Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Don't stay in bed, unless you can make money in bed. - George Burns

Saturday, February 28, 2009

One Man’s Sin Is Another Man’s Pork Supplement

While the Federal government tries to be the states’ savior, some of the states seem to be looking at other alternatives for cash.

“The most common phrase you hear from the states is, ‘Everything is on the table,’ ” said Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst with National Conference of State Legislatures, who predicted the worst financial year for states since the end of World War II.

Nowhere is that more true than California, where Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a freshman from San Francisco, made a proposal intended to increase revenue, and, no doubt, appetite: legalizing and taxing marijuana, a major — if technically illegal — crop in the state. “We’re all jonesing now for money,” Mr. Ammiano said. “And there’s this enormous industry out there.”

In Nevada, State Senator Bob Coffin said he would introduce legislation to tax the state’s legal brothels, a fee that would be “based on the amount of activities.” And unlike the Washington porn proposal, which drew the ire of the adult entertainment industry, Mr. Coffin’s plan has the backing of the potential taxpayers, in this case brothel owners who employ women as independent contractors.

“I think they figure if they become part of the tax stream, the less vulnerable they will be to some shift in mores,” he said.

Hawaiian legislators were also considering capitalizing on another potential shift in public attitudes when they proposed legalizing same-sex unions, which supporters say could help the slumping tourism trade.

In Massachusetts, meanwhile, state legislators have introduced a proposal to build two resort-style casinos, including one in Boston. A similar push died last year in the State House of Representatives. But Representative Martin J. Walsh, a Dorchester Democrat and co-author of the new casino bill, said a $2 billion budget deficit might have changed some minds.

“Every state in the nation, including Massachusetts, needs to figure out a way of raising revenues,” Mr. Walsh said. “So we need to be creative.”

Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers, said many lawmakers were loath to tap more traditional tax sources during a downturn. “What’s pushing it is this incredible desire to raise revenue,” Mr. Pattison said. “But it’s coupled with the desire not to raise the general and sales and income taxes.”

Whether such proposals can pass is another issue, though each idea has its supporters. Betty Yee, chairwoman of the California Board of Equalization, the state’s tax collector, said that legal marijuana could raise nearly $1 billion per year via a $50-per-ounce fee charged to retailers. An additional $400 million could be raised through sales tax on marijuana sold to buyers.

The law would also establish a smoking age — 21 — effectively putting marijuana in a similar regulatory class as alcohol or tobacco. Marijuana advocates argue that legalization could also decrease pressure on the state’s overburdened prison system and law enforcement officers.

All of which, Ms. Yee said, at least makes the proposal worth talking about in a state with chronic budget problems and a law already on the books allowing the medical use of the drug.

“We know the product is out there, and we know marijuana is available to young people as well, but there’s no regulatory structure in place,” Ms. Yee said. “I think it’s an opportunity to begin the debate.”

Some of these ideas may seem too far ahead of their time for legislators to tackle right now, but it seems finding libertarian alternatives to Uncle Sam’s money may happen out of necessity anyway. Of course, not everybody is supportive:

Several law enforcement groups have already objected to the idea of legal marijuana, which would conflict with federal law.

John Lovell, a lobbyist for several groups of California law enforcement officials, said the plan would create a large, illicit — and thus untaxed — black market, in addition to magnifying substance abuse problems. “The last thing we need is yet another legal substance that is mind-altering,” Mr. Lovell said.

Having taxes on illegal activities, like a seldom-collected tax on marijuana sales in Nevada, also has its drawbacks, said Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, who has researched drug policy.

“It is very hard to tax illegal vices unless one is comfortable with contradiction,” Mr. MacCoun said. “How can you collect the taxes without documenting the behavior? And how can you document the behavior without making an arrest?”

In Washington State, Mr. Miloscia said he had also received criticism from an array of residents and business owners, who accused him of attacking the First Amendment and other sacred institutions with his pornography proposal.

“I had people call up saying their marriages would fall apart,” said Mr. Miloscia, who represents a suburban district between Tacoma and Seattle. “I didn’t know how passionate people are about this stuff.”

It remains to be seen how long this “Passion” would last if things don’t improve. And if a product is no longer illegal, then how can it be a contradiction to tax it? Libertarianism’s time may be coming sooner than some want to admit.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/28/09 at 04:04 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

The Decline And Continued Free-Fall Of The Former Republican Empire

If you didn’t think there was any need to bash those poor, hapless Republicans any further, here’s a couple more reasons to do so. First, this:

Louisiana’s transportation department plans to request federal dollars for a New Orleans to Baton Rouge passenger rail service from the same pot of railroad money in the president’s economic stimulus package that Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized as unnecessary pork on national television Tuesday night.

The high-speed rail line, a topic of discussion for years, would require $110 million to upgrade existing freight lines and terminals to handle a passenger train operation, said Mark Lambert, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.

Jindal on Tuesday delivered the official Republican Party response to President Barack Obama’s address to Congress. He criticized the stimulus package passed by the Democratic-majority in Congress and the president and noted examples of projects that he found objectionable.

“While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending,” Jindal said. “It includes … $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a ‘magnetic levitation’ line from Las Vegas to Disneyland.”

Why does this matter? Maybe because it goes against what that Republican hero Newt Gingrich wants:

12. Invest in Energy and Transportation Infrastructure.

So much for fiscal discipline. Which brings us to this:

More than 2,000 employers laid off more than 50 workers each in January, the Labor Department reported Wednesday.

One workplace, however, wasn’t on the list: the U.S. Congress.

A ten percent increase in the budget for Congressional operations was needed because Senate Republicans wanted to retain previous staff levels despite having lost roughly 20 percent of their ranks in the 2008 elections, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Wednesday.

Congressional Republicans have been pouncing on any instance of wasteful spending they can find, but the congressional-operations line item will likely remain safe from their ire.

So, once again, their attitude is, cuts for thee but not for me. But rather than try and explain one again why these people are worthless, I’ll leave it to John Cole:

This is a sputtering, rudderless, idea free movement. There is a reason the only thing they can do is yell “socialist” and attend tea parties (although given the turnout, it looks like they are just sticking to yelling socialist).

Well, they’ll keep yelling “Socialist!” until they can go back to being the socialists when they’re the majority party again. As of now, however, they just keep sliding into self-parody (as this also demonstrates).

Let me know when they start getting serious again. It would be a refreshing change of pace.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/28/09 at 02:41 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Think Small, Live Large

Are we really a small-government society? Maybe not:

Americans love the idea of small government. They just don’t seem to actually care about shrinking the government outside of rhetoric. Americans love their entitlements. They like having an FDA and a host of other regluatory bodies. They don’t want to reduce the military budget significantly. They want, and have come to expect, an awful lot of things from government. The fact that they say they want small government means no more than the fact that they say they want a balanced budget. It’s theater, and it’s rhetoric. It’s not founded on anything politically actionable.

I think that’s a bit unfair-I think most people do in fact want less expensive, more efficient government, but we’ve come to define conservatism in this country as meaning less government intrusion in our lives-not necessarily less government goodies. It seems what we need is a clearer line between “Small government” (less expansive and expensive) and “Limited government” (less intrusive regardless of size). I think most people prefer the latter, which often gets lost in the argument on both sides.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/28/09 at 02:10 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, February 27, 2009

Reefer Unmadness

As I much as I’ll bash Obama when I think he’s wrong, I’ll praise him when he does something right:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.

Asked at a Washington news conference Wednesday about Drug Enforcement Administration raids in California since Obama took office last month, Holder said the administration has changed its policy.

“What the president said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing here in law enforcement,” he said. “What he said during the campaign is now American policy.”

For me, this isn’t even about pot.  It’s about federalism.  The states should regulate drugs and the federal role should be to assist and to deal with matter that cross state lines.  I doubt that the same is true for Obama, who isn’t exactly a federalist.  But the end result is the same.  The feds are going to stop harassing sick people.

Some of them, at least.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/27/09 at 08:34 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

The Tory Way

Speaking of rationalists, Jon Huntsman may be the voice of leadership that the Republicans need:

Q: In December you talked about people 40 and under having a very different view on the environment. Is there a similar generational gap on gay rights?

A: You hit on the two issues that I think carry more of a generational component than anything else. And I would liken it a bit to the transformation of the Tory Party in the UK…

They went two or three election cycles without recognizing the issues that the younger citizens in the UK really felt strongly about. They were a very narrow party of angry people. And they started branching out through, maybe, taking a second look at the issues of the day, much like we’re going to have to do for the Republican Party, to reconnect with the youth, to reconnect with people of color, to reconnect with different geographies that we have lost. How do you win back the intelligentsia? How do you win back some of the editorial boards of major newspapers that Richard Nixon used to carry?

Q: Why do you think winning back the intelligentsia matters?

A: I think we’ve drifted a little bit from intellectual honesty in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, for example, where they would use rigorous science to back up many of their policies, and in this case many of their environmental policies. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. We declared the war on cancer.

A lot of intellectual rigor went into the policies of those days, and we’ve drifted a little bit from taking seriously the importance of science to buttress much of what we’re doing today.

Q: It sounds like what you’re saying is that Republicans need to win the educated class of America.

A: Absolutely. The country, I do believe, is a centrist-right country, for the most part, when you look closely at the demographics…I’m not sure that we have connected fully, meaningfully and in any complete way on the issues of the day.

When the Republicans do find a way to reconnect (and not just with better Twitter skills) I’ll be more than happy to give them another shot. Until then, however…

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/27/09 at 05:25 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

The Rationalists Versus The Ranters

Rick Moran discusses what’s wrong with the level of discourse in conservatism today:

Until conservatives can practice some painful introspection, looking with a self-critical eye at the reasons for the debacles of 2006 and 2008, most in the movement will continue to delude themselves that simply reaffirming conservative love of small government, low taxes, and less regulation will be enough to convince a majority of Americans that they recognize their shortcomings and have changed their tune. There must be a reckoning with those who violate the very nature of conservatism by obstinately adhering to exclusionary, anti-intellectual precepts that have thrown classical conservatism over in favor of ranting, ideological tantrums.

When you have a movement that seems afraid to challenge Rush Limbaugh, who blasts other conservatives for daring to question the “Brilliance” of someone like Bobby Jindal, then you’ve got problems that go beyond the usual rants about Democrats. Something happened in conservative talking circles-maybe it’s partly Rush’s fault; maybe it began to accelerate after William F. Buckley’s death, but it just seems that many in the Right have now become as dogmatic as their liberal counterparts, and just as cynical in their politics. Until reason returns to the conservative movement, they will continue to relegate themselves to the fringe (who’s the latest to claim that Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen this week?) and the Republican Party to their ongoing wilderness trek.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/27/09 at 05:10 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

DC Grab

It’s amazing to see how fast the Democrats are rolling out bad ideas.  They’re like a junkie who’s been dumped in a pile of smack.  The latest?  Giving a vote to DC:

The Senate today passed a bill that for the first time would give the District a full voting member of the House of Representatives. But senators managed to attach an amendment that would scrap most of the District’s local gun-control laws.

The 61-37 vote marked the first time in 31 years that the Senate had approved a D.C. voting-rights bill. The addition of the gun language could complicate the bill’s passage into law, however, since it will be necessary to reconcile the Senate version of the legislation with the companion bill in the House. Voting-rights supporters hope the gun amendment can be removed in those negotiations.

The House is expected to approve the D.C. vote bill next week, and President Obama has indicated he will sign it into law.

They’re going to balance it by giving Utah an extra House seat.

Look, I’m on record as saying the residents of DC should have voting representation.  But this is massively unconstitutional—not that SCOTUS will notice.  Article I, Section 2 specifies that House reps are for states, not districts and specifies that they be apportioned based on population, not politics.

A constitutional amendment would be fine.  I personally would prefer retrocession, in which the district was given representation in Maryland.  But this?  This is just making shit up.

Oh, wait.  I forgot.  We’re all Democrats right now.  It’s a living, breathing Constitution again.  So it can say whatever the hell you want.  Maybe we can justify this under the power of Congress to call out militias or something.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/27/09 at 09:20 AM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

The Return of Tax and Spend

The more I read about the Obama budget, the more disgusted I get.  I said we would know what kind of President he would be when he put out his first budget.  We’re finding out and what we’re finding isn’t good.  There’s some trillion dollars in tax hikes.

1) On households making more than $250,000:

$338 billion from turning back the Bush tax cuts.
$179 billlion by reducing the limits on itemized deductions
$118 billion by increasing capital gains taxes

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) On businesses:

$17 billion comes from bringing back the Superfund taxes
$24 billion fromtreating tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion by codifying “economic substance doctrine”
$61 billion from repeal of the LIFO accounting practice
$210 billion from international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion from excise tax increases on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion from repealing the expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million from repealing the deductions for tertiary injectants
$49 million from repealing passive loss exceptions for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
#13 billion by repealing manufacturing tax deductions for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion by increasing to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million through eliminating advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

That’s not including cap-and-trade.  All of this will be poured into goodies for the 95% of us who are not businesses and who are not rich.  This constitutes a truly gigantic wealth transfer.

Only it won’t.  There’s no way the businesses and rich people of America can pony up that volume of cash.  They will simply move away from this country—exacerbating the problem our current business tax system is creating.  Unless Obama is really out to lunch, he’ll have to raise taxes on everyone else to pay for this stuff—in which case, he’s fibbing when he claims that most of us won’t pay any more taxes.

Actually, he’s fibbing anyway—we’ll see the taxes on business and the wealthy showing up in smaller paychecks, fewer good jobs and diminished returns on our 401k’s.

Obama has just taken a big step toward being Jimmy Carter to Bush’s Richard Nixon.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/27/09 at 09:08 AM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Fuzzy Budget Math

Obama has unveiled his budget.  As promised, it cuts the deficit in half by 2013 and eliminated $2 trillion in spending.

But if you look behind the curtain, it’s not so amazing:

He pledged to “go through our books . . . to eliminate waste and inefficiency” in the full budget that will come out this spring. But he said his administration already has identified “$2 trillion in deficit reductions that will help us cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term.” Obama yesterday described the sum as “savings,” but administration officials said about half the money comes in the form of tax increases, leading to today’s change in terminology. A large chunk of the rest comes from measuring Obama’s plans against an unrealistic scenario in which the Iraq war costs $170 billion a year indefinitely.

Now you see why he was so insistent on honestly accounting for the cost of the Iraq War.  You can’t get credit for cutting spending if you’re hiding the spending to begin with.

Republicans and some budget analysts noted that this highly touted goal is not particularly ambitious: This year’s budget deficit is bloated by spending on the stimulus package and various financial-sector bailouts, expenses unlikely to be repeated in future years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently predicted that the deficit could be halved by 2013 merely by winding down the war in Iraq and allowing some of the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration to expire in 2011, as Obama has proposed. That alone would cut the deficit to $715 billion, according to the CBO.

“It’s easy to cut the deficit in half after you’ve quadrupled it,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “The end of the recession, the drawdown of Iraq spending and the end of temporary stimulus spending will by itself cut the deficit in half.”

