Is anyone else besides me outraged at how Congress just passed the biggest spending bill in the history of the world? Apparently, Speaker Pelosi's all-important European tour is the reason why the dems broke their promise to post the 1100 page monstrosity online for 48 hours before holding the final vote to cram this thing down the American taxpayers' throats. That, plus the fear that if given the TIME to read it in its entirety, the bill would lose even more support. Not one member of the House who voted for this thing even read it. This is flat-out insanity. No wonder why Congress' approval rating is in the teens. Check this out:
What is even more embarassing (or worse, SCARY) is listening to some of the sound bytes from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, President Obama, and Democratic Senator Chuck Shchumer. Rahm Emanuel said, "you can't let a crisis like this go to waste" to push their spend, spend, and spend some more agenda. Obama hasn't figured out how to lead. I'm sick and tired of his sky is falling, gloom-and-doom, fear-mongering rhetoric. This is hipocrisy, in my mind. Why? Because these are the exact same tactics Bush used to gain support for the rebate check and TARP debacles last year. And this is the "CHANGE" America voted for? Obama apparently is still stuck in big flowery speech, campaign mode (the one thing he has proved he is good at), traveling to Florida, Illinois, and Indiana to pitch his pork plan to who - the public? They aren't going to vote for this thing, Congress is! Scaring people isn't leadership. Bullying people into doing what you want isn't leadership. And by the way, Is anyone else sick of the Lincoln comparisons coming from the left-wing mainstream media? I just don't see it. Lincoln saved and united the country and compiled the best cabinet this country has ever seen. Obama has divided the Congress (not one Republican voted for his bill, and 7 democrats even voted NO), and his cabinet selection process is an absolute disaster. The nominees have tax problems like you wouldn't believe, his CIA pick Panetta has ZERO intelligence experience, and the deputy AG has advocated to print Playboy in braille for the Library of Congress. Are you kidding? Back to the stimulus - the Republicans offered a package that would DOUBLE the jobs for HALF the cost. Oops I forgot, they are the minority. So let's throw all common sense out the window, and spend a trillion dollars we don't have, saddling the next generation with debt. I'm not even going to get into some of the absurd pork projects that are jammed into this thing that have NOTHING to do with stimulus or job creation. But Chuck Schumer thinks that, "the American people don't care about the pork in this bill." The last poll I saw, less than 40% of the public supports this thing, so apparently Schumer is blatantly out of touch with reality. Very little of the spending in this bill is "targeted, timely, and temporary," which is what Obama originally wanted (and wasn't his original number 300 billion? That's what he said anyway). If that was the goal, then why didn't the Obama administration draft the bill and submit it to Congress in the first place? Instead, he let Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the big spenders in Congress have a massive spending orgy when drafting the bill, for which he would have to apologize and make excuses for later. That doesn't seem like leadership to me.
Look, I realize the economy could use a boost. I just don't think this is the right way to do it. I'd much rather allow more time for meaningful debate and compromise to get it right than to rush this 787 BILLION dollar bill on purpose just for the sake of "doing something." That is a lot of money to just push through in this irresponsible fashion. I'm embarassed for our elected officials, and am sad that it has taken the Republicans so long to develop a backbone to stand up for fiscal responsibility and sanity (minus Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins). Sorry for the rant. What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Process matters. If the sausage-making process is bad, the sausage will tend to be rotten. Over the next several months, indeed years (Congressional Budget Office says this bill will cost 3.5 trillion! over time) the rancid nature of this slapped-together legislation will be more and more evident. Already we know that it reversed welfare reform, a bipartisan accomplishment that Clinton was rightly proud of. We also know that stimulus-induced healthcare reform is already underway, with government-imposed restrictions on how old you can be to get a bypass ("you're too old to be worth it"), and limitations designed to strangle physician-owned hospitals. What else is buried in the bill? Truth is, Obama is not to blame for this. Congress makes the laws. If enough members of congress felt that voting for the bill would end their political careers, the bill would not have passed. So, I guess the American people ultimately get what the majority wants. It hurts to be a member of the minority included in the "American people," but that is our system. I believe this bill went so far, though, that there will be a backlash. Maybe it's a good thing it came so early. Obama did not learn from the Clinton experience - get all exuberant during year one and two, and deal with a Republican-dominated congress from year three on. I'm still disgusted with Republicans. They seem to be able to behave responsibly when they are entirely out of power.
First of all, touche’ on everything Dev. I think “madness” is an absolutely appropriate title for everything that has been going on. I seriously feel like the world has just turned upside down or something. I almost expect to wake up at some point, and realize it was all just a bad dream or something. I…seriously…I feel like Merlin in The Sword and the Stone where he just gets fed up and says “Blast me to Bermuda!!!” (Except in this case I would probably choose Ireland because they are probably the only place in the world right now that knows how to “stimulate” an economy). It’s all just absolutely ridiculous.
One thing I would like to emphasize was your point about all the Lincoln comparisons, because I consider myself a die-hard Lincoln admirer and Obama’s presumptiveness just absolutely kills me. If Obama REALLY appreciated Lincoln he would be a lot different for a lot of reasons. I almost don’t even know where to begin…none of it makes any sense. OK, first off, did we ever see Lincoln comparing himself to any of the greats during his first days at President…or ever for that matter? George Washington was still pretty popular at that point, so if Lincoln was as confident as Obama, then why didn’t point out how similar he was to Washington? The answer is one word: HUMILITY. This was (in my opinion) Lincoln’s defining attribute: he was arguably one of the most humble figures in history. Though may have partially been due to depression (most historians think he was clinically depressed to some degree), I think the important thing was that it defined his character in virtually every other way. I would argue that his humility is what made him a good and honorable politician, for example. He was willing to put the best interests of his party, his country, and his constituency above his own, because he didn’t have the typical ego we see in ambitious politicians (Obama would be a prime example of this in my opinion). He didn’t think he was all that, so he was willing to lay personal ambitions aside and— paradoxically enough—that was what made him so great.
It is for this very reason that so most people have been reluctant to make that comparison: someone who really is like Lincoln wouldn’t be arrogant enough to compare themselves to him. Not that there haven’t been people who have come close: but those people realize that they don’t have to make the comparisons, because other people will do it for them.
But to me there’s also an element of respect or reverence involved. A great example of this is when Jackie Chan talks about Bruce Lee. Many people who interview Jackie like to ask about the influence Bruce Lee has on him, and they also ask how he thinks he measures up. Jackie’s response is almost self-deprecating: “if he would throw a left punch here, then I do a right kick instead. If he would do a round-house, then I do a trip.” I don’t think his point is that his technique is the opposite of Bruce’s; so much as it is that Jackie doesn’t want anyone comparing him to Bruce Lee, or at least he doesn’t want to look like he’s trying to imitating Bruce. Jackie wants to just focus on doing a good job, and if he really does compare to Bruce Lee then people will catch on for themselves. The bottom line is he greatly respects Bruce Lee’s greatness, and that in itself makes me more inclined to compare the two men. I’m not saying Jackie’s as great as Bruce, but if Jackie tried comparing himself to Bruce then I guarantee you nobody would even pay attention to it because it just looks pathetic.
Another really great contrast, I think, is between Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. I think it’s pretty much accepted that Jordan was the greatest professional basketball player of all time, or if not then he’s definitely up there. Yet has anyone heard him making a big fuss about being the best? As competitive as he was, I don’t ever remember him running around saying he was the best, although he probably could have if he wanted to. Interestingly, though, he has gotten all the recognition he deserves and all without tooting his own horn. Yet Kobe, on the other hand, was comparing himself to Jordan when he was still new to the NBA (when they were both playing at the same time). When reporters would complement him about a really great play, he would say something like “I looked like Jordan, didn’t I?” What I think is really interesting is that Kobe’s finally catching on: for the last few seasons he’s focused more on being a team player and helping out his teammates—and THAT’S when he wins MVP. I still don’t think he’s anywhere close to Jordanesque, but he is finally headed in the right direction because he’s finally maturing.
The real point is that TRUE greatness isn’t self-assuming because it DOESN’T HAVE TO BE. And Lincoln understood that just as well as pretty much anyone. Any discussion about Lincoln is incomplete, in my mind, without acknowledging this central virtue of his. True, he was smart and a good speaker, at least as much as he needed to be as a politician and a lawyer, but THAT wasn’t what really made him GREAT.
So now let’s talk about our new President. Other than graduating from law school (which, by the way, Lincoln never did), winning a couple of elections and making (or should I say READING) some good speeches, HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING (other than compare himself to Lincoln)!!! In my mind he’s just like Kobe Bryant; riding on someone else’s coattails to satisfy his personal ambition and juice up his ego. Holy cow, let’s give it some time people!!! Lincoln is what he is…but NOBODY KNOWS what Obama is yet. I get the feeling a lot of people are going to feel really dumb when Obama turns out to be a huge, over-hyped, 1-term bust because he was all talk and no game. We’re already starting to see it: he just bullied a gigantic pork-barrel bill through Congress that will stick for generations and won’t even help us that much when we need it—right now. If anything, this POLITICAL PAYOFF (let’s face it: there isn’t anything really stimulating about it) will only make things worse—a LOT worse. You thought the depression was bad…just wait until this trillion dollar debt starts to take its toll.
And then what REALLY makes me angry is how he and his party and the media are all trying to blame this on Republicans!! Come on, are you kidding me??!!!!!!!! THEY’RE the ones playing political games here. THEY’RE the ones who aren’t willing to make a bipartisan compromise. THEY OWN THIS BILL (except for three liberal Republican Senators)…and at some point they’re going to have to own up TO it.
And then, as if that weren’t enough…you can’t even say anything about this without being pounced on for being UNPATRIOTIC (i.e. Rush Limbaugh). I’m sorry, but where has that attitude been for the last 8 years…? Did any of these same people stick up for Bush JUST because he was President? Hardly anybody supported him, ESPECIALLY liberals…but did that make them “un-American”? Can you say DOUBLE STANDARD?!! As I recall Nazi Germany had the same attitude…if you didn’t support Hitler than it was considered an act of treason. Is THAT where we’re headed? Are we going to see people swearing oaths of allegiance to BARACK OBAMA and not the Constitution? Come on!!! Three words guys: Freedom of Speech (which won’t last much longer: i.e. “Fairness Doctrine”). We may have to put up with this egotistical bone-head for at least four years, but nobody can tell me I have to like it (especially since I didn’t vote for him). I’ve always had my doubts about him, and I’ve tried to give him a fair chance—hoping that at least his own intelligence and ambition would keep him in line. I think the opposite has happened: he’s got the media completely wrapped up in a “Slobbering Love-Affair” and he feels like he can get away with whatever he feels like. He’s grossly underestimated the American people (or let’s at least hope so). He’s doing the opposite of everything he said he would. He claims to be “above politics” yet he’s politicizing EVERYTHING. He claimed to bring responsibility to DC, instead he appoints irresponsible cabinet-members left and right. Unless he shapes up quick, he’s going to fall HARD and FAST. Let’s hope he doesn’t take the whole country down with him.
I know this all sounds harsh, but the man just put me in debt for the rest of my life FOR VIRTUALLY NOTHING. Lincoln wouldn’t do that!!! He’s anything BUT Lincoln. If I were Lincoln I’d be rolling over in my grave every time they compared me to this recklessly ambitious politician. People are going to be wishing they had voted for McCain by the time all is said and done…ridiculous.
Well I think all you republicans know a little bit about how we felt about the Bush administration for the last 8 years. I was just as outraged mainly over the war in Iraq, but I wasn't too happy about tax cuts that only benefited the ultra-wealthy and other things. But on this one, while not as angry as you guys, I'm skeptical if this will work or not. And the hard thing is I guess we'll never know if it actually does work. When the economy rights itself (it will eventually) republicans will say it would have happened sooner if we would have done something and democrats will be taking the credit for it. But that's politics, a never ending battle to blame the other side for everything that's wrong and take credit for everything that's right. And by the way I still don't wish I had voted for McCain. =)
Point taken Creighton. Such is the game of politics. However, I'm kind of getting tired of hearing about the last 8 years when those in power should be focusing their energies instead on the NEXT 4, maybe 8 years. What happened during the last 8 years (be it good or bad in your own opinion) is water under the bridge now, and to hear democrats who keep bringing it up as an excuse or a justification to spend these astronomical amounts of money is really pointless and irritating, and misses the point. The point is (or should be anyway), let's focus on the FUTURE, not the past.
Point # 2: I read a really insightful article today in the Wall Street Journal about Pres. Obama's fearmongering rhetoric written by an economist at the University of Nevada. I'll summarize - Pres. Obama and his administration LOVE comparing this economic crisis to the Great Depression. Supposedly, without this stimulus, he says, the economy will fall back into the abyss and may never recover. This is great politics, but terrible history and terrible economics. Explanation: our current economic woes don't even COME CLOSE to those of the Great Depression.
Here's some stats to chew on: In 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force, in 1931 it moved to 6.5% and by 1932, another 7.1%. Last year, our labor force shed a mere 2.2% of its labor force. The unemployment rate peaked in 1932 at a staggering 25.2%. Right now, the unemployment rate is less than a third of that at 7.6%. GDP rose slightly last year, despite a negative 4th quarter. In 1932, GDP growth fell 13%. Auto production last year declined by 25%. This looks great compared to 1932, when it declined by 90%!! Here's one more about bank failures - a couple of dozen bank failures last year doesn't even come close to the 10,000 + banks that failed during the Depression.
Here's how the article ends: "Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a 'recovery' package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies."
Here's the link for those who are so inclined: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457303244386495.html
Anyway, I guess you could accuse me of committing another sin of partisan politicking: throwing out statistics that paint a picture to reinforce my point. Both sides of the aisle have become expert at this as well. However, I think that looking at those numbers objectively should make us all hesitate a little bit before we buy into the crafty gloom-and-doom rhetoric coming from the Obama administration stressing the need to spend trillions or else face the Great Depression Part II.
Last point: I think we WILL know if this 'stimulus' will work or not. Initial reports coming from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office indicate a NEGATIVE long-term effect on GDP growth. Economists were able to evaluate and track whether the rebate check package from last year worked - and they unanimously concluded that it didn't. But I think you're right. When our free market economy will fix itself (which it will sooner or later), dems will say it had everything to do with their big spending ways, and the republicans will say the dems big spending ways only got in the way of what otherwise would have been a much quicker recovery. Such is the game.
The magnitude of this thing is what is staggering.
I am not as much a Republican as a conservative. What kills me is that the Republican party was in power (both houses of congress and the white house) for several years during the Bush era, and in terms of conservative fiscal policy jsut wasted their power. Perhaps if they had focused on conservative principles, rather than chasing the fleeting and localized popularity of spending, they might have retained power. Oddly, they seem to have forgotten conservatism when they could have done the best with it, and are waking up to it just now when the free-wheeling spending is being presided over by Democrats. Dang!
Sorry, Dev. That is dwelling on the past. I'm just hoping that we learn something from it. And I hope that it is not too late for the education to have a worthwhile effect.
Dad,
I'm all for remembering and LEARNING from the past in a constructive manner. The goal should be to minimize the mistakes and maximize the successes based on what has and hasn't worked previously. I was unclear with my thought earlier. Thanks for letting me clarify!
Sometimes, republicans and democrats will re-hash the errors and follies of clinton, bush, carter, or whoever else in a manner that is anything BUT constructive. I get frustrated when the goal of 'dwelling on the past' becomes more about excusing current or future ill-advised policies and less about LEARNING from the past constructively. I hope that makes more sense ;)
There's a recent article on the Wall Street Journal that perfectly describes what I wanted to say in my earlier comment. It's entitled "McCain's Vote Should Trouble Obama" by William McGurn (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123483096626095659.html). It's always a relief when an intelligent person notices blatantly obvious inconsistencies.
Are there any good men left in Washington? Any intellectually honest men? Do any of them believe in principle over popularity? How hard is it to stick to principles? We need a Captain Moroni to ride in and "if there be even a spark of freedom remaining" in the Amercican people stir it up (Alma 60:27.) When the liberty of his people was threatened he did not stand idly looking on. To Pahoran the chief judge he wrote "I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country" (Alma 60:36.) Now that is a man!
Washington was just such a man; a true national hero. Are there no more Washington's or Moroni's? I heard a quote in a BYU devotional by Jeffrey R. Holland quoting Gary Wills "in an election year we get the president's we deserve. A great people is what you need for a great president. Washington was the greatest president because the people were at their most enlightened and alert. Amercia right now is escapist, it wants to be soothed, and told it doesn't have to pay or sacrifice or learn." How true that is! Our generation is the one that tries to separate consequences from our actions. We want to do what it takes to create a baby but not actually have the baby when it comes. We want to have a big home but not pay for it. We want food and clothing just don't make us work for it. We want to sin and be happy. We want to "call evil good and good evil" (2 Nephi 15:20.)
I find it instructive that several different leaders in the Book of Mormon left the highest political position in the country to teach the gospel(see Alma 4 and Helaman 5.) Furthermore, when the dissensions among the Zoramites threatened the security of the Nephites Alma, with his All-Star missionary cast, turned to the preaching of the word which "had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just--yea it had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else" (Alma 31:5.) The government is not the way to cure social ills. As Elder Maxwell so eloquently put it "do not expect the world's solutions to the world's problems to be very effective. Such solutions often resemble what C.S. Lewis wrote about those who go dashing back and forth with fire extinguishers in times of flood. Only the gospel is constantly relevant, and the substitute things won't work" (April GC 2004.)
Post a Comment