Change

A trillion dollars for STDs, pork projects and unions. But while fighting two wars the Pentagon needs to cut 11% from its budget. The Dems are back in power and more liberal than ever. Naturally Obama would repeat Clinton's tragic mistake. Is anyone still entertaining the notion that this guy is middle of the road, or looking to compromise?

The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

Congratulations America - increasingly becoming a nation of spoiled, self-satisfied, culturally ignorant jerks. You are getting precisely the government you deserve.

Now all you have to do is figure out a way to survive it with your wealth, freedoms and well being intact. And it might not be as easy as you think. Oh, we'll be here. But, yes, we will be changed, whether you like it, or not.

Comments

[mark l.]

how does one propose spending cuts from the pentagon, while simultaneously deploying 30k additional troops to afghanistan?

The left was keen on pointing out that Bush was the first president to cut taxes in a time of war...will the same press members ask obama about being the first president to cut military spending in a time of war?

[Mike]

Undermine our Judeo-Christian foundation - check
Convince people that the collective is more important than individual and freedom - check
Destroy our capitalistic system - check
Weaken our military - check

Welcome to the liberal world of Utopia where everyone is equally marginalized, except those in power!

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Welcome to the liberal world of Utopia where everyone is equally marginalized, except those in power!"

Yes, but you left off how they all (the little people) have the same health care......unless they are over 60

[mary]

A neighbor collects antique and just plain old cars and drives them around and in a lot, a lot, of parades. Ran into him and he mumbled something about the bill and cars and crushing. He was a tad upset. "It's a free country, I am going to continue to drive my babies. I have to, you need to drive them>" as he stormed out of the store. He suggested to everyone in the store to "read the bill, read the bill, it's online, read the bill". The reason why the encounter was a bit unsettling is that this guy is/was a supporter of BO from the beginning. He has never referred to BO as "they", he only used that for the Bush administration.

[mike191]

Not even two weeks into the Obama Presidentcy and this Nations' Security ,economic health and political rights are eroded and assaulted. The "fourth Estate" is complicit with this insanity.,were is Fema in Kentucy, the outcry over tax problems ,ad nauseum...Will our Nation survive our 44 President .

[WBestPresidentEver]

After all the pork they are passing out,
I want my Honey Baked Ham NOW !!!
If they want to stimulate something after all this BS a coupon should be isssued to every human in the country for a FREE HONEY BAKED HAM.
Imagine that.
Since they are shoving pork down our throats, I think we should be able to tell them what type of pork we want. My preference would be to have a honey baked ham. Since Honey Baked has Turkey as well, I guess if you do not like or eat pork you request a Turkey instead. LOL

I can tell you right now it is not going to take to damn long for those approval ratings to start dropping like flys. You can count on it.

Everyone SHOULD start faxing and emailing congress and tell them how sorry they are.
What happened to John McCain ??....He said we would know their names. Now they are saying no ones name is attached to any of the PORKY PORK !!
You give me names and I will get the word out there who they are. All of them.
I have a blog of my own and I would get pleasure out of doing a write up on each of them. Give me names, states, districts whatever you got.
Any suggestions on how to find out who the PORK in this bill belongs to ?

I know that just because dumb people in this country jumped ont he bandwagon of this clown that surely they will know see what the hell they voted for and I imagine quite a few of them are not happy campers.

Obama does not care about Kentucky, (those folks cling to their guns and bibles) It is a red state. He is warm and cozy in our WHITE HOUSE eating steak and drinking cocktails. Why the hell should he care. Where is the HELP for those people ???....I agree MIKE191.

Where can I read the entire bill ??

[templar knight]

Where is FEMA? The good AMERICAN citizens of Kentucky are without power, and Obama is refusing to help them. I guess Kentucky is a little to white for Obama's FEMA to notice. But I did see the "great" mayor of the chocolate city New Orleans, Ray Nagin, at the WH this past week. He is probably the new "FEMA" adviser. After all, he does have all that experience.

[southdakotaboy]

Does it suprise anyone that the Dems are letting white people freeze. There hatred and bigotry towards white middle class people is well documented.
We have Obama's economic adviser in a Senate hearing openly calls for white people to be discriminated against because of their color and the head Democrat instead of chasitising him instead tries to help him figure out how they can do it.
We need to pull the gloves off and start useing the same tactics as the left. Every time a Democrat opens his or her mouth interupt them and start calling them a racist. We need to start fighting back against these scum or our country is doomed.

[Lala]

Are they correct? Did Obama get gobsmacked by Pelosi?

People Are Talking About ‘President Pelosi’ Now”

Could it be? Less than two weeks from the inspiring images of the inaugural, has Pres. Obama let the focus of power slip to . . . Nancy Pelosi? So reported Wall Street Journal editorial board member Holman Jenkins on this evening’s Journal Editorial Report on Fox News Channel. Jenkins presented the news not as his own critique, but as the opinion of erstwhile Obama supporters on Wall Street. JER host Paul Gigot elicited the stunning response with a question playing off a comment by Mary Anastasia O’Grady about the paucity of truly stimulative measures in the supposed stimulus plan.

PAUL GIGOT: As a political matter, Holman, why didn’t President Obama–70% approval rating in the polls–he really could exert some influence over his party on Capitol Hill—he chose not to.

HOLMAN JENKINS: That’s an excellent question. I mean, the Republicans took him at his word. He said that he wanted a non-porky stimulus bill, one without a lot of earmarks. And instead he got–I mean, people on Wall Street who support Mr. Obama, voted for him, gave him money, are talking about ‘President Pelosi’ now. This thing is actually more of a defeat for him I think in the long run than we’re giving it credit for now.

"Fellow WSJ board member Stephen Moore, founder and former president of the Club For Growth, fleshed out the portrait of a president who let himself be rolled . . .

STEPHEN MOORE: Isn’t it unbelievable, Paul? Just nine days ago Barack Obama was coronated; this is a president with 75% approval. Nobody expected this to happen. I think the most stunned person in Washington right now is Barack Obama himself. And the mistake he made was exactly the one that Holman just mentioned—that he allowed Nancy Pelosi and David Obey and all the appropriators to write this bill."

http://finkelblog.com/index.php/2009/01/31/people-are-talking-about-president-pelosi-now/

[WBestPresidentEver]

Would you work for this company ?

It has a little over 500 employees with the following statistics: 29 have been accused of spousal abuse, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 19 have been accused of writing bad checks, 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses, 3 have been arrested for assault, 71 cannot get credit cards due to bad credit, 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges, 8 have been arrested for shoplifting, 21 are current defendants in lawsuits, In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving. Can you guess which organization this is? Give up? It’s the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group that perpetually cranks out hundreds upon hundreds of new laws designed to keep the rest of us in line.

As of today there are still over 20 of them under investigation for something.
I think every damn one of them needs to be investigated.
They are all crooked.
If we have two already that did not pay their taxes until they were appointed by Obama ...(and then and only then) did they pay up and siad it was JUST AN INNOCENT MISTAKE. Yeah right, Blow that smoke up somebody else's A**.
How many more do we have in congress that need to have their taxes looked at and their goings on investigated. These people are thieves.
Crooks...all of them.
People should send "HAMS" TO THE CAPITOL AND THE WHITE HOUSE AND PRISON STRIPE SUITS FOR ALL.

NOW THAT WOULD BE C H A N G E !! Change we would all enjoy.

[mary]

http://stimuluswatch.org/ some one asked for a link to the bill before. Been looking for that and came across a post about this site.

[WBestPresidentEver]

Thanks Mary for the link. :O)

Now this...

REPUBLICAN Saturday Radio address.
"This is Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Earlier this week, President Obama came to Capitol Hill to speak with members of my party about his plan for an economic recovery bill. The President said that a stimulus package is needed to revive the nation's troubled economy, and to help the millions of Americans who've been affected by it. And Republicans in Congress agree.
"Every day brings more news of layoffs, home foreclosures, and shuttered businesses. The Labor Department this week reported job losses in all 50 states in the month of December. In California alone, almost 80,000 people are newly out of work. And across the country, employers are cutting to the bone even at businesses that most Americans never thought were vulnerable.
"A problem that started on Wall Street is reaching deeper and deeper into Main Street. And the President is counting on members of Congress to come together in a spirit of bipartisanship to act. Unfortunately, the plan that Democrats in Congress put forward this week falls far short of the President's vision for a bill that creates jobs and puts us on a path to long-term economic health.
"Turning aside Republican ideas, Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives produced a massive bill that many analysts say is unlikely to create new jobs or boost the economy anytime soon. Most of the infrastructure projects it includes won't impact the economy for at least another year. Permanent spending would be expanded by about $240 billion, an increase that would lock in bigger and bigger deficits every year. And the bill is loaded with wasteful spending: -- $20 million for the removal of fish-passage barriers. -- $25 million to improve All Terrain Vehicle trails. -- $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce building in Washington. -- And $600 million to buy new cars for government workers.
"The task for Democrats in the House was to craft a stimulus plan that was timely, targeted, and temporary. Apparently, they didn't get the memo. The bill they presented -- and which House Democrats approved this week along a party line vote -- looks more like a "$1 trillion Christmas list."

"At a time when Americans are worried about holding onto their jobs and their homes, and learning to live with less, politicians in Washington shouldn't be spending taxpayer dollars on new cars for government workers or sprucing up federal buildings in Washington. And that's why Republicans are suggesting a simpler, more targeted plan that gets right at the heart of the economic crisis.
"Most economists agree that falling home values are the underlying cause of the recent downturn. Republicans think we need to fix this problem before we do anything else. So first, we propose providing government-backed, 4% fixed mortgages to any credit-worthy borrower. The availability of these low-interest loans would increase demand for houses significantly. And low interest mortgages would boost household income. The average family would see its monthly mortgage payment drop by $466 a month, or $5,600 a year. Over the life of a 30-year loan, that's a savings of $167,760.
"Next, in order to get money into the economy quickly, Republicans would cut income tax rates for working Americans right away. The federal government currently imposes a 10% tax on married couples for income up to $16,700. Republicans would cut that rate in half, putting about $500 into the pocket of every working family. Income between $16,700 and $67,900 is now taxed at 15%. Republicans would cut that rate to 10%. This would put another $1,100 into the pockets of working couples. Single filers would get similar rate reductions. But either way, everyone who works and pays income tax would see an immediate increase in pay.
"Republicans are committed to working with President Obama to steer Americans out of the current economic troubles. We believe the best way to do that is to stabilize housing prices, cut your mortgage payments, and let you keep more of what you earn. And as Congress considers the best way forward, on behalf of the American taxpayer, these are the principles Republicans will pursue.
"Thanks for listening."
Paid for by the Republican National Committee.

[Todd]

Well, I'm gonna get flamed for this bigtime but here goes. I say it's high time and long overdue that the Pentagon is forced to review it's strategy of how best to keep America safe, and see what is necessary and what are boondoggles. Just by eliminating a few outmoded systems designed for the Cold War era easily achieves an 11% reduction in military spending. I mean, with $625 billion in expenditures, not even including the $100 billion for homeland security, there is no doubt that there's oodles of special interest pork going on. If you guys bitch about pork in social programs, then surely you can bitch about pork at the Pentagon, too. Pork is unkosher anywhere it's served.

The LA Times wrote a piece last summer on this subject about how expensive and how useless many of these weapon systems are, having been developed to fight the former Soviet Union.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-scheer1-2008jun01,0,7121603.story

Money quote: "The Pentagon's budget for fiscal year 2008 set a post-World War II record at $625 billion, and that does not include more than $100 billion in other federal budget expenditures for homeland security, nuclear weapons and so-called black budget -- or covert -- operations.

And what are we spending all this money on? We are talking high-tech war toys designed to fight a Cold War enemy that no longer exists, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, with its estimated total price tag of $300 billion, and Virginia-class submarines at $2.5 billion each. Who cares that the terrorists lack submarines for the Navy to battle deep in the ocean, for which the Virginia-class submarine was designed?

Then there are the F-22 Raptor jet fighters that no longer fill a credible military purpose but will take $65 billion out of taxpayers' pockets. The Raptor includes stealth technology and elaborate electronics designed to counter threatened leaps in Soviet war-fighting capability. In 2005, Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, wrote that the Raptor "is the most unnecessary weapon system being built by the Pentagon."

[mary]

"Projects in Illinois

Below are the "shovel-ready" projects for which the mayors of this state have requested federal stimulus funding. You can click on a project to read (and add to) its description. You can also discuss the project and vote on whether you believe it is critical or not. For a more local view, you can drill down to projects in a particular city. Just choose a city from the following list.

View a specific city in Illinois: Addison • Alsip • Alton • Amboy • Arlington Heights • Aurora • Bartlett • Blue Island • Bolingbrook • Bollingbrook • Bourbonnais • Bridgeview • Buda • Bureau Junction • Burnham • Calumet City • Canton • Carbon Hill • Carpentersville • Cedar Point • Channahon • Cherry • Chicago Heights • Cicero • Coal City • Crest Hill • Crystal Lake • Dalzell • Depue • Diamond • East Brooklyn • Elgin • Evanston • Frankfort • Gardner • Glendale Heights • Glenview • Glenwood • Grand Ridge • Granite City • Granville • Harvey • Hennepin • Hickory Hills • Highland Park • Hoffman Estates • Homer Glen • Homewood • Kangley • Kinsman • Lansing • LaSalle • Leland • Lombard • Lostant • Lynwood • Manhattan • Manlius • Mark • Marseilles • Matteson • Mazon • McNabb • Mineral • Moline • Morris • Naplate • Neponset • Niles • Normal • North Chicago • North Utica • Northbrook • Oak Brook • Oak Park • Oglesby • Olympia Fields • Orland Park • Ottawa • Palatine • Palos Park • Park Forest • Paw Paw • Peotone • Peru • Princeton • Quincy • Richton Park • Riverdale • Romeoville • Sandwich • Sauk Village • Schaumburg • Seatonville • Seneca • Sheffield • Sheridan • South Holland • South Wilmington • Spring Valley • Standard • Streator • Thornton • Tinley Park • Tiskilwa • Toluca • Tonica • Troy Grove • Varna • Verona • Watseka • Wenona • West Brooklyn • Woodridge • Worth • Wyanet
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >"
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/IL

[Todd]

The other absolutely ridiculous waste of taxpayer money in the military budget that gets so little press and therefore a minimum of outrage is the amount of money that the US spends annually to maintain our nuclear arsenal of 7,000 warheads. The amount is $50-60 billion a year !! Do we really need an arsenal of 7000 warheads? Yes, of course we need a nuclear deterrent in a dangerous world but I'd say 500 warheads is more than sufficient, max of 1,000. Certainly could destroy the earth quite easily with that amount of warheads. But, no....we have to have 7000 and burn $50-60 billion a year to just maintain them, instead of say $5 billion a year if we would recognize that most of these weapons aren't needed for our security, and this is a heinous, outrageous waste of money. I think this is a classic example of why this country is going down the tubes. There's so much stupidity and catering to special interests in government on both sides of the aisle. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20090117.aspx

So, when you guys flame me, just answer one question for me, each of you. Do you think it's wise that we spend $50-60 billion a year maintaining a nuclear arsenal of 7,000 warheads?

Flame away, I'm ready.....

[mary]

"January 29, 2009
Stimulus Watch soft launches - Help us test it!
While this site will officially launch on Monday, we’re asking you to help us test the site and seed it with content a little earlier. Starting Friday morning, please visit StimulusWatch.org and edit the project wikis, post comments, and vote on the projects. Please also feel free to spread the word about Stimulus Watch. Thanks!"
http://news.stimuluswatch.org/post/74100733/stimulus-watch-soft-launches-help-us-test-it

wow, this site is brand new.

[ET]

--Would you work for this company ?

Great post, worstbest. We need a grass roots movement for term limits. 6 years max for congress, 12 max for senate. If you got promoted from congress to the senate, you max out at 18 years of service. Then you go back to the real world and give someone else a chance.

[ET]

--Pork is unkosher anywhere it's served.

Todd, you won't get flamed by me. You are absolutely right on this point. I spent a couple of years writing proposals for a security contractor in 03-04. Saw the process first hand, including contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like any government agency, the dept of defense is inefficient and bloated. We can't exempt them from fiscal oversight because their mission is just.

[mary]

ET, it really should be two consecutive terms, max. Although look at the mayor of NY he certainly got around their term limit law didn't he?

[mary]

I like to give credit where credit is due and I just realized that I must have gotten the link from a post by Ace at the Ace of Spades HQ site. I clicked on the link and became so involved reading that when I tried to click back I couldn't get back. Just went on the site and there was the link so thanks to ace for the link which I posted here.

[mary]

For anyone interested. a friend sent me a link which he says is a webcam of the alaska volcano that is being watched:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/avo/webcam/redoubt-2.jpg

[ET]

--ET, it really should be two consecutive terms, max.

You're right, Mary. Thanks. Our challenge is this: How do we (the people) impose term limits on politicians whose interests are negatively affected and have the legal power to block us?

[WBestPresidentEver]

Czech President Vaclav Klaus took aim at climate change campaigner Al Gore on Saturday in Davos in a frontal attack on the science of global warming.
"I don't think that there is any global warming," said the 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. "I don't see the statistical data for that."

"Czech President who can see through the foolishness of Albert Gore smacked down the former Vice-President's bogus claim of Global Warming which is perpetrated by the former Veep and other wackadoos in order to make money by preying upon the ignorance and fear of the world".

Referring to the former US vice president, who attended Davos this year, he added: "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.

"Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement."

Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, he said that he was more worried about the reaction to the perceived dangers than the consequences.

"I'm afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world," he said.

"I'm more afraid of the consequences of the crisis than the crisis itself."

Klaus makes no secret of his climate change scepticism -- he is also a fierce critic of the European Union -- and has branded the world's top panel of climate experts, the UN's IPCC, a smug monopoly.
``````````````````````````````
Amen, President Klaus. ALGore is a fraud and one of the most dangerous men in the world. Global warming is a farce and will do nothing but erode our freedoms and cause tremendous hardships to the free market. It is nothing but a scam that has enriched people like Gore and the wacko environmentalists who are trying to force people and governments to believe their lies and force extreme regulations that could bankrupt companies. Gore refuses to even debate the issue because he can't win in an intellectual discussion.
And..It's not just Al Gore who refuses to debate anyone. Can you think of ANY globalwarmer willing to debate the issue? The environmental movement is made up of ex-Communist party members who were looking for a more acceptable identity to hide behind while they continued wiith their plans to destroy capitalism after the break-up of the Soviet Union.
You'd think that more people would see the fake Al" Hore" is ONLY trying to make MORE money off his phoney theories. AL Gore is all about money and he's making a ton of it.
We’ll continue giving global warming the attention it so richly deserves as the world comes increasingly to realize what a crock the whole scare campaign is, and how government manipulators increasingly use it as an excuse to increasingly gain control over your lives and dollars.

[nina]

Al Gore looked liked a pig who's had estrogen added to his feed. He was having hot flashes while testifying .Maybe the warming is in his little brain. Global warming brought to you by the inventor of the internet. What an idiot.
Pelosi is the missing idiot the dimrats where looking for in their bumper sticker. Our dearest leader first 2 weeks were a disaster. Pelosi handed him this pig bill with all her dreams and is being exposed. In the meantime, Gitmo residents are celebrating.

[Fred Beloit]

Mark Steyn on the "stimulus":

"But, if this fraudulent "stimulus" does pass, it will, in fact, destimulate, and much more than the disastrous protectionist measures of the Thirties did: Back then, America was dealing with a far less globalized economy, and with far fewer competitors. "In the long run, we are all dead," Lord Keynes, the newly fashionable economist, famously said. But, if this bill passes, in the medium term we're all dead. It's a massive expansion of the state in the same direction that has brought sclerosis to Europe. A report issued last week in London found that government spending now accounts for 49 percent of the UK economy – and in the Celtic corners of the kingdom the state's share of the economy is way higher, from 71.6 percent in Wales to 77.6 percent in Northern Ireland. In the Western world, countries that were once the crucible of freedom are slipping remorselessly into a thinly disguised serfdom in which an ever higher proportion of your assets are annexed by the state as superlandlord. Big government is where nations go to die – not in Keynes' "long run," but sooner than you think."

I recommend the entire piece.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stimulus-economy-percent-2295331-bill-pelosi

[Fred Beloit]

Todd say, "Flame away, I'm ready....."

Sorry, Todd, we are working on $850 or $900 bil, mostly in radical left wing pork, not yet spent (estimates say it will take about three or more years to spend) and the attempted socialization of our economy. We can argue about reducing our ability to defend ourselves with fewer warheads when we get this outrage stopped.

[Fred Beloit]

To keep you busy, Todd, until that happy day look at this. We now have a party of crooks in control of the government. Every day we learn of tax cheats and corrupt bigshots being appointed to positions of power in the administration and of bribe-takers in the Congress. This party in power doesn't care. They just don't care, Todd. Consider this grave problem, I beg of you.

[templar knight]

I hate to disagree with you, Todd, on this one thing. The US has been able to win wars over the past 50 or so years for only one reason. We have had air superiority, and the F-22 is our latest air superiority fighter. And to tell you the truth, the new generation Russian fighters with trust vectoring are better than the F-15 and F-18 fighters we currently have in our inventory.

I would rather spend the money on the F-22, and save money on nuclear weapons. And no doubt there is money to be saved. But I'm with Fred on this one; we have an emergency, a fire if you will, and we had better put it out before we deal with anything else, or our house will burn down and the other question will be moot.

[Fred Beloit]

Our legislators and the adminstration ask what should we do. The consumers who are still working aren't buying much and those out of work don't have money to buy with. What shall we do...what shall we do?

Well they have already provided money to those who can prove they were laid off or who can't find work, though they are trying. This was done through the increase in the length of unemployment benefits and more could be done along these lines.
For those working, whose pay progressives have the strange idea they own, they should be given some of their own money back from previous and future tax collections. This could be temporary, though it should be permanent.

"But Fred, boohoohoo, what about the government revenue?" They keep telling us this is an emergency. If it is an emergency, some government workers will need to be laid off (just as in the private sector) and some programs reduced or shut down temporarily or permanently.

Instead, what do we get? Permanent increases in government employment; massive distribution of condoms, diaphrams, BC pills, Viagra, and maybe sex toys for all we know; and pork, pork, and still more pork. The Dems in Congress are the ones who don't see this as an economic emergency. If they did they wouldn't be playing the let's buy more votes from the suckers with other peoples' money game. These Dems are just not serious.

[Todd]

A couple things, Fred and tk. This overspending on maintaining the nuclear arsenal of 7000 warheads has been going on for arguably 10 or more years, since the Soviet Union became defunct in 1991 or so. Over time, that's amounted to $500 billion or perhaps $750 billion in wasteful spending. By not addressing it, it just gets kicked down the road for another who knows 5-10 years so that's another $500 billion in total. Just one more reason for the US to become an economic basket case in the long run, when you run your budget like a bunch of drunken sailors. $50 billion a year is a huge amount of money. It is an important issue and requires being addressed.

As to your point tk about the Russian fighters, I will point out that Russia only spent a total of $40 billion on military spending in 2008 vs our $625 billion. As nasty as Putin seems, let's not overstate the threat that those new Russian fighters pose to us. Their cozy relationship to Iran is a much more dangerous reality.

Also, I would like to see a list of all this incredible amount of pork I keep hearing about. Fred, you just described it as "$850 or $900 bil, mostly in radical left wing pork." I googled the pork and I got this from an NBC report as to some of the reported pork which while is ridiculous doesn't even total $1 billion: (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/economic.stimulus.plan.2.921518.html)

"$355 million for education related to sexually transmitted diseases
$200 million to monitor earthquakes and volcanoes
$50 million for National Cemetery monument repairs
$200 million to repave the National Mall
$276 million for new computers at the State Department"

So, one of you guys please show me the huge amount of pork in detail that is driving you guys hopping mad. Details with links, please.

As to your point, Fred, about tax cheats like Geithner and Daschle, I didn't support either and share your disgust and outrage. They don't deserve the public trust of being in positions of power. For chrissakes, can't we do better. Being a centrist, I have no problem calling out the bullshit on both sides of the aisle. I vote Democrat (I'm a bluedog fiscal conservative type), but I will criticize anyone who deserves it regardless of party. This nonsense of Republicans, that started with Reagan, refusing to publicly criticize other Republicans is total crap. I'm also in total agreement that the Buy American stuff in the stimulus plan is a disaster waiting to happen. The 2 lessons we should have learned from the Great Depression was that the Glass Steagall Act was very effective in regulating the financial system, and that the Smoot-Hawley Tarriffs were disastrous protectionist measures that deepened the misery and lengthened the crisis. We already screwed up by dismantling Glass-Steagall. If we do a Smoot-Hawley redux, then this country is just brain dead. I already have surmised that for years really, with the way things go on in this country, but that would be further evidence that we are really our own worst enemy. And, if you Republicans don't start calling out the bullshit in some of the sacred cows of your party (like the defense budget), then I think you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.

[mary]

What I've been noticing is that people are engaged. They are talking about this bill. I mean I read a post yesterday which said "uber designer stuff in at Century 21. What do you guys think of this stimulus thing?" Sure the answers didn't sound like they came from Rhodes Scholars but I was shocked to even see the question.

[Fred Beloit]

Todd, it took me just a couple of seconds to find this:
"House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds."

Now you can find a lot more, a lot more if you try, unless you think that this is appropriate emergency relief and economic stimulation. Nah, you're too smart to think that aren't you.

[Fred Beloit]

And Mary provided this link, Todd. I'm sure you will strike Dem gold here:
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/IL

[mary]

I'm still searching for a link to the actual bill. The stimulus.org site is nice and convenient but I subscribe to the theory "trust but verify". That chess move or shall I say "gregg move" by the p r e z should keep everyone on their toes.

The other question I have is this: If money is allocated for something is the state or city obligated to use the money for the project for which it was allocated or are they allowed to use it for whatever they choose?

[Lala]

Remember when the Red Cross got all that money for the 9/11 victims and decided to hold onto it for the next bad thing?

I'd say the govt will try the same maneuver.

[Fred Beloit]

The state governments are leaking and the last thing they will do is lay off employees (except police and fire fighters in order to scare the heck out of people) or cut programs. The private sector frequently does both when necessary. The state governments? Never. Like California, they would even rather delay giving citizens their tax refunds, their own money back when many of them need it badly, just an unconscionable choice.

[Todd]

That stimulus.org page seems to be full of infrastructure projects involved roads, bridges, schools, etc. That would provide jobs and some of the criticism I've heard on CNBC this week was there wasn't enough stimulus like this in the stimulus plan. So, that website doesn't answer my question about the egregious pork.

On John Boehner's website, a further explanation of "neighborhood stabilization activities" is activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. I don't see why this is such outrageous pork. I think you're all freaked out about the hot-button word ACORN being a recipient of some of this neighborhood stabiization activity, but there are a lot of communities that would welcome the help, Shaker Heights, Ohio being one example.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/us/23vacant.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

So, I still need more examples of what you stated as "$850 or $900 bil, mostly in radical left wing pork." I'm open-minded on this, Fred. Convince me. Give me some damn good examples of this outragoue pork. It ostensibly shouldn't be hard to find if there's so much of it.

Money quote from that Shaker Heights story:

"Foreclosures Force Suburbs to Fight Blight

Published: March 23, 2007

SHAKER HEIGHTS, Ohio — In a sign of the spreading economic fallout of mortgage foreclosures, several suburbs of Cleveland, one of the nation’s hardest-hit cities, are spending millions of dollars to maintain vacant houses as they try to contain blight and real-estate panic.

David Maxwell for The New York Times

Rosa Hutchison Yates of Shaker Heights, Ohio, may be losing her home of 30 years after a refinancing deal created bills she could not pay. “When folks pay for a home, they expect to die in it,” Ms. Yates said. More Photos >

In suburbs like this one, officials are installing alarms, fixing broken windows and mowing lawns at the vacant houses in hopes of preventing a snowball effect, in which surrounding property values suffer and worried neighbors move away. The officials are also working with financially troubled homeowners to renegotiate debts or, when eviction is unavoidable, to find apartments."

[Todd]

The state governments are leaking and the last thing they will do is lay off employees (except police and fire fighters in order to scare the heck out of people) or cut programs. The private sector frequently does both when necessary. The state governments? Never. Like California, they would even rather delay giving citizens their tax refunds, their own money back when many of them need it badly, just an unconscionable choice.

Posted by: Fred Beloit | Sunday, February 01, 2009 at 03:11 PM
---------------------------
I agree. It's pathetic.

[North Dallas Thirty]

So let's see; Obama demands that the Defense Department "save" 11% of $625 billion per annum -- about $60 billion or so -- by cutting programs that provide people with legitimate jobs and which push money back into the economy.

Meanwhile, what do we see elsewhere?

"Law enforcement officials said it's just one of the many widespread, organized and lucrative schemes to bilk Medicare out of an estimated $60 billion dollars a year — a staggering cost borne by American taxpayers."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921/

So again, rather than combat Medicare fraud -- a criminal activity -- Obama instead demands that the Defense Department cut its budget for legitimate government activities.

No surprise; when it comes to protecting criminals who bilk the American taxpayer, all Obama has shown is that he thinks they should be elevate to high government positions. Meanwhile, he supports and endorses those who smear US soldiers, call them murderers and baby-killers, and make excuses for Osama bin Laden.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/12/jodie-davis-code-pink-founder-obama-bundler-osama-apologist/

[Todd]

Obama's been president for less than 2 weeks. Just because he hasn't done anything about medicare fraud yet doesn't mean he won't. He did promise to do that back in September on the campaign trail., so unless he plans on breaking a campaign promise then he'll get to it soon enough.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/122686.php

Money quote:

Medicare, Medicaid Fraud
Obama on Monday during a campaign event in Green Bay, Wis., said that as president he would seek to reduce waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, CQ HealthBeat reports. According to a summary of proposals released by his campaign on Monday, Obama would increase authority for the HHS inspector general to fight fraud, implement anti-fraud measures in contracts awarded by CMS, expand Medicare and Medicaid audits, strengthen the False Claims Act, encourage states to fight fraud and increase funds for efforts by Department of Justice prosecutors and FBI agents to fight fraud.

He said, "We should also stop sending $15 billion a year in overpayments to insurance companies for Medicare and go after tens of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid fraud." In addition, Obama said that he would take action against the 27,000 health care providers who participate in Medicare and owe more than $2 billion in unpaid taxes this year (CQ HealthBeat, 9/22).

[North Dallas Thirty]

Oh, and the next time any of the lefties try to whine "Glass-Stegall" or "Gramm-Leach-Bliley", feel free to quote this right back at them.

MARIA BARTIROMO
Mr. President, in 1999 you signed a bill essentially rolling back Glass-Steagall and deregulating banking. In light of what has gone on, do you regret that decision?

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON

No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter. But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch (MER) by Bank of America (BAC), which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.

MARIA BARTIROMO
Phil Gramm, who was then the head of the Senate Banking Committee and until recently a close economic adviser of Senator McCain, was a fierce proponent of banking deregulation. Did he sell you a bill of goods?

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_40/b4102000409948.htm

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Obama's been president for less than 2 weeks."

Funny, it didn't take him half a second to slash the military budget -- which he didn't promise on the campaign trail, which he's doing while he's allegedly "planning" to double or triple the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan, and which involves the assumption that the defense budget is full of that much waste.

Meanwhile, he hasn't said a word about eliminating the same amount of waste lost through outright criminal activity in Medicare and Medicaid -- particularly odd when you consider that a major portion of the "stimulus" is to put millions of more people into both.

In short, Todd, Obama is wasting no time in cutting money to a program that he has no proof is costing the American public billions in fraud while pumping massive sums into a program that even he admits is costing the American public billions in fraud -- and doing nothing about it.

[Todd]

"So let's see; Obama demands that the Defense Department "save" 11% of $625 billion per annum -- about $60 billion or so -- by cutting programs that provide people with legitimate jobs and which push money back into the economy."
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Sunday, February 01, 2009 at 03:41 PM
-----------------------------------
So North Dallas Thirty, are you saying that you support wasteful spending on obsolete weapons systems and maintaining a nuclear arsenal of a size that is totally unnecssary? Couldn't the money being wasted on that be deployed to more efficient purposes elsewhere than on weapons systems designed to fight the defunct Soviet Union? And are these really "legitimate jobs" when all they really are are private sector jobs that depend enitrely on public sector spending on boondoggle projects we don't need,thrust upon us by corporate lobbyists for defense contractors? Paying billions of dollars to defense contractors for unnecessary stuff is pretty much corporate welfare, plain and simple. Why doesn't that count as pork in your book?

[Todd]

"In short, Todd, Obama is wasting no time in cutting money to a program that he has no proof is costing the American public billions in fraud while pumping massive sums into a program that even he admits is costing the American public billions in fraud -- and doing nothing about it."
---------------------
Not yet. But, I agree with you. This is critically important and Obama should address that soon.

As for Bill Clinton's comments, I think it's total bullshit what he said. He's in complete denial and it's pathetic that he won't own up to his culpability in this mess by having signed the bill that Phil Gramm sponsored. That legislation brought about the massive growth in the Credit Default Swap market with virtually no oversight which grew to $64 trillion since Clinton signed that bill in late 2000. I hate politicians who don't even admit they were wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Meanwhile, the reason the Obama Party is doing this is simple: their entire economic model revolves around either handicapping or outright attacking business and industry while inflating welfare and increasing dependence on the government.

Why? Simple. Business and industry provide jobs, and jobs provide people a revenue stream and source that makes them independent of the government. If they are independent of the government, they will not automatically vote for that which enlarges, enriches, or otherwise helps government.

In contrast, ignoring Medicare fraud is a sure winner for Obama, because he knows people who are benefitting from it will always vote to increase Medicare's size and expenditures -- which means they will consistently vote for the Obama Party.

By slashing defense spending, Obama eliminates good-paying jobs and attacks people who tend to vote Republican. By attacking Medicare fraud, he would only increase the prison population -- and alienate people who reliably vote Obama Party.

[North Dallas Thirty]

So North Dallas Thirty, are you saying that you support wasteful spending on obsolete weapons systems and maintaining a nuclear arsenal of a size that is totally unnecssary?

What I am saying, Todd, is that, given the choice between spending $60 billion a year on that and $60 billion a year on criminal activity, I would be going after the $60 billion in criminal activity first.

Obsolete is in the eye of the beholder. The Bismarck was sunk by "obsolete" aircraft. The Taranto raid that nearly destroyed Mussolini's fleet was carried out by "obsolete" planes. The M16 rifle was designed in 1957 and is technically "obsolete", but it's still the gold standard in the US armed forces.

"And are these really "legitimate jobs" when all they really are are private sector jobs that depend enitrely on public sector spending on boondoggle projects we don't need,thrust upon us by corporate lobbyists for defense contractors?"

Sort of like resodding the National Mall?

Let's see, green grass versus military hardware. Given that we're currently involved in two land wars, I vote the latter.

Furthermore, anyone like yourself who voted for Obama has exactly zero standing to badmouth lobbyists, especially defense contractor lobbyists.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/obama.defense/index.html?iref=newssearch

"Paying billions of dollars to defense contractors for unnecessary stuff is pretty much corporate welfare, plain and simple."

And paying billions of dollars to people to sit on their ass and produce nothing but children is direct welfare.

Let's see, giving money to companies that produce items that our military uses, provide jobs to people, and pay taxes to our government -- versus writing checks to people who produce nothing, pay no taxes, and do nothing but consume.

Which would you rather do, Todd; pay a defense contractor, or pay Obama's illegal-alien aunt who gets free housing, free healthcare, free food, and spending money? Which do you think contributes more to American society?

[Todd]

"Which would you rather do, Todd; pay a defense contractor, or pay Obama's illegal-alien aunt who gets free housing, free healthcare, free food, and spending money? Which do you think contributes more to American society?"
-----------------------
I don't support welfare in any form. You shouldn't, either. I think we should only pay defense contractors for programs that are designed for fighting today's battles, not those of 20 years ago. I should think that you would want our money spent wisely too, especially since we do have 2 ground wars going on as you mentioned. And, if it's being wasted, eliminate it. Why should employees of defense contractors working on obsolete projects be immune from the economic pain when nobody else is immune to it?

"Obsolete is in the eye of the beholder."
-------------------------------------------
True. So I'll rely on someone's opinion who would really know, like Lawrence Korb's comments about the F-22 Raptor jet fighters that no longer fill a credible military purpose but will take $65 billion out of taxpayers' pockets. The Raptor includes stealth technology and elaborate electronics designed to counter threatened leaps in Soviet war-fighting capability. In 2005, Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, wrote that the Raptor "is the most unnecessary weapon system being built by the Pentagon."

$65 billion for an unnecessary weapons system. What a deplorable waste of money.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"I don't support welfare in any form."

The problem is this, Todd; you see cutting tax rates as being "welfare", and I don't.

Cutting tax rates is not welfare for one simple reason: in order for a tax rate cut to give you anything, you have to be earning something on which tax is assessed in the first place. A tax cut is meaningless if you are not working or earning revenue, because then you're not paying taxes. However, if you are doing either, a tax cut rewards you for doing so.

And here's the other problem.

"$65 billion for an unnecessary weapons system. What a deplorable waste of money."

Which is exactly the amount the United States spends each YEAR on Medicare fraud.

So let's see; for $65 billion, I can have 187 jet fighters far superior to anything in anyone's existing or immediate-future arsenal, with a (conservative) average service life of 30 years, whose production requires parts and assemblies from approximately 1,000 suppliers in 44 different states and results in tens of thousands of jobs, and whose existence virtually guarantees that I will have air superiority in any battle that anyone tries to throw at our country. Furthermore, since export of F-22s is illegal due to their superior technology, that means that all that $65 billion is staying in the United States -- and because of the money spent on the F-22, the technology development for the F-35, which is a less-advanced fighter that will be sold for export, has already been paid.

Or I can piss it into the pockets of criminals who forge Medicare receipts for nonexistent services to nonexistent people -- in just one year.

Obviously you and Barack Obama prefer the latter to the former.

[Todd]

"The problem is this, Todd; you see cutting tax rates as being "welfare", and I don't."
----------------------------
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I support cutting tax rates as a general idea, when it's fiscally responsible.
---------------
"So let's see; for $65 billion, I can have 187 jet fighters far superior to anything in anyone's existing or immediate-future arsenal, with a (conservative) average service life of 30 years, whose production requires parts and assemblies from approximately 1,000 suppliers in 44 different states and results in tens of thousands of jobs, and whose existence virtually guarantees that I will have air superiority in any battle that anyone tries to throw at our country. Furthermore, since export of F-22s is illegal due to their superior technology, that means that all that $65 billion is staying in the United States -- and because of the money spent on the F-22, the technology development for the F-35, which is a less-advanced fighter that will be sold for export, has already been paid.

Or I can piss it into the pockets of criminals who forge Medicare receipts for nonexistent services to nonexistent people -- in just one year.

Obviously you and Barack Obama prefer the latter to the former."
---------------------
No, I support both going big after medicare fraud and scaling back on corporate welfare disguised as unnecessary expenditures in the military budget, on weapons systems designed to beat an enemy that existed 20 years ago. Unlike you, I believe both are necessary and achievable at the same time. There is no need to have a tradeoff of one for the other, where the money saved on reducing medicare fraud gets spent on military systems that aren't specifically targeted for the enemy we are fighting today. Too many people in this country have deluded themselves into thinking we can afford everything we want. Reality-check: we can't.

Oh, and one last question for you, NDT. Do you support the $50-60 billion we spend annually on maintaining our present nuclear arsenal of 7,000 warheads, or do you think we should scale back significantly the amount of warheads thereby reducing the necessary maintenance costs?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"No, I support both going big after medicare fraud and scaling back on corporate welfare disguised as unnecessary expenditures in the military budget, on weapons systems designed to beat an enemy that existed 20 years ago."

You seem to be under two impressions, Todd.

One, when the Soviet Union disappeared, so did all of their technology, all of their research, and all of the weaponry they had already built, as well as the plans, infrastructure, and capability to ever build anything more advanced than they already had.

Two, that the fact that the F-22 Raptor isn't specifically designed for fighting al-Qaeda means that it can't fight al-Qaeda.

Both are false.

First, there are plenty of smart Russian and Chinese aircraft designers, and if our pilots can be given a leg up by more advanced technology, it would seem foolish not to do so. They're certainly not sitting back and allowing us to stay there, and while I'm sure they would be overjoyed if Obama were to unilaterally kill our technological advantage as he wants to do, don't you think we should WANT to have the better defensive systems?

Second, the F-22 is perfectly capable of both air-to-ground attack and, perhaps more interestingly, signals intelligence; its high-power electronics and computational capability make it particularly effective at identifying and intercepting communications, and its ability to defend itself and escape from ground-to-air missile and arms fire make it a much better platform to send into dangerous areas than the more-unwieldy planes that have been previously used for such things. The military was not unaware of who and what missions it has asked its fighters to do previously, and it planned accordingly.

To put this in perspective, Todd, steel-plated body armor is out there, and, made thick enough, it can be just as effective as that Kevlar stuff while costing far less. By your logic, the Pentagon should immediately slash the purchase of Kevlar body armor in favor of the cheaper steel stuff because it works just as well at stopping bullets; the Kevlar is "wasteful".

"Do you support the $50-60 billion we spend annually on maintaining our present nuclear arsenal of 7,000 warheads, or do you think we should scale back significantly the amount of warheads thereby reducing the necessary maintenance costs?"

From the article you cited:

"The U.S. and Russia have agreed to get try and get each of their warhead inventories down to 2,000 or fewer."

Fine by me, given that it's already happened.

"In 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions. To comply with this treaty, the U.S. must reduce the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. In 2004, President Bush issued a directive to cut the entire U.S. nuclear stockpile—both deployed and reserve warheads—in half by 2012. This goal was achieved in 2007, five years ahead of schedule, making the total stockpile almost 50 percent less than it had been in 2001."

https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug08/trebes.html