The tax increases are a combination of letting the tax cuts expire and imposing a cap-and-trade carbon system. So, in the end, Obama is increasing both taxes and spending.  McArdle hits at the heart of the deception:

Analysts have long recognized the tendency of companies who are forced to report bad news to make the news worse than they have to, piling every single thing that might goi wrong into one hell of a charge-off.  The logic of this is simple:  if your stock is going to take a hit, make it one gigantic hit, so that you can later “surprise” everyone when aliens from the Planet Zork do not actually land, vaporize 2/3rds of your customers, and keep the rest too busy dodging laser rays to focus on purchasing your product.

Looking through Obama’s budget, I am reminded of those massive one-time-write-off festivals.  Only the Obama administration has gone one better:  he has actually gotten everyone to congratulate him for his breathtaking honesty. 

...

Obama needs those big bath numbers on the Iraq side, because it seems unlikely that a lot of the things he’s counting on to bailout his budget are going to materialize.  Health care savings are often promised by American politicians, but so far never delivered.  The cap and trade revenues which are supposed to deliver $625 billion over the next 10 years are going to be politically controversial, and also, highly dependent on energy demand--if there are too many permits, they won’t yield much revenue.

Even Sullivan is unimpressed with this budget.  Hopefully, the Republican can pull their heads out of their asses enough to get some actual reductions in spending, instead of pretend reductions.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/26/09 at 07:55 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Among The Wingnuts II

You cannot make this stuff up:

And people wonder why I don’t want to live in “Hannity’s America.”

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/26/09 at 05:52 PM in Right Wing Assholes  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Among The Wingnuts

Oh for Christ’s sake:

Can I get our movement back before these loons destroy it completely? Please???

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/26/09 at 05:44 PM in Right Wing Assholes  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Jindalmania!

It’s the love that dare not speak its name:

Curtis Sliwa: Now, using a little bit of that street terminology, are you giving him any Slum love, Michael?
Michael Steele: (laughter)
Curtis Sliwa: Because he is—when guys look at him and young women look at him—they say oh, that’s the slumdog millionaire, governor. So, give me some slum love.
Michael Steele: I love it. (inaudible)...some slum love out to my buddy, gov. Bobby Jindal is doing a friggin’ awesome job in his state. He’s really turned around on some core principles—like hey, government ought not be corrupt. The good stuff...the easy stuff.

But isn’t part of the Republicans’ problem is that they’ve been focusing on “Easy” arguments? And you thought Palinmania was bad...at least Steele didn’t say Jindal sent out little starbursts.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/26/09 at 05:36 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Budget Busters

If conservatives want something to complain about in Obama’s budget, this should give them cause.

The new budget includes nearly $534 billion for the Defense Department in 2010, up 4 percent from 2009. The administration is requesting $75.5 billion for the rest of 2009 to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $130 billion for 2010.

Under the 2010 budget, the Army and Marine Corps increase in size, and military personnel get a 2.9 percent pay increase. Federal civilian employees receive increases of up to 2 percent.

“In keeping with my commitment to make our government more open and transparent, this budget is an honest accounting of where we are and where we intend to go,” Obama said at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House before the budget was officially released. He said previous budgets have “not told the whole truth” about spending and that “large sums have been left off the books,” including war costs that have been funded by separate emergency supplemental appropriations.

“And that kind of dishonest accounting is not how you run your family budgets at home; it’s not how your government should run its budgets either,” Obama said.

He pledged to “go through our books . . . to eliminate waste and inefficiency” in the full budget that will come out this spring. But he said his administration already has identified “$2 trillion in deficit reductions that will help us cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term.” Obama yesterday described the sum as “savings,” but administration officials said about half the money comes in the form of tax increases, leading to today’s change in terminology. A large chunk of the rest comes from measuring Obama’s plans against an unrealistic scenario in which the Iraq war costs $170 billion a year indefinitely.

I’m all for raising our troops’ pay. But here again he seems to want to have it both ways-saying he’s for accountability, yet continuing the spending increases of the Bush era that helped get us into this mess into the first place. I suppose the consolation prize is that at least he says he wants to be honest about how much we’re spending Over There.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 02/26/09 at 05:30 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

The Price Of Iraq

Obama said the wasn’t going to conceal the cost of the Iraq War anymore.  He wasn’t joking:

The Pentagon will lift its longtime ban on media coverage of the flag-draped coffins of war victims arriving at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, according to a senior U.S. defense official with direct knowledge of the decision.

The coverage must be approved by the victims’ families, however.

Contrary to liberal screeching, this policy wasn’t instituted by Bush 43, but by his father, who had a distaste for having these images on television.  As a former aviator who had seen men die, he understood the issue a lot better than I ever will.

I’m of two minds about this issue and the new policy falls right between them.  I don’t like the idea of concealing the human cost of our wars; but I hate the idea of politicizing the fallen.  Fundamentally, I tend to err on the side of freedom.  Let the press take its pictures and let the public decide, with the remote controls, whether they will tolerate it.  As long as the families of the soldiers are allowed to make the decision, I’m OK with policy for now.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/26/09 at 12:37 PM in War on Terror/Axis of Evil  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Worst. Mortgage. Idea. Ever.

Heritage lets fly on the dumbest idea yet to emerge from the Democrat majority—mortgage cramdowns:

Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages would:

Raise mortgage costs. Cramdowns would add additional risk that mortgages will not be repaid as the contract requires. Lenders must charge for that added risk, and experts estimate that the additional costs would raise mortgage rates by as much as two full percentage points or substantially increase required down payments.

These added costs would fall hardest on moderate-income and first-time homebuyers, who have a higher risk of defaulting on a mortgage. This will price many families out of the housing market.

Further undermine the value of mortgage-backed securities. Banks and other investors are already facing heavy losses because mortgage-backed securities have lost much of their value because of uncertainties about whether the mortgages will be paid. The language in H.R. 1106 increases this uncertainty. Investors will be at risk of both foreclosure and cramdowns that reduce the earnings of these securities. Many cramdown mortgages will later go into foreclosure. Since investors have no idea what this new provision will do to the value of their securities, prices will drop further.

Those would be the mortgage-backed securities that are at the heart of the meltdown.

Fail to help many homeowners. Only one-third of all Chapter 13 filers complete the process successfully and get the fresh start that bankruptcy promises. The other two-thirds “pay court fees, pay attorney’s fees, pay fees to the bankruptcy trustee, invest time and money to restructure their financial affairs, and then wind up with nothing more than temporary relief. It is therefore not surprising that a substantial number of Chapter 13 filers—nearly one-third—go on to file for bankruptcy again.”

There’s, of course, more to the stupid bill. Here’s my favorite:

Trying to fix the Hope for Homeowners program. Last summer, Congress created Hope for Homeowners, an FHA-based program that it originally claimed would help up to 2 million homeowners. To date, according to the FHA, it has actually helped about 500. The legislation makes a number of changes that will raise the cost of it by $2.3 billion but is unlikely to otherwise improve it. This would throw good money after bad.

In sum.

Mortgage cramdowns would further destabilize an already damaged housing market while increasing mortgage costs for future borrowers. This is the essence of bad policy at the wrong time, and it should be avoided at all costs. Adding a couple of good provisions to a huge policy mistake does not make it better. Changing the bankruptcy code in this manner is extremely misguided.

The Democrats—some of them, at least, most be cognizant of this.  But cramdowns sound good.

So, GOP, where are you guys?  Why are you not on TV talking about cramdowns?  Why are you not having a press conference on Capitol Hill saying that, while you can support much of the package, the cramdown provision is a no-go?  Oh, I’m sorry.  You’re too busy bitching about volcano monitoring, fruit fly and tattoo removal earmarks.  Well, at least you’ll save a few million bucks while the housing market goes to hell again.

My mistake.  I thought the purpose of the GOP was to act as a conservative counterweight to the Democrats. I didn’t realize the purpose was to make snarky remarks on the evening news.  Carry on fiddling while Rome burns.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/26/09 at 08:50 AM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink
Page 1 of 12 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »