Paul Driessen, RightSideNews.com

 

Irresponsible federal spending, energy and climate change policies will bankrupt America

 

America is diving into a Marianas Trench of red ink. There is barely a digit of black anywhere on the balance sheet, and spendthrift lawmakers are closing off numerous sources of positive revenue.

 

On the spending side of the ledger, the White House and Congress enacted a $700-billion financial bailout, followed by an earmark-laden $787-billion "stimulus" law and plans to ladle out $1.6 billion in federal government bonuses in 2009. Then came a $3.5 trillion "red sea" FY 2010 budget, and the prospect of $9.3 trillion in total indebtedness over the coming decade.

 

A March 31 Bloomberg study found that the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, FDIC and HUD have thus far obligated generations of Americans to $12.8 TRILLION in debt. That's 90% of our nation's entire 2008 Gross Domestic Product!

 

It's more accrued debt than 43 previous administrations combined, and it doesn't include the cost of servicing this debt - or the US share of the $1.1 trillion "global stimulus" devised by the Group of 20, to be administered by professional spenders at the International Monetary Fund.

 

Taxes will soar, to pay off these debts - and cover new levies on everything we do. Read article.

 

Barry Rubin, Gloria-Center.org

 

There’s no question that the Obama administration is less warm toward Israel than those of Clinton, Reagan, or George W. Bush’s first six years. But is it worse than the late George W. or all the Bush I and Jimmy Carter administrations? We’re about to find out.

 

Often, the Obama administration is blamed or credited with breaking new ground when it’s simply repeating predecessors’ positions. A U.S. government favoring a two-state solution (it’s a pity the Palestinians don’t also do so), opposing settlements, or proclaiming it will solve the conflict real fast isn’t new. The widespread claim that the administration threatened Israel’s nuclear arsenal is also wrong, based on a general statement that all countries should join the Non-Proliferation Treaty which was actually aimed at justifying a current U.S. nuclear deal with India.

 

 Posturing and pretending is a far bigger factor than real pressure against Israel. U.S. officials supposedly said progress on Iranian nuclear weapons depends on progress in the peace process. This is simply a way to leverage minimal Israeli cooperation on the peace process. After all, will the administration try harder or less hard on Iran depending on whether the peace process advances? Obviously not. And neither Israel nor the Palestinians will give more concessions to each other if Iran’s nuclear program slows down. Read article.

 

Burt Prelutsky, Townhall.com

 

Before anyone bothers sending an e-mail reminding me that three Republican senators voted with the Democrats on the stimulus bill, I haven’t forgotten. But, let’s face it -- the two ladies from Maine are merely the east coast version of Boxer and Feinstein. As for Arlen Specter, I suspect that along the way, he’ll switch to the Extraterrestial Party if, as he inches closer to being a hundred years old, he decides that’s his best chance of winning an election.

 

I know that people such as Sen. Specter and Sen. Jeffords would have us believe that they switched parties because of their principles, but I would prefer it if they only said such silly things in the hope of making me laugh. That’s because I love to laugh, but I hate being taken for a fool. I mean, really, Jim Jeffords wakes up one day when he’s 67 years old and Specter opens his eyes at the age of 79 and suddenly decide that the GOP isn’t as conservative as they’d like, so the solution is to link left arms with the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank?

 

Something else that makes me wonder if, in a nicer, kinder world, liberals wouldn’t be housed in a warm place where they’d be kept safely away from sharp objects and voting booths, is their notion of what constitutes torture. In my world, cutting off Daniel Pearl’s head, throwing Anne Frank in an oven or having to listen to Chris Matthews, is torture. But by no means is it playing loud music, keeping people awake, making them share space with a caterpillar or even dousing them with water, in order to get them to cough up information that might prevent another 9/11 or keep American soldiers from being ambushed. Read article.

 

Morris & McGann, Vote.com

 

Gen. Colin Powell is wrong to say that the Republican Party must move to the center: Now is not the time to try for triangulation.

 

This is a time for the party to stand firm on its principles until this nation again comes around to the GOP's way of thinking. This process will be driven by the consequences of President Obama's program.

 

The challenge brought by Obama is no longer just theoretical: He means to pass the ultimate leftist agenda and has the votes to do so.

 

As a result, our nation will be unrecognizable well before the 2010 elections. Business will march to a beat drummed in Washington. The top producers will be hounded by confiscatory taxation. A majority will pay nothing or receive government welfare. Our health-care system will be destroyed. Illegal immigrants will be well on their way to citizenship.

 

Obama's brave new world will be the subject of the 2010 elections. We believe that his Congress will be swept from power as a result. Read article.

 

Michael Barone, Rasmussen Reports.com

 

Many years ago, political scientists came up with a theory that elites lead public opinion. And on some issues, they clearly do. But on some issues, they don't. Two examples of the latter phenomenon are conspicuous at a time when Barack Obama enjoys the approval of more than 60 percent of Americans and Democrats have won thumping majorities in two elections in a row. One is global warming. The other is gun control.

 

On both issues, the elites of academe, the media and big business have been solidly on one side for years. But on both, the American public has been moving in the other direction.

