pork

Stamford CT Mayor Dan Malloy fancies himself a "New Democrat" who is fiscally  responsible and concerned with economic growth.

Of course, when Fox News's Steve Doocy tracked him down, Mayor Malloy's major initiative was to use the federal stimulus money to cover the city in new astroturf fields. 

Yeah, that was what is was going to take to get ourselves out of the depression. Astroturf.

$15 million worth.

So where does Mayor Malloy spend the city's own money?

Not on police protection!

23 officers in Stamford laid off

Stamford (WTNH) - Negotiations between the city of Stamford and the Stamford Police Association (SPA) broke down tonight and that means 23 police officers will be off the beat.

What's even more ironic about this is Malloy's own son is a recidivist criminal.

The old saying applies here. Don;t watch what Democrats say;  watch what they do.

Anyway, with incumbent Republican Jodi Rell @ 72% job approval Malloy might as well go to the artifical "field of dreams" as for his chances to unseat the Governor.

I happen to focus a lot of my time these days on technology and rarely get involved in politics, so when I came across this article about Rep. John Murtha's airport that he get money for which nobody uses (and which concidentially enough is also named after him)  I got physically ill...and angry.

There is something just very undemocratic about the idea of elected officials getting things named after them that they helped get the funding for.  It sounds like somehting you would read about in a corrupt central African dictatorship.

How many other examples of this are there like this?  We can start with Bob Byrd, Ted Stevens.I see the whole “naming things after elected officials” as putting them in a higher league above everyday citizens and only seeking to make permanent that element of big government (i.e. to eliminate the airport would  be disrespectful for the person it was named after, therefore, we cannot get rid of it). 

After all, the late-Sen. Daniel Moynihan once remarked on Meet the Press that the reason he was able to restore funding for the International Trade Center when it was on the chopping block was that he decided to get it named after Ronald Reagan.While we’ve been told American’s like their earmarks and not everyone elses’,I wonder what kind of reaction there would be if a bill was introduced that simply said “elected officials cannot accept or vote for government funded projects (especially they helped secure funding for) named after them while they are in office.”In some respects, such a measure also has roots to the founding documents of the Republic, when you consider that,

• In Federalist 84, attributed to Hamilton, he ranked the banishment of nobility titles at the top, he even used all capital letters for emphases when he wrote, “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains” 
• And the Constitution very clearly states (in Article I, Section 9) a prohibition against states and the federal government from granting titles, “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State”

(Somehow Ted Kennedy never got that message when PM Gordon Brown announced on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II that he would receive an honorary knighthood.In some respects it is also why we have “dark period” period for Congressman who retire and become lobbyists, to reduce undue influence.I think people would really rally around such a law. Such a small measure might even help stem the tide of corruption of money in government.

What do you think?

(CHICAGO) -- Just when we thought we had seen our share of fantastic and colorful ideas for 2009, Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and Ted Poe (R-TX) are hoping you won't mind just one more to add to the list.

Titled the SAFE Act ("Security and Financial Empowerment"), H.R. 739 intends to promote victimhood and allegations of domestic violence by granting lifetime job security to anyone who makes a claim of Domestic Violence, creating powerful incentives for highly conflicted spouses and intimate partners to file false abuse charges, which would trivialize real problems associated with domestic violence, while marginalizing actual victims of physical abuse that need and deserve the attention of law enforcement and the courts.

H.R. 739 seeks to prohibit employers from refusing a job to any person who claims to have suffered from domestic violence or "substantial emotional distress or psychological harm" – words that can be interpreted to mean just about anything.

And, as hard as it is to believe, no actual evidence of domestic violence is required to receive these benefits. The "victim" only has to sign a sworn statement or get a restraining order, which are notoriously easy to get because of the low standards of proof and weak definitions of domestic violence that are currently used to destroy intact families.

Furthermore, judges are reluctant to deny applications for fear of being blamed if something bad happened following the denial. A family or household member of the Domestic Violence "victim" is also entitled to the same benefits.

H.R. 739 also allows any person who "is, has been, or may be the subject of abuse" to qualify for lifetime health insurance coverage.

The "victim" would also be entitled to 30 days of emergency leave as well as unemployment compensation. The bill amounts to a lifetime guarantee of job security and availability of employer-subsidized health insurance for any person who claims to be a victim of domestic violence or psychological abuse, or for any family member. And the person who allegedly inflicted the abuse has no right to refute or appeal the charges.

Some readers might wonder if we're exaggerating when we say all this, but we're not – see RADAR's analysis of the bill here: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARanalysis-HR739-SAFE-Act.pdf

Suffice it to say, this bill is prime example how the feminist mantra of victimhood has spun out of control, and how even Republican lawmakers are being co-opted by them.

Over 1 million restraining orders are issued each year in which partner violence is not even alleged. This so-called "SAFE" Act is the last thing we need. Take action today!

 Our last two alerts targeted VAWA funding in the stimulus bill. Although we were not fully successful in removing it, we did succeed in eliminating $75 million from the final package – $325 million instead of $400 million. Thank you for helping expose how VAWA has spiraled out of control because of the lack of an honest debate!

