On The Money

Great article today by the AP on this so called Stimulus bill that is not really a stimulus bill.

Like Mike says,

Some of the things in this bill are good. BUT THEY ARE NOT STIMULUS ITEMS THAT WILL CREATE JOBS. Those wish items are best left for another day and another vote.

I completely agree. And apparently at least one Democrat also thinks some of this spending should not be on a bill designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs:

But some Democrats, like Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, think the $3.5 billion in the stimulus package devoted to health research, or the $14 billion-$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships by $400 to $500 would be better spent on additional brick and mortar infrastructure projects.

"You don't want to be against Pell Grants," Nelson said. "But the question is, how many people go to work on Pell Grants? Should it be in this legislation if it's about jobs?"

The article does a nice job of outlining all the extras that well, IMHO, should not be there. This is not a Stimulus bill; it sound more like a State Bailout Bill

On Record

I've never been a supporter of government spending, duh I'm a Republican. But I can live with spending that is necessary if it is efficiently managed - something that hasn't happened for a while, and usually never happens in governments.

I was against TARP and still believe it was a mistake. I don't think it's done anything for us the consumers, but apparently it's done wonders for the companies that received the money. Only they can't tell us what.

Now we have the stimulus bill which according to the WSJ is not much of a stimulus but a lot of spending.

There are quite a lot of billions that I'd take out of that bill. For example the Arts Endowment, the Global Warming research fund, the carbon capture fund, the government getting new cars, the money for the Smithsonian, that income-transfer fund, the $54 million going to programs who don't pass a basic audit, and the $66 billion in Education.

I'd keep the rest, including Amtrak (only because many people depend on it to let it go) and the renewable energy, help for the lower income families (unemployment, coupons, EIC, etc.). But is all this necessary NOW?

At a time, where even student loans are in danger where in this bill is the money to ENSURE that students can get their loans next year?

I don't think this bill should be all tax cuts, but I don't think all this spending will help the economy nor create jobs. This is not the right time for this. You want to increase spending, wait until we are past the recession and then run the deficit as high as you want. But please, in a time where the President says that we will cut out the programs that don't work, and basically in his inaugural speech tells us to gird our loins for the economic mayhem facing us, shouldn't this bill be geared towards helping the economy create jobs and move forward?

As it is the infrastructure projects, which do create jobs and are much needed, won't move the economy in the immediate short term (6 months).

I know Republicans came up with a bill of their own, but have not been able to find any links.....so if anyone out there has one, please forward so I can review.

In the meantime, I'll let my senators know exactly how I feel. I don't think it will make much difference, given they are Democrats and this looks like a party line vote.

On the Wrong Foot

I give every incoming president the benefit of the doubt, but I gotta admit that Obama rubbed me the wrong way earlier than any other president that I can remember.

Let's see, we are in a hell of a recession, with a trillion dollar deficit, about to add another trillion to that deficit in an effort to "stimulate" the economy (personally, I think we need more immediate help that DOES not require increasing our debt), and what does the President elect to do in his third day in office?

Send money to other countries to fund abortion programs. Excuse me? I have enough problems as it is with the fact that federal funds, ie. taxes I pay, go to ending pregnancies and killing babies (something I vehemently and fiercely oppose), to now have to deal with the fact that my good American money WHICH SHOULD BE STAYING HERE, the one there isn't enough to go around is going to OTHER COUNTRIES to FUND ABORTIONS.

Hello????? Anyone home? What happened to austerity? I thought Democrats were the DOMESTIC policy kings. Nice going Mr. President.

The More Things Change.....

the more they stay the same.

At this point I don't know whether to laugh at the stupidity or cry at the similarity.

Highly Disappointed

My husband and I are very disappointed with Chile's current president Michelle Bachelet's decision of not meeting with Cuban dissidents on her upcoming Cuba visit. Even though my husband is fiercely anti-Pinochet and in his country he does not identify with the right wing, here he is a Republican. Go figure. In any case he understands that a dictatorship is a dictatorship no matter from which "wing" they govern.

He was more disappointed because he thought Bachelet would empathize given her own background of suffering at the hands of dictators.

Oswaldo Paya said it best:

"Es como decir que esta dictadura es buena y la de Chile (1973-1990) fue mala. Las dictaduras son todas dictaduras y en todas hay crímenes, hay sufrimientos del pueblo, hay desprecio por los derechos humanos" which losely translated means "It is like saying that this dictatorship (the one in Cuba) is good and the one in Chile (1973-1990) was bad. All dictatorships are dictatorships and in all of them there are crimes, suffering of the people, and disregard of human rights"

Right on Oswaldo; couldn't have said it better myself.

So Much for Bipartisanship

I guess Democrats only want bipartisanship when they are the minority.

I really hope this doesn't pass; it would be in detriment to the country to exclude any kind of opposing dialogue or ideas.