 

For liberal elites, belief in gun control and global warming has taken on the character of religious faith. We have sinned (by hoarding guns or driving SUVs); we must atone (by turning in our guns or recycling); we must repent (by supporting gun control or cap and trade schemes). You may notice that the "we" in question is usually the great mass of ordinary American citizens. Read article.

 

Terry Paulson, Townhall.com

 

President Barack Obama campaigned on change. Since his Inauguration, with the help of impressive Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress, he's gone full speed ahead in delivering on that promise!

 

He's committed trillions of dollars in spending, dramatically worked to expand the reach of the federal government in energy, healthcare and student loans, and launched expanded rescue plans for institutions "too big to fail." He's outlined timelines for withdrawal from Iraq and adjusted strategy in Afghanistan.

 

For a new president, he’s already planted numerous seeds in America's political ground. History will show whether those seeds come up weeds or bear fruit. Unfortunately, with a media engaged in a continuing love fest, who’s even challenging the administration's talking points?

 

Could it be that the drop of popularity in newspapers and media coverage comes from a loss of trust in their balanced reporting? Read article.

 

Amity Shlaes, Bloomberg.com

 

So Michele Bachmann’s version of history is “from another planet.” Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana, is “chronically stupid.” And Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking Republican in the House, is “busy lying constantly.”

 

That at least is according to posts on three left-leaning blogs.

 

Writers who are not pro-Barack Obama are suffering character assassination as well. George Will of the Washington Post, the nation’s senior conservative columnist, has been so assaulted by bloggers that his editor, Fred Hiatt, recently wrote, “I would think folks would be eager to engage in the debate, given how sure they are of their case, rather than trying to shut him down.”

 

The disconcerting thing isn’t that the bloggers or their guests did this slamming. We’re used to such vitriol in campaign time. What is surprising is that the attacks are continuing after an election.

 

In the past, politicians and policy thinkers tended to be magnanimous in victory. They and their friends focused, post- victory, on policy and strategy -- not on trashing individuals. Read article.

 

Megan McArdle, The Atlantic.com

 

This weekend, I was on a panel where the other economics journalist and I spent a great deal of time belaboring the obvious: Obama's health care plans are very, very expensive, and they mean higher taxes for everyone, not just that elusive klatch of greedy fools who are not in the 95% of working families now allegedly slated for stable or lower taxes. Otherwise, how could Obama hope to pay for it?

 

I think we found out today: magic!

 

Obama got the SEIU and various corporate entities involved with health care provision in a room and got them to promise to slash 150 basis points from the annual rate of increase in health care spending. How will we achieve this? Whitehouse.gov has a fact sheet, which outlines the concrete proposals that came out of this meeting: Read article.

 

Richard Baehr, American Thinker.com

 

Barack Obama signaled to the ECNPC (the ever compliant national press corps) last week, that they should make a big deal of his proposed $17 billion in spending cuts for the 2010 fiscal year, many of which (40%) were originally proposed by George Bush a year ago and not accepted by the Democratic controlled Congress at that time.

 

Today comes word that the new estimate for the deficit for 2009 is about $100 billion higher than thought just a month ago (and that incremental deficit, more than 5 times the size of Obama's proposed cuts, will be run up just in the remaining five months of the fiscal year).

 

The 2010 deficit number has also been revised -- also likely higher by nearly $100 billion. Expect more increments to this number as the year goes on.

 

One thing we can count on is that every estimate from the Administration proves to be optimistic and self serving (e.g. the $7 trillion ten year accumulated deficit, that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated at $9.3 trillion, or a third higher than the Obama budget team estimate). The new estimates are for a deficit of over $1.8 trillion for fiscal 2009, and what the New York Times will likely call a "greatly reduced" deficit of just under $1.3 trillion next year. Read article.

 

Jacob Sullum, Patriot Post.us

 

The last time the federal government bailed out Chrysler, the Carter administration reached a deal with the carmaker in August 1979, but Congress did not approve the legislation implementing it until December. This time around, the Bush administration dispensed with the legal niceties, loaning billions of taxpayer dollars to Chrysler (and General Motors) without statutory authority.

 

Although he ran on a promise to respect the legislative branch's constitutional role, Barack Obama applauded the Bush administration's illegal loans, and since taking office he has not sought congressional approval for a bailout that is still operating outside the law. President Obama's high-handed engineering of the pending merger between Chrysler and Fiat, a deal that flouts well-established bankruptcy principles, confirms he is no more committed to the rule of law in this area than his predecessor.

 

The Obama administration continues to subsidize Chrysler and G.M. (and even the companies that sell them parts) with money that Congress allocated to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). As the name suggests, the Treasury Department was supposed to use that money to buy troubled assets from financial institutions, the aim being "to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system." There is not a word in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the law that created TARP, about automobile manufacturers. Read article.

 

Devlin Barrett, Associated Press

 

The Justice Department warned corporate America on Monday that the government will aggressively investigate big firms that improperly dominate markets.

 

Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney said the department is abandoning legal guidelines put in place by the Bush administration in September 2008. Critics complained the earlier set of instructions made it difficult to pursue antitrust cases against big firms.

 

Varney laid out the new policy in a speech to the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. She said some of the problems in the current economy were due to the lack of enforcement in the previous 10 years -- a clear jab at the Bush administration, which, she said, raised too many hurdles to antitrust investigations. Read article.

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: