opinetree

No, this isn't The Onion. This is of course while the approval rating of Congress has hit the single digits again, and while wildly unpopular legislation bailing out failed banks and corporations is being shoved down the throats of the American people.

The Hill is reporting on this unbelievable story:

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

I would like to propose a new law requiring all congressional pay raises to be subject to approval by the electorate. After all, we're paying for it right? Shouldn't we be the ones to decide whether or not they deserve it?

Think about it. Who determines whether you get a raise at your job? Your boss, of course. It's his money. I've had several jobs in my life, and I don't ever remember one where the only requirement for getting a pay raise was signing a piece of paper and announcing to my boss that he'll now owe me more money every year.

And they don't deserve it. Let's take their approval rating, which currently sits at a pathetic 9%. If you worked in an office, and there were 100 people in that office, and 91 of them thought you were doing a poor job, do you think you'd be able to convince your boss to give you a raise?

You'd be lucky to even have a job. In fact, the only thing separating you from a Congressman would be the fact that you actually stay at work for 8 hours a day, instead of strolling in at 11:30 (11:45 if you're Cynthia McKinney and you have trouble with security), renaming a post office, passing a "resolution" congratulating a college sports team, and eating a corn-beef sandwich before calling it a day.

Labels: Congress

Even though the common sentiment is that this is a life-changing country-changing future-changing election, many Democrats are already lowering their expectations, and wisely so. Of all people, Nancy Pelosi has called for the Congress to be "governed from the middle."

I have no idea what to expect from the next Congress, other than whatever Barack, Pelosi, and Reid can cook up. The funny thing is, "the middle" is no longer the middle, as the nation has fallen victim to a sharp lurch to the left over the last 50 years. From The Hill:

Democratic leaders are tamping down on expectations for rapid change and trying to signal they will place a calm hand on the nation’s tiller.

“The country must be governed from the middle,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. Repeating themes from election night, she said she plans to emphasize “civility” and “fiscal responsibility.”

Her comments emphasized that after an election consistently referred to as “historic,” Democrats face the daunting task of dealing with the plunging economy and two wars.

Perhaps the Democratic party as a whole, as far left as it is, is realizing that the country still maintains center-right ideology, as they learned in 1994 after their failed health care initiatives got them thrown out of power for the first time in decades.

The truth of the matter is, the Democrat leadership knows that an immediate and sharp turn to the left will upset a suspicious electorate, namely in so-called "blue dog" districts that tend to elect more reserved and traditional Democrat representatives. If they're foolish, they'll go right for jugular and fast-forward measures like the fairness doctrine, health care "reform," and a perilous Iraq withdrawal.

If they're smart, they'll put the more radical initiatives on the back burner and attempt to avoid a GOP smack-down in 2010, by convincing a panicky America that the Left can be trusted with one party government.

The hot potato is yours, Democrats.

Labels: Congress

Scroll for updates...

This morning, the Senate began debating their attempt to breathe new life into the bailout bill that failed in the House. You can read it here, but what you should really pay attention to is not the first push down the red brick road to socialism, but rather the fact that even one of the most important pieces of legislation in generations is no exception to the rule of Senators tacking on as many unrelated items as possible.

By the way, the new bill is over 400 pages. Do you think your Senator has read it? Here's a peek at the completely unnecessary additions to the bill:

New Tax Earmarks
-Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
-Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
-6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

Tax Earmark "Extenders"
-Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Sec. 308)
-American Samoa (Sec. 309)
-Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
-Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
-Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
-Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
-Railroads (Sec. 316)
-Auto Racing Tracks (Sec. 317)
-District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
-Wool Research (Sec. 325)

Can someone please tell me what NASCAR tracks, wooden arrows, and wool research have to do with Wall Street? I'd have a much easier time believing this was a real financial "emergency" if the American people (you know, those folks Congress is supposed to be serving?) were presenting with a clean bill.