Act Now!

Rep. Ted Poe

's sponsorship of this bill is clearly out of step with his party's stand on economic policy. Please contact his office and ask him to withdraw support for H.R. 739.

As always please remember to be polite.

Rep. Ted Poe (R) Texas, 2nd Congressional District Phone: 202-225-6565 Fax: 202-225-5547 Webform: http://poe.house.gov/contact/contactform.htm

If you or someone you know would be interested in working to stem the growing tide of feminist-dominated agendas that are designed to destroy intact families and parent-child bonds, please write to us at: info@illinoisparentsandchildren.org.

If you support our efforts, please be sure to forward this message to others within your personal and professional networks.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Michael Burns

President/Co-founder

Illinois Alliance for Parents and Children

Chicago, Illinois

"Building a More Empathic Human Context"

Rasmussen Reports, one of the two most accurate polling firms in predicting the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Race, has come out with a series of new polling numbers the last couple of days that should come as welcome news for the Republican Party. It all has to do with one thing: the opposition to Barack Obama’s so-called “stimulus” package that has been described as a “piñata” and a “rotting corpse”.

In other words, the American people, who were once for the Obama stimulus plan, are now suddenly against it. For the first time, the support for the Obama plan has fallen below the number of those who oppose it (37% support it versus 43% opposing it). Why? There are 50% of Americans who believe that the plan will make the economy worse.

The end result is that this is becoming a huge shot in the arm for the Republicans who are in opposition to the Obama stimulus plan. For the first time since early December of last year, the Generic Congressional Ballot shows the Republicans within four points of the Democrats (42% to 38%) and more than half of all Americans (54%) think Congress is doing a “poor” job while only 12% think Congress is doing an “excellent” or “good” job (that’s beginning to rival Rod Blagojevich territory when Blago had a 7% approval rating back in December). 

If the Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy “Margaret Hamilton” Pelosi want to become a minority party again by 2010 and 2012, all they need to do is to keep doing what they are currently doing. 

In the House vote, every Republican and 11 Democrats voted against the plan, but it was not enough to stop the plan from passing the House. In the Senate, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) has tried to reassemble the “Gang of 14” to get any stimulus plan passed. It’s more a sign of desperation instead of bipartisanship. 

Before our eyes, the plan’s details, namely the pork-barrel projects, are being decried. There was money for contraception which has now been removed. There is money for a discus golf course in Austin, Texas. There is money for Shreveport, Louisiana to purchase eight Harley-Davidson motorcycles for the police department. There is money for a dog park in Chula Vista, California. And, of all places, Las Vegas is asking for $2 million for more neon signs. 

As the days go by, the American people are waking up to what is really going on in Washington and it flies in the face of the “change” that President Obama’s campaign was all about. Instead, Obama should have just cut out the Barbara Streisand (B.S.) and just campaigned on “Politics as usual”. 

Could it be that the truth about the porkulus bill is actually getting out?  Rasmussen reports that public support for the "economic stimulus bill" a.k.a. the Generational Theft Act of 2009 is slipping.  Of course support falls predictably along partisan lines, but the mushy middle is starting to oppose it as well. Here is the key quote:

However, support among unaffiliated voters has fallen. A week ago, unaffiliateds were evenly divided on the plan, with 37% in favor and 36% opposed. Now, 50% of unaffiliated voters oppose the plan while only 27% favor it.

It seems that people were initially supportive of the plan because they were gripped with fear, demanding that government "do something", and because they thought the plan would actually be, you know, fiscal stimulus.  Now that the truth is emerging that the plan is really nothing more than Democratic Party giveaways, people aren't liking it so much.

Furthermore, people are starting to warm up to the idea of tax-cuts-as-stimulus.  To wit:

While support for the plan has slipped, support for a recovery plan that includes only tax cuts - like the one proposed by House Republicans - has grown during the past week. Forty-three percent (43%) of voters support that approach while 39% are opposed. Though the topline numbers are virtually the same as support for the president’s plan, the partisan demographics are distinctly different. Republicans solidly support a tax-cutting recovery plan while Democrats are solidly opposed. Forty-eight percent (48%) of unaffiliated voters like the idea while 33% do not.

And:

Voters continue to soundly reject a recovery plan that includes only new government spending without any tax cuts. Just 15% support such a plan while 70% are opposed.

My faith in the people is slowly being renewed. 

And, this is coming on top of a poll from last week showing that people are nervous about the avalanche of spending that is sure to come.

Senate Republicans have to stand strong against this monstrosity.  There is nothing politically to be gained by compromising and going along with it.  Stick to your guns and force a vote on the Republican tax cut stimulus proposal.

Conversations like this are important to have, because they can help point the way to areas of bi-partisan agreement and cooperation.  Transparency is not a Left/Right issue; the coalition against transparency consists of 536 elected politicians in Washington, DC, and the favor-seekers that orbit them.   Breaking that chokepoint will require Left/Right collaboration.

