Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Hardly a day goes by without some ‘rights group’ being featured in the MSM. There are groups that could be defined as ‘responsibility groups’ but they receive little attention from those individuals that regard themselves as journalists or organizations that claim to present news and information based on standards of journalism.

Last week one report opened by describing Human Rights Watch as a ‘leading human rights group.’ Could the author be referring to the executive director’s salary? Since 1993 a lawyer named Kenneth Roth has been the executive director of HRW with an annual salary of $350,000. That’s nearly 18% of HRW’s management and general expenses for the year. And they may have 275 employees. And let’s not forget their fundraising expenses of $8,641,358 for 2008 (according to Wiki).

The non-governmental organization claims they do not accept government money directly. But they receive funds from other groups who may. And they supported ACORN at least in 2000 and/or 2001 to the tune of a half-million dollars.

So what’s this all about? The report out last week has Human Rights Watch whining about the rights of illegals. And for all their whining the problem they perceive could be solved if no one entered the United States illegally. They bad mouth countries all over the world for claimed wrongdoing. It is interesting that they say nothing about Mexico’s ‘responsibility’ to correct their own problems and eliminate the attraction to cross the border illegally into another country.

Here’s the report. Have a good laugh. HRW is a scam. The last three paragraphs assume the reader is extremely gullible. Correction, the entire report assumes you are gullible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

A leading human rights group is calling on the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration to include protections for immigrants’ rights in their proposals for immigration reform.

New York-based Human Rights Watch released a report Friday saying more needs to be done to protect undocumented immigrants in the workplace and in court.

The group says at work such people are vulnerable to exploitation - including sexual abuse and poor working conditions - and should be allowed to find other jobs in such cases.

It also recommends giving undocumented immigrants a path to legalization that includes government protection, so they feel safe to report crimes.

Earlier this month, President Obama called for bipartisan support for immigration reform. He described overhauling the system as a “moral imperative.” Congress is sharply divided over the issue, with Republicans generally opposing what they call amnesty programs.

The Human Rights Watch report also urges the government to allow immigration judges to consider the ties legal permanent residents have in the United States before deporting them for minor crimes. The group says thousands of legal residents are deported each year without having their family connections or past military service considered.

Human Rights Watch also calls on the government to limit immigrant detentions. The group says those who have committed nonviolent crimes should be exempt from detention.

For President Obama the honeymoon has long since past. The first 100 days analysis of each new American president is more common these days since ‘honeymoon’ characterizations may have faded with frequent two term administrations like Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43. The question in either case was how long will it take for the promises of a campaign to be discarded after election.

Hope and change was as pathetic a slogan as one might hear from a snake oil salesman. But the distinction between the ambitions of a community organizer and a seller of dubious liniments can no longer be defended.

With the midterm elections approaching Democrats prove the pundit forecast predicting the probability of the GOP retaking the congressional majority. Rather than a carnival atmosphere liberals appear as cannibals feeding on their own to redirect blame for their failure to govern properly.

Democrats are having a jolly good time beating up the White House.

You can see why. President Obama has caused the party to squander a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reclaim permanent majority status.

An example of how bad things are for Dems in the report above has this little tidbit:

Out in Iowa, the Democratic Governors’ Association spent money on mailers trashing Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad for being too much like Obama on health care.

Who’s selling the snake oil now? But it gets better.

WASHINGTON — Republicans are outraising Democrats in nearly a dozen open Senate races, increasing their hopes of significantly narrowing the Democrats’ majority in November.

Money as the root of all evil is not a phrase lost on politics. The idea that he who has the most money wins may be a subject for debate given the strength of the tea party and new conservative candidates. But outdoing your opponents on fundraising suggests more people support you than your opponent.

What else does the money game offer POLS?

WASHINGTON — A Republican lawmaker says documents show more senators and staff members than previously known received sweetheart mortgages from the former Countrywide Financial Corp., based on their perceived ability to help the company.

It wasn’t just Chris Dodd or Kent Conrad who took perks from Countrywide. This is no different than money from lobbyists or other special interest powerbrokers. Then there’s vote selling (bribes) like Cornhusker Cash (Sen Ben Nelson), the Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu) and the following:

GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts voted for the bill after Democrats agreed to drop a provision to raise $19 billion by imposing fees on banks.

It’s not quite that innocent. Collins, Snowe and Brown received perks for their states as the price paid for their vote to pass the bill. How is that different from Dodd or others taking perks from Countrywide in exchange for political favors?

That’s right. Throw the bums out. Repeat as necessary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This video presentation is dated from the end of June 2010. Although DeMint is speaking about a particular piece of legislation he also expresses the continuing need for our US government to abandon an agenda that does not work and runs counter to our founding in addition to the immediate need for economic recovery.

That is why this video is presented. It emphasizes the desire by most Americans to adhere to those principles that have served us well for so long. The notable and well-known examples are to stop spending, stop increasing deficits and the national debt and above all get government out of the way of Americans who are the engine that drives our economic prosperity.

Thank you Senator Jim Demint (R-SC)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is no surprise to anyone. Beyond the problem of national security, border control and ignoring the rule of law and founding principles of our nation illegal immigration is a crushing economic burden. It’s time for a reminder to all the liberals supporting shamnesty. Like the rest of the liberal agenda the notion of shamnesty is dangerous. An excerpt from a new report on the economic risks associated with illegal immigration is presented below followed by a link to the full report. Read it and weep, or join the fight against illegal immigration to save our country.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

Executive Summary

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level.

The full report (click here)

In an apparent throwback to the Cold War, Moscow and Washington are discussing a deal to swap 10 of the suspected deep-cover Russian agents arrested last month in the U.S. for prisoners held in Russia, according to people familiar with the talks.

That’s how a story about recently arrested Russian spies opens at the WSJ. How about there’s no ‘throwback’ at all? The Cold War never ended. Remember Hillary Clinton’s gaffe translating the English word ‘reset’ to Russian and being politely punked by a Russian official? That essentially sums up the current administration’s grip on foreign relations. In other words they don’t have a clue.

Hearings in the US for the Russians arrested for spying have been delayed. The Russians don’t want to comment and those all too familiar unnamed sources close to the story suggest a spy swap is in the works. But not unlike the 70’s the US may swap garden variety prisoners in Russia for those arrested for spying in the US. Does that sound smart to you?

“We’re rolling back the clock,” said Yuri Ryzhov, a former Russian ambassador and prominent academic who heads a commission that has defended scholars accused of treason. “It’s the 1970s now.”

Prisoners that may have been accused by the Russians of treason in Russia would be swapped for likely Russian spies?

As if the entire liberal agenda in Washington, DC wasn’t bad enough now the Obama administration is adding more foreign affairs blunders to their list of achievements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The previous post touched on President Obama’s recent immigration speech. Reviewing the speech once again compels commentary. The first excerpt to be evaluated demonstrates that Mr Obama can present inspirational messages.

I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice: We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.

That IS the speechmaking undoubtedly responsible for many casting a ballot for then candidate Barack Obama. But as Mr Barone pointed out in his writing at the Washington Examiner referenced in the previous post this particular immigration speech was all about election year politics. The very plague that then candidate Obama denounced to get elected.

It gets worse.

I believed that then and I believe it now. And that’s why, even as we’ve tackled the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, even as we’ve wound down the war in Iraq and refocused our efforts in Afghanistan, my administration has refused to ignore some of the fundamental challenges facing this generation.

Sorry Mr President, you have not ‘tackled’ the economic problems. And you and your liberal followers used anti-war rhetoric, campaigning and personal attacks on the very man you now hail as the best choice to lead the military operations in Afghanistan, General Petraeus. In addition you and your crew have refused to acknowledge the success of the surge in Iraq for allowing the winding down in Iraq. Your senate leader Harry Reid went so far as to say the war was lost.

But you are correct on the last point. Your administration has refused to ignore ’some’ of the challenges. Those items you choose to target are for purposes of your liberal agenda. The items you mention in this speech: the economy, healthcare, Wall Street, energy and immigration are all targets of your liberal agenda and your attention to them has nothing to do with ‘confronting the great challenges of our times’.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When the last vestige of the Kennedy political machine lost the liberal lion, Ted Kennedy’s US Senate seat was transferred to rookie politician Scott Brown. Brown’s performance as the junior senator from Taxachusetts may be the only transparency in Washington, DC.

A laughable commentary at Salon might serve as the liberal take on the subject given Brown’s negotiation with the majority party, his campaign finance sources and the status of financial legislation pending in Congress.

Let the mockery begin. Mere moments ago, I was urging Democrats to go on the attack, and make it clear that Republicans simply aren’t serious about governing. But as it stands now, the Dems are folding without a fight. The Republicans might not be serious, but the Democrats are simply incapable.

That excerpt is from a diatribe on so-called Wall Street reform and the author’s frustration about Scott Brown impeding the liberal agenda.

The take from WaPo features some quotes from the junior Senator.

Brown said in a statement Monday that he was “surprised and extremely disappointed” by the proposed assessment. “While I’m still reviewing the bill’s details, these provisions were not in the Senate version of the bill which I previously supported,” he said. “My fear is that these costs would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bank, ATM and credit card fees and put a strain on lending at the worst possible time for our economy. I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.”

Too often POLS of one stripe who successfully seek office in an area dominated by the other stripe become double agents and in the case of Republicans, RINOs. Part of a report from Forbes on this topic makes the point.

Some of the biggest contributors to his campaign committee include political action committees and employees associated with FMR (think Fidelity Investments), Bain Capital, Credit Suisse Group and Barclay’s, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Whether it’s regarding constituents or campaign contributors, Brown has quickly learned in Washington that it’s not smart to bite that hand that feeds you.

As with health care reform, don’t expect the Massachusetts Republican to derail financial regulatory reform. But he’s certainly making life difficult for Democrats.

The writer from Salon must not have considered the oldest ploy in politics. Your contributors are your masters. Brown has no interest in being conservative. He is acting on behalf of Massachusetts’ employers and his largest campaign donors. As Forbes suggests, he will not torpedo liberal Wall Street legislation. He will just play conservative long enough to get what he wants…. re-elected.

If there are any conservatives in Massachusetts they need to find a replacement for Scott Brown next time around.

As for the other members of the Senate who voted against others in their respective political party the five have their stated reasons.

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) voted against the Senate version of a financial regulatory reform bill, saying it did not close potentially dangerous loopholes in the derivatives regulations.

Leave it to Russ Feingold to tie his vote to a plausible explanation that would play well to voters whether liberal or conservative. That may explain why he has been re-elected. Casual voters do not detect the ruse. And of course, liberals only vote for liberals. The following is Senator Feingold’s stated reason for voting against the bill.

“The bill does not eliminate the risk to our economy posed by ‘too big to fail’ financial firms, nor does it restore the proven safeguards established after the Great Depression, which separated Main Street banks from big Wall Street firms and are essential to preventing another economic meltdown. The recent financial crisis triggered the nation’s worst recession since the Great Depression. The bill should have included reforms to prevent another such crisis. Regrettably, it did not.”

Brown voted for the bill because Dems said they would give him what he wanted.

Grassley voted for the bill because his amendments were passed.

Collins voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Snowe voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Feingold and Grassley face re-election this year. Brown, Cantwell and Snowe face re-election in 2012 and Collins in 2014. It is easy to believe Feingold opposed the bill to please conservative voters in the liberal-leaning state of Wisconsin while Grassley supported it to please the liberals in Iowa. Brown supports it with conditions his state gets perks in the bill. Collins and Snowe are well-known RINOs and their support for the bill was expected as well as for the rest of the liberal agenda. Cantwell is a liberal in a liberal state. Who knows if her stated reason is genuine?

If you follow the link below and click on the bill number there are reports available including the minority view (GOP) on the legislation considered. These are statements offering compelling arguments in opposition to the proposed legislation. Something many people probably do not read (but should).

Roll Call Vote for H.R. 4173 (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 )

This blog has frequently published items that include the sentiment of ‘throwing the bums out’. Some of what is discussed in this post gives rise to that rallying cry again. The legislative process serves the legislators and not the voting public. Bills that produce thousands of pages and much lawyer speak as well as the hideous phrase ‘and for other purposes’ suggest most legislation is bad. And it is.

The public needs to push elected officials to change the process. All bills should be limited in scope and effect. This would reduce the time necessary to determine whether or not a bill has merit and eliminate much of the charade that allows politicians to game the system. And the public would not be burdened by results of poor legislation that only serves the POLS and those whose financial support aids in their re-election. That merely allows this flawed arrangement to continue indefinitely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the finance committee and key player in passing Obamacare posted an item in Roll Call defending his work. The November 2010 elections are approaching and apparently Mr Baucus, like Mr Obama is focusing on damage control. If that were not the case and if Obamacare was inspired legislation that is good for the nation he would not have to defend it.  But defend it he does, again.

I have some questions for you Senator Baucus. But you probably will never read them on this tiny and obscure little blog in cyberspace.  And I do not have the time or patients to try to get your attention by other methods.  So let’s just give it a go and see how it works out.

The first question has essentially been asked at the top of this post.  If Obamacare, Demcare, HillaryCare, LiberalCare is so wonderful why do you need to defend it?  Good legislation that can stand on its own merits does not need to be defended.

Question two: Given the CBO estimates, your own actuary reports from HHS and numerous other sources, how can you claim Obamacare will ‘lower skyrocketing costs’ of healthcare? Just the half trillion dollars to be removed from Medicare plunges an iceberg into this titanic.

Question three: Given the power to be bestowed on bureaucrats to decide what constitutes insurance coverage, how doctors will be paid and what treatments are authorized how can you claim the quality of care will be improved?

Your anecdote on Billie Jo Meglen is heartwarming Mr Baucus.  But tell me; if the doughnut hole is $2000 and your fine legislation provided Billie Jo with a $250 ‘rebate’ check how does that really help? $250 is 12 1/2% of $2000.  Put another way, the $2000 she would pay without benefit of the $250 ‘rebate’ is 14.28% higher than with the $250 from the taxpayer. I can get a bigger discount by haggling with the pharmacy or the drug company.

And question four: I know, you said after that a 50% discount would be in place for drugs, etc.  Is that what the $80 billion payoff from Big Pharma was for or will the taxpayer be on the hook for the difference? Unless the drug companies keep handing you billions those discounts will be paid by taxpayers.

Mr Baucus, where is the offset to pay for the 35% discount to employers who provide health insurance?  And by the way, there’s a rumor out there that 60% or better of the current employer based plans will be disallowed once this thing gets going.  What say you, Senator?

And Senator, how is it you can magically make things disappear?  Like annual and lifetime claim limits and pre-existing conditions? If there is no limitation on claims a not-so-unlucky insurance carrier could easily go bust with too many high cost customers. How does Obamacare establish or maintain the basic idea of insurance for pooling risk?

And I really am unsure if I understand your terms when it comes to insurance company disclosure. If what you pay for claims are ‘costs’ how do you ask them to pay 80% of profits on those costs? Isn’t profit what you hopefully have left over after paying costs? BTW, just what is an ‘exorbitant salary’?  Who gets to make that determination?

Your claims and defense of Obamacare seems vague and ripe with generalities.  Like how ‘Americans and small businesses’ (interesting distinction) will receive billions in tax credits without, shall we say, breaking the bank?

‘The new law is fully paid for and won’t add a dime to the national debt.’ That’s a real difficult claim to believe Mr Baucus.  I didn’t believe it the first time I heard it.

Do you really expect American taxpayers to accept these claims? Especially given all the evidence to the contrary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Feed and clothe the poor. Now there’s a noble endeavor. And let’s not forget to give welfare recipients an ATM card. It would be equally enlightening to allow them to use the ATM card at their favorite casino.

ATM cards given to welfare recipients in, go figure, California, are enabled to withdraw money at more than half the state’s casinos. Now ’state officials’ are trying to determine how much ‘taxpayer’ money has been withdrawn from casinos using California’s welfare debit cards.

“We have instructed our vendors to prohibit these cards from being accepted at ATMs located in casinos and card rooms,” Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said Wednesday. “It is reprehensible that anyone would use taxpayer money for anything other than its intended purpose.”

While term-limited Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger has done nothing to change California’s image as the poster child for nanny state failures the state’s prospect of having shamnesty advocate Meg Whitman or Moonbeam Jerry Brown as the next governor almost guarantees the continued path to disaster for one of this nation’s socialist strongholds.

And you have to love McLear’s statement. So, limiting the use of the cards was not on their mind after reaching the hair-brained idea to give welfare recipients an ATM card in the first place? That’s more ‘reprehensible’ than what he suggests in the second sentence. Like you do not have to assume some will ‘game’ the system when you create one.

Individual liberty, individual responsibility and conservative principles are lost on the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Cuomo Accepts Millions From Interests He Assails (NYT)

But as he delivered his announcement, Mr. Cuomo was sitting on millions in campaign cash from the very special interests whose influence he said he wanted to limit.

from Wiki….

Cuomo was born in Queens, New York, the elder son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and the older brother of ABC News journalist Chris Cuomo. Andrew and his ex-wife, Kerry Kennedy, the seventh child of Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Skakel Kennedy, have three daughters. The couple announced their separation in 2003 and have subsequently divorced.

According to the NYT’s fishwrap Cuomo ‘declined repeated requests to be interviewed for this article.’ Gee, why wouldn’t you want to answer the NYT?  Maybe it is because a Cuomo spokesman claims Andrew Cuomo ‘had consistently demonstrated his independence from special interests and others who contribute to his campaign.’

Is there really a need to say this is what is wrong with American politics?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

During the last 12 months or so a local radio station began airing the Allen Hunt Show. The station describes itself as ‘news/talk’ and gives the impression they offer conservative talk shows. A local radio personality has a talk show for about 2 1/2 hours in the morning. That is followed by Rush Limbaugh, then Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Mark Levin during the week.

There is a mixture of syndicated programming on the weekends that now includes the Allen Hunt Show. I never heard of Allen Hunt before this local programming began. One weekend evening as I worked around the house I listened to the show. I was not impressed. Tried to listen again a couple of times but was not interested as I was opposed to many of this man’s opinions.

Now comes a reason to seriously oppose the Allen Hunt Show. His take on illegal immigration includes his statement that he believes in open borders/immigration. This past weekend I listened to the last hour of a financial program that was pre-empted for sports programming for the first two hours. That was followed by the Allen Hunt Show and his topic from the 16th according to the website was aired today on this station.

Allen Hunt believes a man who was brought here illegally by his parents when he was 4 should be allowed to stay. The man is now 19 and finished his first year at Harvard. Hunt says Obama will deport all those fitting this description and that ICE or CBP have apprehended this man and have him in custody scheduled for deportation.

First it was a student here in Georgia. Now the controversy has moved to Harvard. A student there was arrested for being an illegal immigrant in the country even though he has been her since he was 4, and can’t remember not speaking English. It’s just another example of how messed up our immigration policy is, and how we are targeting the wrong people.

One caller to the show made the correct rebuttal to Mr Hunt’s misguided kindness. Don’t blame the US or Americans for this person’s situation. The blame falls on his parents. If this man is unhappy with his situation he has no one else to blame other than his parents.

If you give this man a pass on immigration laws it simply gives other illegals another reason to break the law. You cannot reward people for breaking the law. It is unfortunate that this man has to suffer the consequences of his parents’ actions. But it is not for the US or its citizens to ignore the rule of law.

Laws are necessary for a civil society to exist. Laws maintain order, protect citizens and their liberty and keep things from getting out of control. Not enforcing the laws related to immigration is why illegal immigration is, go figure, out of control. Eliminating the laws will not solve the problem. Enforcing them will.

Had the law been enforced effectively about 15 years ago the man mentioned on Hunt’s show would not be in the position he is in now. His parents plan to break the law would have been thwarted and we would not be having these discussions.

My conclusion about the Allen Hunt Show early on was correct. His opinions are flawed. He says he is not a liberal. But his opinions say otherwise.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Upon reading an article from the Washington Examiner this morning I was once again reminded of the timely work of Michelle Malkin and her book the Culture of Corruption. This story has a connetion to the University of Chicago, the Obama administration and funny business going on in public office. Maybe not so funny for those affected by the acts of those in public office.

Fenty administration raided workers’ insurance fund
June 19, 2010

The Fenty administration took $10 million from a workers’ insurance fund that is now the center of multiple investigations, sources told The Washington Examiner .

Fenty and his attorney general, Peter Nickles, have now acknowledged that hundreds of disabled workers were charged for life insurance but weren’t actually given the policies. The administration announced that it was handing the matter over to the city’s inspector general last week.

The workers’ money, which might be worth up to $6 million, went into the city’s workers’ compensation fund.

And now for the Obama administration connection…..

Dan Tangherlini was the city administrator at the time and determined the city was safe in ‘raiding’ the fund. Tangherlini has been with Obama’s Treasury Department for a while now. The Examiner said he wasn’t available for comment on the story. Imagine that.

And the connection to the University of Chicago is, you guessed it, Dan Tangherlini. And even though the report states ‘authorities have not found any evidence of corruption’ you can bet there is.

It seems the Obamanation just can’t get enough people with questionable pasts to work for them. The only annoying part of the story is a common problem. ‘Sources familiar with the investigations’ and ’speaking on condition of anonymity’ appears in the report.

Tangherlini has been busy. He has had more than a few jobs at different levels of government. You can get his official info at Treasury simply searching on his last name. He seems a compatible match for tax cheat Tim Geithner. Although after AIG and his history at the NY Fed, Geithner’s tax problems may decline on the corruption scale.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are the most liberal president the United States has ever seen and you give a speech that is panned by the mainstream media what does that tell you? If you cannot win the praises of the liberal media who fawned all over you since you declared your intention to run for the White House in 2008 it’s time to consider a career change.

For those who are interested and haven’t had a chance to review the commentary on Obama’s Tuesday night Oval Office speech two links are provided below:

Media on Obama’s speech: Did we mention it was short on specifics?

Reaction to President Obama’s Speech

Then there is the review from this blog. The handy White House transcript of the speech provides the targets. In just the third paragraph Mr President raised a question or two.

Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That’s why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge — a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

Not having any evidence to the contrary the size and depth of this gusher is not contested. But Mr President, if you ‘assembled a team’ of the best and the brightest to ‘tackle this challenge’ almost immediately what does that say about two months passing with little to show for it? And stating the event has ‘tested the limits of human technology’ is hard to believe. If reports are correct it appears you have declined assistance from those who have offered to help. A good example would be the Dutch offering to perform skimming operations.

The very next paragraph Mr President you claim the brain trust results had you tell BP to bring out more stuff. Hardly a testament to the limits of human technology if you simply ordered more stuff. And if, as you say, up to 90% of the gushing oil can be captured in weeks why wasn’t it possible before now? Or is ‘up to 90%’ a set of weasel words allowing for nothing more than has been done to date?

And it just gets better in paragraph number six.

But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

That pretty much leaves everything open to interpretation. That may why the MSM said the speech was short on specifics. Think of the words in paragraph six as you would when discussing work to be performed by a potential contractor for your home repairs after some disaster. ‘For as long as it takes’ and ‘whatever’s necessary’ are not phrases you want to hear. Making someone pay for damage they caused is subject to legal challenge and in any event can take years longer than anyone can wait. So there you are, nowhere.

Obama says the federal government has been in charge of the cleanup since the beginning. But carefully says ‘we now have nearly 30,000 personnel’ cleaning up. Meaning ‘now’ and not since the beginning. Mr Obama also urges governors in the region to activate the National Guard yet carefully mentions he authorized it but when…. just before the speech?

It gets worse from this point. There is no reason to continue but feel free to review the video or transcript which is widely available and of course the White House website has it.

This is just pathetic. And yes, President Obama does not warrant all the blame for the spill. But his performance as President of the United States regarding this matter falls miserably below any minimum standard acceptable. If the person sitting in the Oval Office cannot muster the resources public or private to address the issue in a timely manner this country is in real trouble.

Gee, what will he do when a real disaster occurs? By his actions this apparently was not considered a disaster of the magnitude he describes in the speech. Or at least not until public opinion changed his mind.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Economic stimulus legislation, aka, Porkulus, along with government bailouts and nationalizing private sector entities also with taxpayer dollars reeks of socialism of the European style and causes many voters to be outraged. Most of this occurs at the federal level but the public needs to focus on other similar circumstances as well.

An earlier post on this blog reminds readers that state governments have a knack for whining for federal dollars (taxpayer money of course) as if it is somehow manna from heaven and not associated with the citizen burden known as taxes.

Just as POLS in Washington are crippling our nation with debt those at the state and local level are not immune to the addiction. We need to understand that this disease is widespread and more failures and disaster loom if it is not corrected. A welcome report from the WSJ helps illuminate the problem further. Wreckless borrowing is alive and well at the state and local level in these United States.

These abuses came to a head in the second half of 2008, when spooked investors were unwilling to bet on more municipal debt after several insurers who typically back these bonds exited the market. Then Washington stepped in with a new Build America Bond (BAB), allowing states and municipalities to issue them. Thanks to a federal subsidy, they carry attractive interest rates. Last year municipalities used BABs to rack up another $58 billion in debt.

Taxpayers are only slowly realizing that their states and municipalities face long-term obligations that will be increasingly hard to meet. Rick Bookstaber, a senior policy adviser to the Securities and Exchange Commission, recently warned that the muni market has all the characteristics of a crisis that might unfold with “a widespread cascade in defaults.” If that painful scenario materializes, it will be because we have too long ignored how some politicians have become addicted to debt.

Just what we need. More fiduciary malfeasance from other levels of irresponsible government.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is a story that demonstrates why voters distrust politicians, especially career politicians. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s explanation for not campaigning against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is suspect. To characterize it as a polite gesture or an effort to ‘return some of the decorum’ to politics doesn’t pass the smell test.

That is supported by the notion that other POLS were ‘rankled’ by Frist’s 2004 campaigning against then Minority Leader Tom Daschle. In a year when voter anger toward incumbents has reached a fever pitch, tea party influence has elevated party outsiders and both major parties are worried about re-election deals between Dems and the GOP smell of the joke called ‘bipartisanship’.

That term exclusively defines the only time both major parties work together. When they are equally vulnerable and broker deals to retain their collective power in politics. That is to say, they will work together to defend their stranglehold on business as usual in Washington and elsewhere.

McConnell will not campaign against Reid, according to GOP sources, despite the fact that the Majority Leader is among the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents on the ballot this year.

McConnell’s decision, which follows Reid’s move to avoid directly attacking the Minority Leader during his somewhat competitive 2008 re-election bid, is an unspoken deal between the two Senators to return some of the decorum lost in the chamber in 2004. That year, then-

Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) traveled to South Dakota to campaign against then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a deviation from tradition that rankled even many Republicans who were otherwise happy to see Daschle ousted.

“McConnell’s view is that we can have the most aggressive opposition possible. But at the end of the day, the Senate has to run,” the Republican source said. “To do that, the two leaders need to have a relationship.”

That ‘relationship’ is part of the problem in pursuing good governance. Let the sentiment be expressed yet again. Take a stand. Stand on principle. If you cannot do that you do not belong in public office. Making deals and compromising principle is responsible for what is wrong in American politics. Expose the corruptocrats and send them packing.

Throw the bums out and repeat as necessary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com