This is a mess that goes all the way back to Jimmy Carter, and is a mess the American people shouldn't have to rely on this do-nothing band of congressional bandits to clean up. Paulson doesn't have the interests of main street at heart - after more than $40 million dollars from Goldman Sachs to both parties, he's looking to scratch the back of his former cronies.

Repeal the Community Reinvestment Act, rewrite the accounting laws, and for once in your career, write just one bill without earmarks. You're risking a revolution.

Update: The Senate bill just passed. I imagine it will squeak through the house, as it's got that infamous "Bushmentum" that gave us flash-fried versions of the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and the unsuccessful amnesty bill.

Labels: Congress, Economy

In financial terms, Bush and the Fed are attempting pull off what Osama couldn't on 9/11. Americans scored at least a temporary victory today as congress dissolved Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke's pipe-dream of a check for $700+ billion of taxpayer money:

In a vote that shook the government, Wall Street and markets around the world, the House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation's financial system, leaving both parties and the Bush administration struggling to pick up the pieces.

Democrats voted 140 - 95 in favor of the bailout, while only 65 Republicans were in favor of the bill. We'll discuss later how both parties are wrong on this issue and are acting as meandering and robotic apparatchiks, exploiting it to score points against their opposing faction. But first, how is the head of the snake taking the news? Breitbart is reporting that Bush is "very disappointed" by the vote. What a shame! I'm sure this isn't what he had in mind when his administration pieced the legislation together months (yes, months) ago:

[White House Deputy Press Secretary] Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials.

He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.

Unbelievable. If by "enough" you mean "enough time to pass this stinking pile of socialist legislation before the American people wake up to the fact that they're being blackmailed by their own government via one of the worst examples of financial terrorism ever to take place within their own borders," then yes, George.

Republicans are wrong for going along with this plan, albeit reluctantly, instead of calling out their president and the pirates of wall street on this un-American proposal. Democrats are wrong for blaming the "free market gone wild," completely neglecting to mention the Community Reinvestment Act.

I'll keep updating with news and thoughts as the day goes on; there's too much going on now.

Update: Don't assume this was a partisan defeat, and don't assume this is over. It's not over by any stretch. Here are some details from the bill itself:

If the Treasury purchases at least $300 million in mortgage-based assets from a financial institution, that company would lose the ability to take a tax deduction on the amount of salaries that exceed $500,000 for its top five individuals. It also includes a 20% excise tax on golden parachutes payments triggered by events other than retirement.

There was no executive compensation limit of any significance. Nothing. Just tax the "golden parachutes!" Was there any real tangible oversight for these crooks? Of course!

[The legislation] creates a "Financial Stability Oversight Board" to oversee the program, which includes the chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Federal Home Finance Agency director and the Housing and Urban Development secretary.

Wow. The Fed and the SEC? Bernanke and Chris Cox were the crooks set to be on the Financial Stability Oversight Board? We don't need a casino, we need a market.

Keep in mind this is the lowest rated Congress in history, with an abysmal approval rating lower than that of George Bush. Mama Nancy has allowed congress and American resolve itself to wither and subsequently grind to a halt, and after today's defeat, there isn't enough botox in the universe to bring back that token Pelosi smile.

Update: Here are congressman Michael Burgess' remarks about the Democrats' chastising of Republican legislators, and making the case for informing the public of the contents of the bill.


Stay tuned for the arm-twisting.

Update: Nancy Pelosi has assured party leaders that there will be no "witch hunt" into who caused the Fannie/Freddie crisis:

Further, according to House Oversight Committee staff, [former board member for Freddie Mac] Emanuel has received assurances from Pelosi that she will not allow what he termed a "witch hunt" to take place during the next Congressional session over the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the economic crisis.

Emanuel apparently is concerned the roles former Clinton Administration members may have played in the mortgage industry collapse could be politically -- or worse, if the Department of Justice had its way, legally -- treacherous for many.

Of course - why would the witch be in favor of a witch hunt? So Nancy Pelosi plays political games while trying to place blame completely on Republicans and their "free market," and then tries to protects her own underlings from legal scrutiny during the worst financial crisis in a century?

And she wondered why we laughed in 2006 when she pledged to run the "most ethical congress ever."

Labels: Congress, Economy

I'd like to direct you to the website for the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. If you look hard enough (or just click this link), you'll find a report comparing the voting record of every sitting U.S. senator in regard to wasteful government spending projects. Seems like a good opportunity to get a feel for how the two presidential candidates treat the taxpayer's money, right?

The report assigns senators an "approval rating" based on how many times they voted with the taxpayers, meaning how many times they voted in a way that saved the taxpayers money, rather than throwing that money at frivolous pork-barrel spending.

Let's start with John McCain, the man who Barack Obama accused of lying about his record. According to the report, John McCain has a 100% approval rating on pork-barrel spending for the 2007 legislative season. His lifetime score is 88%. So, throughout his entire career in the senate, McCain voted "with the taxpayers" 88% of the time.

The news for Barack is not so good. His approval rating for 2007 was a meager 10%, with a lifetime rating of 18%. So in 2007, John McCain was ten times more likely to vote against wasteful government spending. Obama might want to rethink his "google for government" idea. Oh, and Joe Biden? He actually managed to score a 0% rating in 2007.

But McCain and Palin are the ones lying about being "mavericks," right?

Labels: Congress, Election 2008

I know you've been so busy working hard to get your approval rating below 10%, and allowing Nancy Pelosi to turn off the lights, cut the microphones, and leave conservatives to talk about energy policy in the dark while the "congressional leadership" got a jump on summer vacation. Meanwhile:

I say, why not take an extended vacation until the end of this month? That way, though it might feel like you're continuing your tradition of getting absolutely nothing done (unless you think renaming post offices and congratulating sports teams constitutes "leadership"), you can actually accomplish something most of the nation is clamoring for. You can let the congressional restrictions on offshore drilling expire.

The White House's own moratorium has been dissolved; the congressional element is the only thing standing between Americans and billions of barrels of domestic oil.

So, I ask of you Congress - give the American taxpayers their money's worth and keep up the lousy work.

Labels: Congress, Energy

It's understood that America's Leftists crave big government. More government control, more speech codes, more redistribution of wealth. In fact, they think America is great because of its government, not because of any accomplishments of the individual. The government doesn't protect your natural inalienable rights, the government grants them to you.

But Republicans have overseen the largest expansion of government power and control in our nation's history. More programs, more earmarks, more bureaucracy...all in direct contradiction of their principles. Principles which may have changed for them, but which haven't for the Americans who put them in power. Take a look at the following Gallup poll:

I know John McCain is supposedly the earmark's worst nightmare, but he just doesn't sell me on the whole "limited government conservative" package. I have yet to hear him acknowledge that we have the largest and most intrusive government (and taxation system) we have ever had in our history, and that just limiting its expansion is not enough.

I have yet to hear him tell Americans to get ready for the greatest government roll-back in history; the greatest budget cutting, entitlement obliterating, foreign-aid dissolving, illegal-immigrant deporting administration the people have ever seen.

But sadly, if McCain is elected, I fear we'll be in for 4 years of Bush III, with a man who reeks less of true conservative principles and more of Old Spice and pancakes. Even more saddening is the fact that Bush III is infinitely better than Marx II. If this poll proves anything, it's that 36% of Democrats don't know why they are Democrats, other than "it feels better."

Labels: Congress, Economy

Yesterday, Representative James Fagan (a criminal defense attorney) had some choice words for the Massachusetts State House. He railed against a piece of legislation known as "Jessica's Law," which would impose a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for raping a child under the age of 12, because after all, who hasn't been in that pickle at least once? Watch.

Q: What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.

Labels: Congress, Video

Congressman Paul Kanjorski may be getting some interesting mail in the coming days. Footage from a town hall meeting has surfaced showing the Pennsylvania representative admitting that the Democrats "stretched the facts" in regard to their ability to end the Iraq war if elected in 2006. Watch.


Here's the quote:

"We didn't say it, but we implied it, that if we [Democrats] won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody who was a good student of government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts, and people ate it up."

In other words, we knew we couldn't stop the war just by winning back the Congress, but we realized that the biggest issue to voters was "Bush Lied, People Died." Hence, we ran on a phony "end-the-war" platform, because after all, you people were just dumb enough to believe us. Amazing.

What did we learn today, boys and girls? Politicians will lie in order to attain power! Face it - as much as you love the wrinkly shoe salesman or the eloquent dreamboat from Chicago, they're cut from the same cloth.

Labels: Congress, Iraq, Video

Congressman Keith Ellison made one of the most over the top speeches I've heard in a while, but then again, I haven't been paying much attention to Barack Obama this week. You may remember Ellison as the Muslim convert who ignited discussion when he opted to be sworn in by placing his hand on the Qur'an instead of a Bible. You can watch the speech, or you can read the highlights (which are more like lowlights). The amount of demagoguing and hollow deception in this 17 minutes is astounding. According to Congressman Ellison, America is an imperial power in which rich people have too much money, 85% of the population is made up of white Lutherans, and the Democratic candidate for President is from the "brand new scary religion known as Islam." Watch.



Here we go. Apparently one of the main pillars of conservatism is the idea that rich people should be rewarded for being rich, and that poor people should be punished for being poor. This is demagoguery of the most dishonest fashion, and those of you on the Left will swallow it without a second thought.

"It doesn't make sense that you would put someone in power who fundamentally questions government at all."

Is it not American to question government? Do I need to remind you of the atrocities that have occurred when populations either neglected to or were prevented from openly questioning government? You don't think America is great because of its individuals and their values - you think America is great because of the power of its government.

"When they say they don't like government, they don't like the public having anything to say over what they do."

Is that why four liberal California judges overturned the voice of the people in which a majority voted against redefining marriage? Public opinion means nothing to politicians, but you're acting as though this is only true for the conservative right. You are intellectually dishonest and as misleading as any Republican, which is truly saying something.

"They [conservatives] said look, we can't really do our thing at the academic institutions because they believe in some measure of truth, so we're gonna start these think tanks."

No, they can't "do their thing" at the academic institutions because freedom of thought is apparently not a collegiate value. The term "liberal professor" is becoming more and more redundant every day. With the exception of the sciences, our universities have become incubators for liberal thought, indoctrinating a generation with the gospel of group identity and political correctness.

"We're [conservatives] gonna have studios so we can pump out our message, we're gonna get that message out to our media people, we're gonna pump up something that the world will one day know as hate radio."

Talk radio is such a thorn in your side isn't it? Nevermind that you have ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and CNN in your pocket, you want to shut down the last true bastion of free speech because opinions which oppose yours actually get ratings, and as we have learned, anyone that disagrees with you is full of "hate."

"Reagan, as much as he really made me sick as a President, was small in comparison to the gentleman in the white house right now."

You got that right.

"The C.E.O. President [Bush] whose idea of healthy forests is cutting them down."

If you read this blog, you know I'm no fan of Bush, but this statement is just ridiculous.

"They have seen the idea of America, an Imperial power, fighting wars over oil - 'how dare those people have our oil under their sand?'"

Tell me Keith, how much did you pay the last time you filled up your gas tank? Still think this war was about getting oil?

"Welcome to where a community that is about 85% white and Lutheran can look at a candidate who is both black and from that brand new scary religion known as Islam, and say you know if that guy's talking about peace, working class prosperity, and environmental sustainability, we don't give a rip what Glenn Beck has to say - we're gonna vote for him anyway."

I'm speechless.

Labels: Congress, Election 2008, Media, Video

Beginning February 17th, 2009, all TV broadcasts will be transmitted solely in digital format. This means that viewers who tune in to analog television broadcasts using antiquated (yet charming) rabbit ears will lose their ability to watch television.

What will they do? Government to the rescue!

Congress will pay you to make the switch to digital television. That's right, television is Uncle Sam's latest entitlement. Congress has approved a $1.5 billion taxpayer subsidy, through which any family can get a $40 coupon (or two) to convert analog televisions to digital format.


The Commerce Department believes there are some 25 million analog TV sets without a digital converter.

Where was the government when turntables took a dive? Where was the taxpayer subsidy to re-purchase the White Album? The government doesn't need to spend billions of dollars paying us to upgrade our computers or kitchen appliances anymore than they need to be concerned with our televisions.

Has the government changed the way people get water? Or transportation? Or electricity? The government can subsidize necessities, one of which is not TV. It is possible, after all, to live without television. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said:


We have a war that is costing us billions, trade deficits aplenty, completely insecure borders, a collapsing monetary system...and we're going to spend $1.5 billion so people can keeping watching TV? Are we suicidal?

The average American family has 2.6 television sets, and the typical American adult spends about 4 hours a day watching. Do you wonder why the government would have an interest in keeping your eyes glued to that screen?

It just finishes off whatever dumbing-down didn't happen in the government school you attended.

Labels: Congress, Media

"You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog."
-Harry S. Truman

The unprecedented groundswell of enthusiasm for politicians on the Left (read: Obama) has left me both encouraged and concerned. It's refreshing to see young people "out-voting" older citizens (or illegal immigrants; Democrats tend to strike down voter ID laws), but it's worrisome when these young people are coming out of the Marxist incubators our universities have become.

It worries me when Americans lose what we used to get regular doses of: a reasonable and patriotic distrust for the government and its politicians. This is especially concerning with young people; It used to be a badge of honor for the college stoner to question the establishment, default to distrust, and trust no one wearing a suit.

Politicians have a job to do. Just because a politician has to keep you happy doesn't mean he's doing it for the right reasons. They're an interesting breed, and one whose morality, transparency, and interests should be closely monitored.

But they are not your friends. Do you think George Bush loses sleep over his personal beliefs on abortion, gay marriage, or stem sell research? Do you really think his closely held spiritual beliefs have anything to do with his decisions on religious matters?

It's no secret that Bush enjoys his more favorable support in the Evangelical Christian community. Follow the votes. A vote is to be seen as a unit of power, to be reluctantly handed off as a fragment of your sovereignty. Politicians need them, and if they're any good, they know what to do to get them. The sooner you realize that this is true for any politician in any party at any time in history, the better off you'll be.


You have to question your leaders and do your own thinking. Politicians would love to do your thinking for you. Remember, their power means nothing without your knowledge, awareness, and involvement. They take advantage of your weakness as a people.

A smaller government is a more efficient and manageable government. Don't you ever wonder why you seem to trust your mayor or city councilman a lot more than you trust your senator or even your president? Your mayor knows what it's like to be you. He reads your paper, he drives on your roads, and he gets rained on when you do. But there is a disconnect and a disenfranchisement that grows the closer you get to Washington, as politicians start to care less and less about the nuances of your existence.

Who honestly likes politicians? I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept, but you can't let your admiration or infatuation with a public official's good work get in the way of good old fashioned American skepticism. Democrat voters aren't afraid of Democrats, and they aren't afraid of a larger government with more control over their lives. They see Republicans and the Bush albatross, and they see nothing but hollow old white men chasing a corrupt dream of getting rich while screwing the American people. They see Democrats and they see real people with real feelings. It feels good to help poor people by giving them money that someone else worked for. It feels good to hear that everyone in America will have health insurance.


But there is one thing holding them together, and that is the need for your vote, which becomes the need to manipulate you.

It's foolish to say there is no difference between the parties. There are undeniable ideological differences; we are the most polarized we have ever been. But while Washington may never agree on the score, these two teams are playing the same game they've always been playing.

Labels: Congress, Election 2008