lobbyists’ efforts to influence legislation. We will also require a bipartisan task force to report out recommendations on the creation of an outside entity to uphold the highest ethical standards here in the House.

“Honest leadership is not just a partisan goal. It is the key to putting the interests of all Americans ahead of the special interests. It is what the American people sent us here to do, and House Democrats are proud to have taken serious and substantive steps to ensure Congress governs with the highest ethical steps.”

For Immediate Release
11/27/2006

Pelosi: Democrats’ First Order of Business in the New Congress Will Be Ethics Reform

“Democrats will pursue an aggressive legislative agenda during the first days of the new Congress that serves the public interest rather than the special interests. An integral part of restoring integrity to Congress is ensuring that legislative decisions are made for the common good. The People’s House should not be an auction house, with legislation being sold to the highest bidder. For that reason, the first order of business will be ethics reform.

“The American people have continued to pay the price for the Republican culture of corruption – through a complex prescription drug bill that explicitly prohibits the government from negotiating lower prices due to intense lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry and billions of dollars in giveaways for large oil companies that were already raking in record profits.

“The Democratic ethics package will break the link between lobbyists and legislation, where well-connected special interests write legislation that cost consumers more at the pharmacy and gas pump.

“The American people want greater integrity in Washington, and Democrats pledge to make this the most honest, ethical and open Congress in history.”

With Congress not in session there has been less reason or urgency to monitor House and Senate websites. A casual pass by several of the usual suspects is responsible for the following small tidbit. Most of the quotes and the post itself are from March of this year. But it is still relevant. Read it with the caveat that members of political parties do not promote bipartisanship from a position of strength. The news media and blogs are filled with stories about the GOP fall from grace in abandoning longstanding conservative principles even if the effort was never unanimous. And to a lesser degree the question is always present on how long it will take the Democratic party majority to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

To repeat , no members of political parties promote bipartisanship from a position of strength. This means the White House and Congress being filled almost exclusively by members of both parties are aware of their own peril. Polls show it. Public outrage shows it. And even some of the politicians themselves show it. That is one reason this post with an item from the Republican Senate leadership website is presented.

Anyone who is concerned about the future of our country has cause to worry.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Budget Chairman And 14 Senate Dems Decry Fast-Tracking Energy Tax, Health Care Reforms But Take No Responsibility For Removing The Option

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND) ON FAST TRACKING SWEEPING REFORMS: “I would just say I am going to argue strenuously against it in conference committee. The Senator asked me what will be the result. I don’t know. Am I going to be able to prevail in the conference committee on this matter? I don’t know.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.3957, 3/30/09)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “I have said publicly and privately what I believe. I don’t believe reconciliation was ever intended for the purpose of writing this kind of substantive reform legislation such as health care reform, such as climate change.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.3957, 3/30/09)

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV): “I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget ‘reconciliation’ process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.” (“The End Of Bipartisanship For Obama’s Big Initiatives?” The Washington Post, 3/22/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “‘Reconciliation tends to be partisan,’ Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said. ‘It’s not a good idea.’” (“Dems Resistant To Using Reconciliation For Climate Bill,” Congress Daily AM, 3/11/09)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): “That’s a deal-breaker.” (“Obama Budget Set for Debate Next Week in U.S. House and Senate,” Bloomberg, 03/27/09)

SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND): “It unnecessarily short circuits Congress’ ability to more fully debate this complex and multi-faceted public policy issue.” (Letter To Sens. Conrad & Gregg, 3/13/09)

SEN. TOM CARPER (D-DE): “And Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) warned Monday that Democrats could do ‘serious damage to our bipartisan effort’ if they start talking ‘in earnest about putting [health care reform] in reconciliation.’” (“GOP Warns About Budget Hardball,” Politico, 3/24/09)

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): “[W]e want to do it by bringing Democrats and Republicans together and making the issue of reconciliation on the issue of health care reform irrelevant.” (Sen. Wyden, Congressional Record, S.3972, 3/30/09)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): Q: “Will you commit to supporting efforts to bring up important legislation under budget reconciliation rules even if other moderate Democrats try to stop that?” SEN. BEGICH:
“I’ll tell you, Rachel, the answer is probably no.” (MSNBC, 3/19/09)

SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): “I really do hope we follow the regular order around here.” (“Democrats Mull End-Run For Obama,” The Washington Times, 3/17/09)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): “If you go for budget reconciliation, you’re basically going for a bill that goes nowhere.” (“Bipartisan Senate Group Makes Health-Care Progress,” TIME, 3/13/09)

RECONCILIATION LETTER SIGNED BY:

SENS. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV), EVAN BAYH (D-IN), ROBERT CASEY (D-PA), MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA), CARL LEVIN (D-MI), BLANCHE LINCOLN (D-AR), BEN NELSON (D-NE), & MARK PRYOR (D-AR)

“Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.”
(Letter To Sens. Conrad & Gregg, 3/12/09)

###
SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER

Fractured afternoon

On the network news were to related stories that prompted this brief post. One featured an auction at GM’s Heritage Center where about 100 classic, vintage or otherwise special vehicles were on the block. Granted, the story touched the point that the relatively small revenue to be produced at this event does not even register on the company’s balance sheet Richter scale. But the company said it was the responsible thing to do.

I disagree. Since it won’t make any economic difference to GM’s fate it would be more responsible to keep the vehicles where they have been so they may remain satisfactorily protected and preserved and available to those interested.

But the only way it could be responsible is if GM has decided to go bankrupt and some strange arrangement would require selling these items to vultures far lower prices. And that doesn’t seem plausible; not the bankruptcy but the giveaway to vultures.

It was also noted again that the US government is spending $285 million on about 17,600 cars for use by public employees. That comes out to about $17,000 per vehicle. It’s an average but it could cause you to wonder what type of vehicles they are buying and what, if any, is the discount. Remember, you’re paying for it. If you bought that many items would you not want a discount? And what’s wrong with the cars the government has right now? After all, we’re in an economic ‘crisis’, right?

Wasn’t going to mention this one but here it is. In another report Obama is encouraging people to take advantage of low mortgage rates to refinance their loans. What might occur to you at first glance is an old rule of thumb. If you plan on staying put for some time to come you only consider refinance if the % is at least 2 points below what you are paying now. But even with that Obama either failed to mention that closing costs, etc., put an upfront price tag on the refinance or that these loans are provided with no closing costs. On top of that the reporter pointed out that many who would like to cannot because their house is upside down. Meaning when the bottom fell out of the real estate market their home’s value is now less than the mortgage.

Okay the post isn’t so brief and there’s another late addition to this edition. A search result today ended at the Internet Public Library. This was an accidental reminder of books rather than digital equivalents that led to a thought about Mark Levin’s current bestseller. With the search box staring back at one, what can you do? Entering ‘liberty and tyranny’ brought back a list of results and the first one was strange.

“The monthly lesbian and gay newsmagazine for the state of Kansas.” There is also a separate edition for the Kansas City area.

What does that have to do with liberty and tyranny? Don’t even go there. Fortunately the second search result was more to the point.

“Liberty Unbound is the web site for Liberty magazine, the monthly libertarian (classical liberal, or individualist) review of thought, culture and politics. The Nature of Liberty [magazine]

Posts published on this blog can be chosen spontaneously but that is usually limited to the topic and not the nature of the writing. (or ‘typing’ if you must) But it has happened from time to time and may again.

In most cases the posts here present some information and the blog author’s commentary. And of course readers are allowed to reply with comments. But just throwing out a few ideas or a rant from time to time does provide some pleasure.

Okay, reducing power now to standby to aid in minimizing my carbon footprint until the next post for any liberals who may care to read this. .. …. … . … . .. .

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com