Archive for March, 2009

Obama’s scary turn to the left…look our America!

Friday, March 6th, 2009

National Journal
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090307_2566.php

OPENING ARGUMENT
Obama’s Left Turn
Centrists fear that the president’s budget reveals his liberal leanings.

Saturday, March 7, 2009
by Stuart Taylor

Having praised President Obama’s job performance in two recent columns, it
is with regret that I now worry that he may be deepening what looks more and
more like a depression and may engineer so much spending, debt, and
government control of the economy as to leave most Americans permanently
less prosperous and less free..

..Obama’s

proposals for many hundreds of billions in additional spending on universal
health care, universal postsecondary education, a massive overhaul of the
energy economy, and other liberal programs seem grandiose and unaffordable…

..Such concerns may help explain why the Dow Jones industrial average plunged

17 percent from the morning of Inauguration Day (8,280) to its close on
March 4 (6,876). The markets have also been deeply shaken by Obama’s
alarming failure to come up with a clear plan for fixing the crippled
financial system — which has loomed since his election four months ago as
by far his most urgent challenge — or for working with foreign leaders to
arrest the meltdown of the world economy…

..Meanwhile, liberal Democrats in Congress are racing to gratify their

interest groups in a slew of ways likely to do much more harm than good:
pushing a union-backed “card-check” bill that would bypass secret-ballot
elections on unionization and facilitate intimidation of reluctant workers;
slipping into the stimulus package a formula to reimburse states that
increase welfare dependency among single mothers and reduce their incentives
to work; defunding a program that now pays for the parents of some 1,700
poor kids to choose private schools over crumbling D.C. public schools;
fencing out would-be immigrants with much-needed skills.

Not to mention the $7.7 billion in an omnibus spending bill to pay for 9,000
earmarks of the kind that Obama campaigned against: $1.7 million for
research on pig odors in Iowa; $1.7 million for a honeybee factory in Texas;
$819,000 for research on catfish genetics in Alabama; $2 million to promote
astronomy in Hawaii; $650,000 to manage beavers in North Carolina and
Mississippi; and many more…

Read the rest of the telling story here.

White House coordinating “Rush vs Steele” PR campaign…sad.

Friday, March 6th, 2009

Political Hay

Obama’s Enemies List

By Mark Hyman on 2.18.09 @ 6:07AM

After the Democratic convention, Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer warned TV stations against airing a TV ad that was embarrassing to Barack Obama. The commercial focused on the longtime relationship between Obama and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer sent letters to the Justice Department imploring the agency to pursue criminal action against those behind the ads. It was not lost on anyone at that time that Bauer was considered a candidate to be the next U.S. Attorney-General.

A team of Obama campaign operatives, joined by major news outlets…

Read this important story written in American Spectator entitled: Obama’s Enemies List and see how they are openly trying to manipulate the American public.

Did you know???

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

American needs an “Opportunity Society” again!

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621098187034487.html

OPINION: WONDER LAND
MARCH 5, 2009

Has Obama Buried Reagan?
The GOP is faltering in its defense of Republican ideals.

By DANIEL HENNINGER

The Democratic idea bank of Robert & Robert says it’s safe to unload on
Ronald Reagan.

Robert Reich: “It is the boldest budget we have seen since the Reagan
administration, and drives a nail in the coffin of Reaganomics. We can
basically say goodbye to the philosophy espoused by Ronald Reagan and
Margaret Thatcher.”

Robert Shrum: “Obama is not only unwinding Reagan’s policies, he is offering
a Rooseveltian paradigm that justifies government pragmatically.”

Hmmm. Let us consider an alternative universe.

The stock market has been in a free-fall (with a bounce off a ledge
yesterday), dismantling the saved wealth of millions of individual Americans
who must feel they are living through the exploding rubble of some Hollywood
disaster movie.

In reaction, Republicans, true to form, set sail for a deserted island to
ponder a dispute between Rush Limbaugh and Republican National Committee
Chairman Michael Steele. At issue: Who’s captain of the GOP Titanic.

Someone said, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Why are the
Republicans wasting it?

If the Democrats are willing to bet the entire U.S. economy on a 1931 theory
known as the Keynesian multiplier, surely Republicans can excavate and
relearn the core idea handed down to them by Ronald Reagan. That idea was
known as economic growth.

Freed to choose between these two competing ideas, I’m guessing many voters
would go for growth. All that’s needed is just one Republican who can
explain this idea halfway as well as Ronald Reagan.

Arguably at no time in their lives have more Americans been this sharply
focused on the economy. They think and talk about nothing else. The
Republicans have been handed on a tarnished silver platter the chance to
offer the American people an alternative vision of how their economy works
– and grows.

They should take political ownership of the 75% of the U.S. economy that the
Democrats have abandoned — the private economy.

Over the past four decades and the decline of private-sector industrial
unions, professional Democrats — politicians, intellectuals like Robert &
Robert, campaign professionals, unions and satellite groups — have severed
their emotional and intellectual connection with private production.

Today, frontline Democrats see the private sector as doing two things: It
produces tax revenue for $3.9 trillion federal budgets, and it shafts
workers. The private sector in the Democratic worldview is necessary but
nasty. Their leadership gives the impression of not having the simplest
understanding of how an employer’s life unfolds day to day.

This week’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds President Obama with a
60% approval. That’s high alright, as in high anxiety: 44% say the nation is
“off on the wrong track,” 41% see it headed in the right direction, and 15%
of respondents are in a gray fog.

I have a poll question: Has anyone in America had a single upbeat
conversation about anything the past three weeks?

Beyond the stock market, there is a reason why, despite much goodwill toward
his presidency, the Obama response to the faltering economy has left many
feeling undone. There isn’t much in his plan to stir the national soul. It’s
about “sacrifice” now so that we can live for a future of small electric
cars and windmills. This may move the Democratic Party’s faith communities,
but it cannot revive a great nation. If the Democrats want to embrace market
failure as a basis for their ideology, let them have it. As politics, it’s a
downer.

What Ronald Reagan knew and they don’t is that what moves a nation is the
vital, teeming life of the private economy — work, ideas, innovation, the
excitement of production, getting bigger. Growth. In the past this world was
depicted as blast furnaces and factory chimneys. Today the economy’s sinews
are harder to see, but they exist in tens of thousands of small-cap, mid-cap
and fat-cap companies.

The Republicans — Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, Pawlenty, Sanford, Newt, Sarah
and several hundred 2010 congressional candidates — must rediscover a way
to talk about the living world of the real economy. Their vocabulary now
consists mainly of policy-wonk spinach — “fiscal responsibility,” “reduce
the debt,” and even “tax cuts.” True but insufficient.

What Rush Limbaugh was trying to tell that conservative audience in so many
words was, Don’t be embarrassed. Don’t be embarrassed about embracing the
world of free markets, competition, entrepreneurship and profit. If you
don’t know how to talk about it, reread the apostles and evangelists of
private economic growth — Ronald Reagan’s “A Life in Letters,” Milton
Friedman’s “Free to Choose,” Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson.”

Politics, it has been recently demonstrated, is about ideas and language.
The conservative movement is not at a loss for proven ideas, and in the U.S.
the most powerful of these — running in an upward line since the Industrial
Revolution — is the idea of private economic growth. The Democrats don’t
want the private economy anymore and conservatives have forgotten how to
talk about it. Democrats are betting their opponents will forget even where
Ronald Reagan is buried. They should be so lucky.

- Write to henninger@wsj.com

Rove: Obama’s “bait-and-switch”

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621161271234665.html

OPINION
MARCH 4, 2009, 11:10 P.M. ET

Presidential Bait-and-Switch
What Obama once promised, and what he’s delivering.

By KARL ROVE

Barack Obama won the presidency in large measure because he presented
himself as a demarcation point. The old politics, he said, was based on
“spin,” misleading arguments, and an absence of candor. He’d “turn the page”
on that style of politics.

Last week’s presentation of his budget shows that hope was a mirage.

For example, Mr. Obama didn’t run promising larger deficits — but now is
offering record-setting ones. He’ll add $4.9 trillion before his term ends
and $7.4 trillion if given a second, doubling the national debt in five
years and tripling it in 10. Mr. Obama’s deficits will be much larger than
he admits because he relies on rosy economic assumptions and gimmicks that
mask spending and debt (like assuming popular new programs he supports won’t
be renewed).

Nor did Mr. Obama run promising more earmarks. Instead, he said he’d reform
the earmark culture and “scour the federal budget, line by line, and make
meaningful cuts.” Now he wants to wave through a $410 billion omnibus
spending bill with about 8,500 earmarks. This is on top of the $787 billion
stimulus bill signed into law two weeks ago.

His justification comes to us from the White House’s budget director, Peter
Orszag, who recently called the omnibus spending bill “last year’s
business.” But it will fund the federal government for the next six months.
Mr. Obama could veto the legislation or push congressional Democrats to
ditch the earmarks. But he has given little indication that he will do
either.

Nor is it credible to claim that the spending spree on Mr. Obama’s watch is
someone else’s responsibility, as Mr. Orszag did by saying the president had
“inherited” these deficits.

Mr. Obama ceded authority to congressional appropriators, who wrote the
stimulus bill that is history’s largest spending increase. Then Mr. Obama
got behind the pork-laden omnibus-spending bill. And Mr. Obama has also
proposed $4 trillion in outlays this fiscal year and $3.6 trillion next
fiscal year.

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s
decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and
dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year
total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to
the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like
Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain
the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

There is more. Mr. Obama pledged “no tax hikes on any families earning less
than a quarter million dollars.” What he didn’t draw attention to was $600
billion in higher energy taxes he wants to impose through a cap-and-trade
system on carbon emissions. These taxes will hit everyone who drives, flips
a light switch, or buys anything manufactured, grown or shipped.

Mr. Obama devoted four times as much space in his campaign stump speech to
cutting taxes as he did to talking about raising taxes on the wealthy. In
the election’s most widely watched speech, his Denver Convention address, he
didn’t even mention raising taxes, instead stressing he’d “cut taxes — cut
taxes — for 95% of all working families.” Yet higher taxes are what every
American is going to get.

Today’s White House health-care summit should also remind us of one of Mr.
Obama’s most popular ads, which declared, “On health care reform — two
extremes. On one end, government-run health care, higher taxes. On the
other, insurance companies without rules, denying coverage. Barack Obama
says both extremes are wrong.”

Mr. Obama’s plan will lead us to the extreme of government-run health care.
And in an effort to reach that goal, Mr. Obama’s budget proposes, as a
starting point, a $630 billion fund to expand government-run health care.
And that $630 billion comes not from reduced spending, but higher taxes.

Mr. Obama’s personal popularity remains higher than support for his
proposals. A raft of opinion surveys show Americans take the conservative
side on issues ranging from the efficacy of government spending, to
nationalization of banks, to bailouts for auto companies, to whether tax
cuts or government spending will create more jobs. Packaging Mr. Obama’s
proposals is easier than rigorously defending them. Team Obama will find
this out as the details of their budget and other plans are scrutinized.

Barack Obama has been president for a little more than five weeks. During
his speech to a joint session of Congress last week, he showed what a
skilled speaker he is and how persuasive he can be. But words delivered from
a teleprompter, while important, have to line up with actions. Promises have
to be met. And a president who promised to be one thing cannot be another.
At some point, the gap between good feelings and results, between perception
and reality, closes.

Eloquent words and “spin” work better in a campaign than they do while
governing. And as Mr. Obama is discovering, the laws of economics won’t
change, even for him.

- Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to
President George W. Bush.

Freedom NOT Fear! Voice Your Opinion!!!

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009
Freedom NOT Fear!

Freedom NOT Fear!

Dear Friends,

In a closed-door meeting Tuesday, President Obama told over 100 top union officials that “we will pass the Employee Free Choice Act.”

It’s now clear that President Obama, Big Labor, and their left-wing allies in Congress, will attempt an unprecedented power grab that is a mortal threat to our economy and our democratic values.

This is being done in a stealth manner because its backers know that this bill will not pass if the American people understand its destructive nature.

To expose and stop this effort, I’ve joined American Solutions as National Chairman of our “Freedom Not Fear” campaign, and you can join us by signing our petition here.

The Employee Free Choice Act, or “Card Check,” would eliminate the right to vote by private ballot when deciding whether to join a union, and it would undermine the right to freely negotiate contracts.

We can’t tolerate this. We must stand for freedom, not fear in the workplace.

We cannot afford to be intimidated. Please stand with us now.

This is about protecting our fundamental right to vote privately without coercion.

It’s about protecting the right of employers and employees to negotiate freely.

It’s about allowing businessmen and women, not bureaucrats and union bosses, to run our businesses.

And in the end, it’s about saving and protecting American jobs.

Please sign the petition now.

Sincerely,

Saul Anuzis
National Chairman, Save American Jobs Project
American Solutions

P.S. Big labor has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push through this coercive, job-killing bill. And they are prepared to spend millions more. With your generous financial support, we will run a grassroots, internet-based campaign to get our message directly to the American people. Can you chip in $10 or more today to help us organize this state-by-state grassroots effort?

OUTRAGE!!!

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Contact: 
Paul Kersey
Director of Labor Policy
989-631-0900

State Government Paid $17.6 Million to Unions in 2008, According to Documents Secured by FOIA Request

 

“Agency fee” clause means state taxpayers contribute to unions, Mackinac Center analyst says

 

MIDLAND — In 2008 the state of Michigan made union dues and agency fees payments in excess of $17.6 million to six union organizations, according to state documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request filed by Paul Kersey, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

This figure covers state government employees only; union dues paid by universities, local governments, school districts and businesses with state contracts are not included. This money was turned over with little or no oversight, and much of it will likely be redirected into electioneering and lobbying, Kersey said.

“It’s common to think of union dues as something that workers pay, but in actuality it’s the state that turns this money over to unions, under the terms of contracts negotiated by the state” said Kersey. “This money really comes out of taxpayers’ pockets.”

The following unions received “membership dues” payments from the state:

UAW Local 6000                                                                               $5,838,655.20

MI Corrections Organization (SEIU Local 526M)                $4,959,645.28

SEIU Local 517M                                                                              $2,433,129.78

MI State Employees Association (AFSCME Local 5)             $2,187,813.60

Michigan State Police Troopers Association                       $1,125,395.91

AFSCME Council 25                                                                         $1,050,559.04

 

TOTAL:                                                                                           $17,595,198.81

 

According to the Michigan Civil Service Commission, unions represented 38,504 state government employees in 2008. On average, the unions listed above received $456.97 per employee. These payments are necessary because of “agency fee” clauses in collective bargaining agreements between the state and the unions. The agency fee clause states that all employees covered by the contract must either join the union or pay a fee in lieu of dues. These membership dues and fees are then collected by the state and turned over to the union.

“Unfortunately, many of these unions are not required to account for their spending under federal law,” said Kersey. “Nor does Michigan require any accounting for unions that represent state or local government employees. Those unions that do file federal financial reports have a mixed record.” According to Kersey’s review of union LM-2 reports, less than half of union spending went into employee representation. Unions typically claim that political activism and lobbying make up a modest portion of their activities, but both SEIU and AFSCME records show political spending making up more than 10 percent of their budget. Kersey found that many unions attempted to characterize political activism as representation or charitable activity, meaning that the actual percentage is likely to be higher.

“Officials at unions that represent state employees have a direct interest in making state government more expensive, and gain little by making it more effective or efficient” said Kersey. “The practical effect is more than 17 million taxpayer dollars are being used to fund a permanent lobby for big government.”

In order to relieve Michigan taxpayers of the burden of supporting government employee unions, Kersey recommends a state right-to-work law, which would allow individual workers to decide whether or not to join or pay fees to a union. A second alternative would be for the state to reject agency fee clauses.

Newt: Help Congressional GOP with $20 for NY-20

Sunday, March 1st, 2009

Here is a great, easy effort Republicans and conservative nationwide can help with.  I have shared this video on facebook and twitter…let’s help with the comeback…and get started here with $20 for the NY-20 race…join former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich as he encouraged people at CPAC in Washington DC to Donate $20 to NY-20, Jim Tedisco, Candidate for Congress in NY 20, you can donate at http://www.JimTedisco.com/newt