The Sunlight Foundation's Ellen Miller responds to my post yesterday regarding the routine Congressional bribery that doesn't seem to attract the attention that Gov. Blagojevich's attempted bribery received.  She doesn't think "the horse trading Congress conducts" is "quite the same kettle of fish" as the personal profit of the Blagojevich, Duke Cunningham or Abscam scandals, but says transparency would help deal with both problems...

This is where more transparency is key to combating corruption. Openness is not only the cure for the sickness; it’s a prophylactic that åcould prevent the illness in the first place.

Take Jon’s hobbyhorse  –  earmarks. The practice of earmarks might not be a problem…or the problem just might be the lack of transparency. Suspicions of quid pro quos is all too strong where the process is opaque and there is huge potential for corruption. If the decisions were made in the light of day, I suspect there would be far less abuse.

I think we're mostly in agreement.  Congressional horse-trading - "I'll vote for your pelf if you'll vote for mine" - isn't quite the same as trading votes for personal gain.  However, I don't think it's necessarily a categorical difference, either.  Earmarks often do benefit the politician personally, whether as a de facto campaign contribution or by giving more power and prestige to the politician. That's less overtly outrageous, but still a serious ethical problem.

While negotiation has a place, the implicit extortion that goes on in omnibus bills or in the decisions about what makes out of committee in the first place lead to very sub-optimal decisions.  It's hard to see how that kind of bartering results in good collective decision-making.

This is not representative democracy, it is legislative collusion.

As Ellen Miller wrote, more transparency could help resolve these problems.  Ideally, transparency would improve the decision-making processes.

For instance, each Senator/Representative should be required to vote (even just a simple box-check) on each individual earmark/line item, providing (a) specific legislative approval for each project, and (b) legislator accountability for each vote.  If legislators have to evaluate and make a yes/no decision on each project, you can expect much better oversight of earmarks.  You could also expect many fewer earmarks, as we discover that Iowa rainforests don't turn out to be compelling national projects with overwhelming legislative support.

Procedural transparency and line item budgeting would improve the decision-making process.  Without it, we'll continue to have omnibus bills that act as a trojan horse for corruption and deal-making.

This is the sort of thing we could work together to achieve.  The result would benefit everybody...except, perhaps, those 536 politicians and the favor-seekers surrounding them.

Gov. Blagojevich was caught offering to trade a decision for a reward, personal or political.  This is widely understood to be disgraceful and illegal.

But is it really so unusual?  How does what Gov. Blagojevich did differ from the (bipartisan) extortion that is considered routine in Congress?  Blagojevich sought $1 million; Congressional bribes cost billions.

House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers' pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year. ... To get them off the fence and on the bill, Democrats have a key weapon at their disposal: cold, hard cash.  The bill contains billions...

Perhaps one might argue that Blagojevich sought personal benefit when he demanded campaign contributions in exchange for his vote.  Perhaps.  But earmarks are little more than incumbent slush funds - a de facto campaign contribution, paid for by US taxpayers.  The effect is the same. (we are leaving aside, for the moment, the also-vexing issue of vote-trading)

The legislative bribery works two ways.

1. Pork buys votes for the basic legislation (as described above), or...
2. Legislation is leverage to get votes for otherwise unacceptable pork.  After all, you can't vote against funding a spinach farm without voting against funding the troops; and you can't vote to fund the troops without voting for a few billion dollars worth of pork.  Whatever the legislative rationale for these omnibus bills, they amount to extortion.

Yes, Gov. Blagojevich is a disgrace.  But Gov. Blagojevich merely did what our US Congress does as a matter of routine.

Tennessee Democrat Bob Clement served in Congress from 1988 to 2003. Historians will decide what legacy he achieved during that time, but here’s a new video to help them.

It is the first episode in “Porkbusters On Patrol,” the kind of project made for pork-hating Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin. It is a networked journalism series announced by Eyeblast.tv and the bipartisan Porkbusters coalition this summer. Subscribe to our Porkbusters channel for future episodes.

We’re still looking for Porkbusters across the country to produce video reports. Search the 2008 “Pig Book” of Citizens Against Government Waste for ideas from your area, and send your e-mail pitches to me: dglover-at-eyeblast-dot-tv.

If you want to join our army of citizen reporters but don’t have a camera, you can get one free in exchange for your work. Just request a Flip video camera when you e-mail your story ideas.
 

Podcast Show Notes

Obama v. 83% of the American public on immigrants learning English.  (Hat Tip: The Campaign Spot.)Conduct becoming a Senator: Obama puts partisanship aside and sponsors a resolution honoring Jesse Helms. (Hat Tip: Instapundit.)

Obama's unbelievable explanation for letting his daughters go on Access Hollywood.

Should Phil Gramm stay or go?

A look at pork in the Commerce, Science, and Justice bill.

Hypocrisy at a global scale. (Hat Tip: Instapundit.)

Plus will Democrats give a hearing to Kucinich's loony impeachment resolution?

12 years later: The Ramsey family finally cleared.

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

IMPORTANT: Please take our listener survey