Rush's Teachable Moment

When "El Rushbo" called Sandra Fluke "a sl*t" he clearly crossed the line. If the uproar over his repulsive language doesn't chasten his tongue, hopefully the dent fleeing sponsors are putting in his wallet will. This episode should not only be a lesson in civility for Rush, but for all of us. While politics ain't beanbag as the saying goes, it shouldn't be bloodsport either. If our democracy is to survive we need to encourage ordinary Americans to stand up and speak up, not keep their heads down and their mouth's shut. Unfortunately, current discourse is dominated by the easy slur and selective outrage fed by the misconception that the ends will somehow justify the means.

Political opportunism aside, I believe to promote civil and thoughtful debate republican candidates should condemn Rush's comments about Ms. Fluke. Likewise, in the interests of fairness and decency President Obama and democrats should condemn the vile words Bill Maher used to describe Sarah Palin. I hope we can all agree that no woman should ever be called the c-word or a "dumb tw*t" simply because you don't like her politics. Sadly, the president remains silent and Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) who have been outspoken critics of Rush when given the opportunity refused to denounce Mr. Maher. The double standard also applies to the president's version of Karl Rove, advisor David Axelrod who is all over the airwaves trying to pin Rush's words on all republicans, yet he once compared former Miss California Carrie Prejean to a dog and is scheduled to be on Mr. Maher's show in the next couple of weeks. As of this writing Mr. Mahar's use of the c-word hasn't caused the president to call for the Super PAC run by his former deputy press secretary, Bill Burton to return the $1 million donation he made. Since President Obama has pledged that members' of his administration will attend fundraisers for the Super PAC he can certainly call for the return of the misogynist's money. The fact that he hasn't done so should tell you all you need to know about how much he believes in civility.

When the sturm and drang over sl*tgate is eclipsed be the next media frenzy let our discourse be the better for it. No more double standards. If something is beyond the pale judgement and condemnation should be swift and universal. Even a casual observer can see that our political process is broken and that the venom and vitriol used to shout down opposing viewpoints is largely to blame.Conservatives and liberals have very different views on what role government should play in our lives. That debate should be spirited and respectful. We need every American that has tuned out because of the hateful rhetoric to get involved in choosing our country's direction, possibly even running for office themselves. The first step is to listen to opposing views, even if they make you squirm, without shouting "sl*t", racist, teabagger etc.. Believe it or not it's possible to disagree without being disageeable.

Another Year, Another Downgrade

It's doubtful the message makers in the White House found any humor in the Daily Show's Jon Stewart comparing President Obama to a "tax credit Oprah". While the Comedy Central funnyman is right to diagnose Oprah style giveaways as a symptom of why Obamanomics is failing, we should look to Major Phil Cannella and George Donner to find the disease.

Major Cannella was never an A list celebrity, but his words live on as an example of how good people can bring disaster by slavishly following misguided policies. When your mission can be summed up as "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." failure can be the only result. As in Vietnam, President Obama's effort to "fundamentally transform America" will end badly.

In January the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal released their Index of Economic Freedom. In it the United States fell to tenth place, indeed we have slipped every year of President Obama's rule as we were ranked sixth in 2009. They attributed our loss of freedom to "rapid expansion of government, more than any market factor, appears to be responsible for flagging economic dynamism." An easy way to gauge the effect of Obamanomics is to compare the first ten quarters of the Reagan recovery with our current economy. Under Reagan the economy grew sixteen percent, under Obama just six. If we were to follow Reagan's policies today the country could be $1.2 trillion wealthier and ten million currently unemployed Americans would have jobs. Instead, President Obama continues implementing policies that promote fairness over growth while our country declines.

If not for his fateful decision to take the Hasting's shortcut the name of Mr. Donner would be lost to history. While it took getting snowbound for the settlers to resort to cannibalism, letting the well-healed feast on taxpayers is a feature of Obamanomics. In a report the Washington Post found "Obama’s green-technology program was infused with politics at every level" and their Robert Samuelson called the rejection of the Keystone pipeline "an act of national insanity.". Maybe Mr. Samuelson was unaware that Obama's billionaire crony Warren Buffet, who just happens to own the Burlington Northern railroad stands to reap a financial windfall with the pipeline's demise. The author Peter Schweizer finds that fifteen companies that are either run or owned by financial backers of President Obama received $16.4 billion in government guaranteed loans. So far the cost to taxpayers: Solyndra $527 million, Ener1 $118 million, Beacon Power $43 million and CBS news found there are eleven more Solyndra's that could cost taxpayers $6.5 billion.

As the socialist Amon Rubinstein said “On the whole, those systems that have put liberty ahead of equality have done better by equality than those that have put equality above liberty.". Come November we can keep a president devoted to seeing our economic freedom slip slide away taking growth and jobs with it. Or we can send him back to Chicago with Oprah, Rahm and Alinsky's ghost.

Potemkin Statesman

Skipper Kerry has a history of docking his $7 million yacht, the Isabel, in excise tax free Rhode Island. No doubt this millionaire one percenter's careful eye on his own finances earned him a spot on the recently defunct supercommittee. After all, the task of trimming our nation's accumulation of debt by $1.2 trillion over ten years is not the job for a spendthrift New Yorker. Surely, our sober senator and former nominee for president would rise to the occasion and save our republic by making the tough calls to cut projected spending of $44 trillion by a hardly draconian 2.7 percent? As we now know, it wasn't to be.

Post collapse, Senator Kerry took to the hustings placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of one man, Grover Norquist. The problem for our senator is that even a cursory look at the short and ignoble history of the supercommittee proves his charge false. Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania presented a plan that Mr. Norquist called "poison", but was hailed by Democratic Minority Whip Durbin of Illinois as a "breakthrough". The Toomey plan would have raised revenues by $500 billion and cut spending by $900 billion and was supported by all six republican members of the committee. This is exactly the type of balanced approach that President Obama claims to support, yet it went nowhere. As Senator Toomey told Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post "The Democrats insisted on a trillion dollars in tax increases and spending cuts to follow". If that negotiation position sounds familiar, it should. Both President's Reagan and George H.W. Bush took democrats at their word and raised taxes, but the promised spending cuts never happened. Knowing how the story ends republicans justifiably rejected a repeat performance.

While committee democrats never provided a detailed plan for cuts, they did propose more spending. In their proposed framework that entailed $4 in new taxes for every $1in cuts they included $430 billion in spending for Pres. Obama's stalled Stimulus II. Like junkies wanting one last fix they blew up the supercommittee because they just can't quit spending. They also scuttled the Toomey plan because it didn't fit in with President Obama's re-election campaign of running against a do-nothing republican congress. As the left leaning Politico put it "President Barack Obama prides himself on being a clutch player, but he sat happily on the end of the bench as the clock ran out on the supercommittee. Then he took his shot after the buzzer."

Maybe the next time Congress votes to raise the debt ceiling and it will happen sooner than you think; Congress can forgo the charade of a supercommittee and mandate every Washington politician join Spendaholics Anonymous. If the concept of doing right by the American people doesn't motivate them, maybe bruising their egos will. Just picture the next time Senator Kerry graces the set of Meet the Press to rip into evil republicans being compelled to say "Hi. I'm John and I'm a spendaholic".

Occupiers Miss the Mark

You can see it in the eyes of the "99%'s": fear and despair. Their stories are all too common in what has been dubbed the "Lost Generation", massive student loan debt and unemployment or underemployed. It wasn't supposed to be this way. These kids were taught that you go to college(any degree will do) and you punch your ticket to the Middle Class. But, a stagnant economy has created a Darwinian job market that values skills and experience they don't possess. Sadly, these kids have proved easy marks for leftist agitators and community organizers that feed on hopelessness.

Occupy Wall Street is the brainchild of Adbusters an anti-corporate outfit funded by billionaire leftist sugar-daddy and convicted insider trader George Soros. In their words "We felt there was a real rage building up in America, and we thought that we would like to create a spark.." After a month of marinating in Marx, Pol Pot and patchouli that rage is being unleashed. In the Obamavilles that have sprouted across our country one will find: calls for violent revolution(LA), anti-semitism(LA,NY), the occupier anthem "F**k the USA"(Portland), sexual assaults(Portland, Cleveland, Seattle, Oakland) and an assault on a member of our armed forces(Boston). Is this the work of a few "bad apples"? Clinton pollster Doug Schoen went to OWS and spoke to the protesters and found that 98 percent support civil disobedience and 31 percent support violence to advance their agenda. What exactly is their agenda? Here's a sampling of their demands:

Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Free college education.

Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now!

This anti-capitalist rhetoric has won the endorsements of the communist and nazi parties for the occupy movement, but what about the American people? Gallup finds Americans by 64 percent to 30 percent blame the government, not Wall Street for our current economic problems. These kids need to understand that cronyism, not capitalism is what is wrong with America, that class warfare calls to "eat the rich" won't solve their problems.

They must also understand that the Pied Piper who sold them hope and delivered hopelessness has changed his tune to envy and hate which can only lead to their ruin. Only President Obama would have the audacity to demonize an industry that donated $15.8 million to his campaign in 2008 and $7.2 million so far this cycle. That money bought Goldman Sachs "too big too fail" status in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street "reform" law. Remember, this is a man that would raise taxes on 48 percent of small businesses under the guise of sticking it to "millionaires and billionaires" while his administration guaranteed billionaire campaign bundler George Kaiser(who declared zero taxable income for five years) will be repaid before taxpayers see a dime of the $527 million we sunk into Solyndra.

Same Old Song From Obama

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I believe old Al's theory is just as applicable in spotting idealogues as it is lunatics. Which brings me to our president's proposal to spend $450 billion on Stimulus II. Compare the laundry list of spending from the $867 billion sinkhole of spending called Stimulus I to Bailout Barry's "new" offering: "Shovel ready" construction projects? Check. Teachers? Check."Green" boondoggles? Check. Considering that 1.7 million Americans joined the ranks of the unemployed after the Stimulus was passed why would Pres. Obama propose throwing more money at a failed agenda?

Simple. He's attempting to show his voters that he has their backs while designing such a partisan plan to pay for it that he knows it will never pass. In fact, the NY Times has found many Democrats wary of the president's plan: "Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide." Yet, this opposition from his own party hasn't prevented him from barnstorming the country blaming republicans for his failure to fix the ecomomy. Former Democratic Rep Martin Frost admitted "The most likely explanation is that his jobs program was a campaign document — not a real plan for putting people back to work". Let's take a look at the members of the president's base set to benefit should republicans fold and his plan pass.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka was demanding the creation of an "infrastructure bank" before the ink was even dry on Stimulus I. Needing their votes and millions in dues money for his campaign the president ponied up billions to satisfy big labor's wish. In what would be the third bailout for teachers in his young administration Obama wants more money to "put teachers in the classroom". Since 1970 staffing has increased 83 percent while the number of students in public schools has grown by only 7 percent. The College Board just announced the lowest SAT reading scores in history so it doesn't appear we're getting good value for the money being spent now. Finally,we come to Solyndra and our bright "green' future. Solyndra went bankrupt last week taking $535 million of taxpayer money with it, reminding MA residents' of the millions lost on our "investment" in Evergreen Solar. Instead of being chastened by this waste, Stimulus II promises billions more. From the Hill: "the administration is arguing that the Solyndra incident underscores the need for the United States to double down on investments in clean energy."

How does President Obama propose to pay for this? From the AP: "The bulk of the payment comes from nearly $400 billion from limiting the deductions on charitable contributions and other items that wealthy people can take." So, with 46.2 million living in poverty(US Census)the highest level since 1993, President Obama wants to kill charities that help the poor? John Hinderaker of Powerline stated "The essential effect of Obama’s proposal, with its tax increases, is to transfer wealth from upper-income taxpayers to construction workers, teachers and other public employees–that is, from people who earn $200,000+ to people who earn $60,000+ (or more, if their families have two incomes)." To that I would add taking food and shelter currently provided by nonprofits from the poor. For the 14 million unemployed the president's proposal is deeply cynical, callous and cruel. America deserves better.

S&P Plays Adult

Our politicians can't say they weren't warned that simply cutting future borrowing to $7 trillion from $10 trillion over ten years would result in a downgrade to our credit rating. Now that the US has been downgraded for the first time in our history the rush will be on to assign blame and avoid responsibility. Messrs. Garvey and Moskowitz will inevitably try to scapegoat those "hostage-taking, terrorist tea-baggers" while ignoring the true culprit, deficit spending. Washington spends $300 billion a month of which $120 billion is borrowed. The S&P looked at those numbers and the lack of a plan from the White House or the Senate(the House passed a budget) to address this imbalance and took the appropriate action. A note to Obama's press flak, unless you're Stacy Keibler "showing a lot of leg" isn't a plan.

Now, to be fair, Pres. Obama pushed heroically albeit futilely to end tax breaks for the corporate jet-set which would've brought $3 billion in revenue over ten years to the federal treasury. This amount would almost cover one day's worth of deficit spending($4 billion). Our largest foreign creditor China, agrees with S&P, it's the spending stupid. For those who believe that tax increases on the wealthy will solve all our problems, the Tax Foundation provides a needed dose of reality. They found that Washington could declare a maximum wage of $100,000, confiscating every penny that American's earn over that amount and it still wouldn't cover current spending. It's time for our representatives to face fiscal reality and drastically cut the size of government. Harry Reid's beloved cowboy poets will need to pay for their own festivals from now on. The next time someone wants to measure the size of gay men's johnsons they'll need to find private financing, not taxpayer funds for the project. Start with cutting discretionary spending which has ballooned by 24% under President Obama and move on to the universe of indefensible subsidies that Washington bestows on special interests. After passing this leadership challenge and proving themselves adults our representatives will need to reform entitlements that currently have trillions in unfunded liabilities to ensure that they continue to provide the safety net for Americans that are depending on them.

Because Congress has been negligent in passing the appropriations bills to keep our government running, they have ample opportunity to show S&P that they are serious about getting our nation's fiscal house in order. They need look no further than the pounding the stock market took when the latest of the PIIGS, Italy and Spain became the latest dominoes to fall due to excessive spending. Europe is screaming that the social democrat, big government model of government has failed and we must change course before it's too late. S&P's downgrade is a wake-up call for Congress, President Obama and the American electorate that the days of reckless spending can't go on any longer and that America isn't too big to fail.

Leave Prop 2 1/2 Alone

Google is a fantastic resource and it's a shame that Ken Woods didn't make use of it before writing a letter criticizing my "math" published on May tenth. If he had bothered to check the source I cited: the Digest of Education Statistics published by the U.S. Department of Education he would have found that all figures are in "constant 2008-09 dollars". If he were to investigate a little further he would have found this footnote: "Constant dollars based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, adjusted to a school-year basis.". In short, despite Ken's protestations to the contrary, education spending has nearly tripled from $55,000 in 1970 to $150,000 today. Are we getting our money's worth? Data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development finds the answer to be an emphatic no. We spend 81 percent more than Germany, 77 percent more than France and 20 percent more than Britain to educate our children only to get our clocks cleaned. Our education system is in desperate need of reform not funds.

Which makes Ken's assertion that we must dump Prop. 2 1/2 all the more dubious. Without the spending restraint that Prop. 2 1/2 imposes on municipalities reform would be impossible. Even with a cap on property tax increases in place public employee unions have been extremely resistant to make concessions on gold-plated benefit packages that will save city services and school programs. Per our mayor "The co-chairs are not responding to my emails or my phone calls". Without the fiscal restraint that Prop. 2 1/2 imposes the very idea of concessions from unionized public employees who receive $47 an hour accourding to the federal government's national compensation survey would be a non-starter. What Mr. Woods neglects to mention is the impact eliminating Prop. 2 1/2 would have on the diversity of our city. We already pay a premium to live here and without a way to check property tax increases Newburyport would quickly become a playground only the very wealthy could afford to call home.

Nestled alongside the Merrimack we have little hope of checking the $188 million that Washington borrows every hour of every day to cover its reckless spending. We have little more influence on Beacon Hill when our "representatives" hand the public employees' pension fund its annual $1.4 billion bailout while cutting local aid. But if we embrace rather than abandon our rights as taxpayers our voices on matters pertaining to how our city is run can be decisive. Who knows, by demanding reform maybe politicians on every level of government will hear the message that "it's the spending stupid" and we can get our nation on sound footing again. The inflation caused spike in gas and food prices should be enough to educate every American on the dangers of giving politicians a blank check. This is no time to go wobbly on Prop. 2 1/2.

Newburyport Needs Reform, Not an Override

Before a standing-room only audience Superintendent of Schools Dr. Marc Kerble thundered "To keep cutting just takes away from who we are in Newburyport. If we want to be great, we have to fund our school system." Is he right? Must we submit to a higher tax burden or see our schools fall to wreck and ruin? As a community, we must provide a proper education for the 18% of households that have children in our schools, but we must also be mindful that a property tax increase will present a crippling burden to the 5.9%(US Census) of our neighbors who live below the Federal poverty level.

Any attempt to determine if Dr. Kerble's $900 thousand override is warranted should begin with our school system's greatest expense: payroll and benefits. But it's impossible to view the current teachers’ contract. It's not posted online and neither the clerk's nor the mayor's office has a copy and shockingly the superintendent's office doesn't either. Apparently the contract isn't final yet. We know from this paper that teachers received a 3% raise and retained guaranteed yearly step increases, but without the contract we can't know the new pay scale. In the 05-08 contract, a first year teacher would start at $35,694 and after four years of guaranteed step increases their pay was $45,124. Without the contract it's impossible to verify if teachers still receive 15 paid sick days for a work year of 184 days or if some can still bank up to 165 days and cash out at 50% of their final years pay-rate upon retirement. We can infer from this statement by Mayor Holaday when the city council voted department heads a 2% raise a year after awarding them a sixth week of vacation that they are "..it's easier to absorb a small increase as opposed to keep giving these extravagant benefits that are really hard to take back once you give them.." The mayor also called for teachers to pay higher deductibles for their healthcare, implying that they have a cadillac plan. I believe with fair changes, focused on reform to the not yet final contract it's possible to avoid some if not all of Dr. Kerble's projected cuts without raising taxes.

To the larger question: Does more money equal better schools? The Massachusetts Teachers Association certainly believes so, which is why they spent millions in dues money fighting the income tax rollback and only endorse politicians who agree to raise it back to 5.95%. But, the data tells a very different story. The Digest of Education Statistics found that America spent $55 thousand in 1970 on a K-12 education and $150 thousand in 2010, with negligible results to our academic standing. In math for example, America places 35th behind the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan. Money can't buy love and it doesn’t buy great schools. Reforming our education system, not simply throwing more money at it is the wiser course, beginning with saying no to an override.

Brackets Barry goes to War to defend Al Qaeda?

I know, I know, the White House's preferred terminology is that the U.S. is in a state of "military kinetic action" with the Libyan regime. When the no fly zone was imposed we were assured that it was to protect civilians from genocide and that coalition forces would not engage regime forces to defend or aid the rebels. Recent media reports indicate that this is no longer the case, if it ever was. So, who exactly are these rebels that we are siding with?

It would appear that at least one, like Col. Qaddafi has American blood on his hands. John Rosenthal of Pajamasmedia covers the story of Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi whose troops U.S. forces are aiding in Libya:

Shortly after unrest broke out in eastern Libya in mid-February, reports emerged that an “Islamic Emirate” had been declared in the eastern Libyan town of Darnah and that, furthermore, the alleged head of that Emirate, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, was a former detainee at the American prison camp in Guantánamo. The reports, which originated from Libyan government sources, were largely ignored or dismissed in the Western media.

Now, however, al-Hasadi has admitted in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore that he fought against American forces in Afghanistan. (Hat-tip: Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard.) Al-Hasadi says that he is the person responsible for the defense of Darnah — not the town’s “Emir.” In a previous interview with Canada’s Globe and Mail, he claimed to have a force of about 1,000 men and to have commanded rebel units in battles around the town of Bin Jawad.

Did his efforts against America end when he was captured in Pakistan? Actually, he was just getting started:

In his more recent remarks to Il Sole 24 Ore, al-Hasadi admits not only to fighting against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but also to recruiting Libyans to fight against American forces in Iraq. As noted in my earlier PJM report here, captured al-Qaeda personnel records show that al-Hasadi’s hometown of Darnah sent more foreign fighters to fight with al-Qaeda in Iraq than any other foreign city or town and “far and away the largest per capita number of fighters.” Al-Hasadi told Il Sole 24 Ore that he personally recruited “around 25” Libyans to fight in Iraq. “Some have come back and today are on the front at Ajdabiya,” al-Hasadi explained, “They are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists.” “The members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader,” al-Hasadi added.

The report also includes the tidbit that British intelligence believes al-Hasadi was released as part of a deal that Qaddafi struck with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group(LIGF), which is affiliated with al-Qaeda. So, if the Brits know who this guy is and what he's done, shouldn't the White House?

What evidence is there that U.S. forces are aiding him at all? Here's some more from Rosenthal:

Reporting from the outskirts of Ajdabiya on Wednesday, Antoine Estève of the French news channel i-Télé noted that just “minutes” after rebel positions had been hit by artillery fire from Libyan government forces, the Libyan government positions were then bombarded by coalition aircraft. (Estève’s report can be viewed here.) In a March 19 dispatch from Benghazi for the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, correspondent Lorenzo Cremonesi cites rebel leaders as saying that they were given the opportunity to provide NATO with a map indicating enemy targets that they wanted bombed.

From the Wall St Journal:

The allies also seemed intent on helping the opposition win back the eastern town of Ajdabiya, the site of back-and-forth fighting between the government and rebels in recent weeks.

and

"In Ajdabiya to Misrata, our targeting priorities are mechanized forces, artillery…[and] mobile surface-to-air missile sites," Rear Adm. Gerard Hueber, chief of staff for the U.S. task force in the Mediterranean Sea, told reporters by teleconference from the USS Mount Whitney.

I'll finish with this quote from the NY Times:

Admiral Hueber also said that the coalition was communicating with rebel forces. But later, when he was pressed on whether the United States was telling rebels not to go down certain roads because there would be airstrikes there, he said he had misspoken. American military officials have said there are no “official communications” with the rebels, which remains a delicate issue. Contact with the rebels would reflect a direct American military intervention in the civil war of another country.

The Obama administration, as usual is not playing it straight with the American people. We deserve to know who we're supporting and towards what end. President Obama can start by explaining why we are giving succor to someone like al-Hasadi, who rightly should be targeted by our forces as an enemy, not treated as an ally.

Barry Brackets: Complainer in Chief

With all the momentous real news stories happening around the globe this month I'm surprised the editors' of this newspaper can't find bigger fish to fry than Rep. Michele Bachmann "Huh? Where was that shot fired?" (3/16). Being New England born and raised I find her ignorance of American history and Massachusett's place in it eye roll worthy. But is it truly newsworthy? I can't recall reading anything in this paper when then candidate Obama added ten states to our union: "I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.". Politicians with all the wind they expel are guaranteed to have a gaffe or two to their discredit, just look at Vice President Biden. I would like to share a quote from the NY Times no less that I find far more troubling, which has received scant media attention: "Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”.

Our president complains about the burden of being the leader of the free world and longs to lead a dictatorship and that's not news? I find his choice of China quite telling. He wouldn't have to worry about Fox News or talk radio because the state controls the media. If he ruled in Beijing instead of Washington D.C. he could have used the military to crush those pesky tea partiers just like the pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. Also, his party wouldn't have taken a "shellacking" last fall, losing control of the House because China is a one party state. Now, our president has gone to the finest schools and possesses an unrivaled temperament so I'm sure he, unlike Hu Jintao would practice the most enlightened despotism the planet has ever known.

Actually what's telling is that our president is wilting before our eyes and railing against the scrutiny of a press that has treated him with kid gloves. Any other president that possessed Obama's sorry record would be savaged daily by the media. We are on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe in Japan, unemployment counting the discouraged and those only able to find part-time work is 16%, every trip to the gas station and the grocery store gets more expensive, the country's budget is bleeding red ink threatening fiscal ruin and our president is working on his NCAA brackets. The media seems intent on propping Obama in the hopes that his historic election won't be perceived as a failure by the public. I wouldn't be surprised if the same instinct caused the press of his day to give our first president the same benefit of the doubt. However, it should be clear to everyone by now that Barack Obama is no George Washington. The press plays a vital role informing the electorate and I hope they will do so (paraphrasing Dr. King) without regard to the color of a president's skin or their party affiliation, but by the success or failure of their policies, actions or increasingly inaction.

GM Paying $400 Million in Bonuses While Owing Taxpayers Billions

When I came across this story on WHDH's website I hoped it was another case of the media getting hoaxed like the Sarah Palin disses Christina Aguilera nonsense. Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case. The lowlights:

Less than two years after entering bankruptcy, General Motors will extend millions of dollars in bonuses to most of its 48,000 hourly workers as a reward for the company's rapid turnaround after it was rescued by the government.

The payments, disclosed Monday in company documents, are similar to bonuses announced last week for white-collar employees. The bonuses to 76,000 American workers will probably total more than $400 million -- an amount that suggests executives have increasing confidence in the automaker's comeback.

Most of GM's hourly workers will get a record payment of more than $4,000 -- more than double the previous record in 1999, at the height of the boom in sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks. Nearly all 28,000 white-collar workers such as engineers and managers will get 4 to 16 percent of their base pay. A few -- less than 1 percent -- will get 50 percent or more.

First Wall St, now Detroit, the TARP bailouts to bonuses saga continues. Showing that the rules only apply to the little people that can't make six figure campaign contributions. How is the American taxpayers involuntary investment in GM and Chrysler going anyhow?

"Since the taxpayers helped these companies out of bankruptcy, the taxpayers should be repaid before bonuses go out," said Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa. "It sends a message that those in charge take shareholders, in this case the taxpayers, for a sucker."

The government has been repaid $23 billion but needs $26.4 billion more to recoup its whole investment. The government still owns 500 million shares of GM common stock, which would have to sell for roughly $53 per share to get all the money back.

GM closed at $36 today, our payback is a long time away, if ever. The UAW is getting a sweet bonus and we're getting the shaft. Our Congressional delegation was justifiably outraged and mugged for the cameras when Wall St. announced their bonuses but they seem eerily silent now.

UMass Student Arrested After Making Death Threat

With the mega-colossal snowstorm and the protests in Egypt dominating the news, this story has fallen under the radar.

From the Daily Collegian:

A University of Massachusetts student is awaiting extradition to Southeast Florida for allegedly making threatening emails to a Florida state representative.

Manuel Pintado, 47, of Northampton was being held at the Hampshire County House of Corrections in Northampton after police there took him into custody at the request of Martin County, Florida law enforcement.

Pintado was arrested last night for allegedly sending Rep. William D. Snyder, a Republican representing Florida’s House district 82, a message attacking him for his involvement in a bill which would allow police to ask anyone for proof of citizenship, according to a release from the Martin County Sheriff’s Office.

According to the Feb. 1 statement, the text of the email read “To the Honorable William D. Snyder; You better just stop that ridiculous law if you value you rand your familie’s lives ashole.”

I wonder which websites, blogs this self-described "political activist" read? I'm sure the media will route out the source that inspired Mr. Pintado's eliminationist rhetoric. Because we know after Tucson that someone other than the actual perpetrator of the crime is to blame. The authorities in Florida should bring Sheriff Clarence Dupnik in as media consultant, because MSNBC is going to be all over this story right?

Same Old Obama

Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas gets it. Why doesn't the media? With his Super shout out for Obama's efforts to keep the country "stimulated", will understands that our president's policies represent more of the same. Because his earlier argument that spending is stimulus didn't sell with the public, we have "investments" to "win the future"(lifted from Newt). This is simply more big spending by Big Government that benefits Big Business(and his fundraising) at the expense of America's working and middle classes.

Appointing Jeff Immelt of GE as jobs czar has been hailed by the media as proof of the president's centrist bona fides. But Immelt personifies "crony" in the crony capitalism that is Obamanomics. "In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner." Those aren't the words of a believer in the free market or a champion of small business. Immelt supports cap and trade while pocketing a $400 million taxpayer subsidized loan to sell windmills. This administration is going all in on windmills and electric cars, but our 389 windfarms are producing electricity at less than 20% of their capacity. They aren't the path to prosperity, in fact Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believes that Cape Wind will result in over $4 billion in extra costs for consumers. Meanwhile, American drivers are paying over $3 for gas with analysts seeing it soon reaching $5 a gallon. To help promote our adoption of green technologies, Energy Secretary Chu wants us to be paying $7 or more.

The skyrocketing costs of education are threatening to put a degree out of reach for all but the wealthiest Americans. One hundred colleges now charge at least $50,000 a year, only five did so as recently as 2008. It may surprise students and their parents to learn that university administrative costs have increased 61%, essentially swallowing the massive increases in financial aid. All those extra bureacrats have been good to the president though, the University of CA was his number one contributor and Harvard was number three. Instead of pushing to reform the system, the president proposes to continue throwing more money at it, gauranteeing that costs will continue to increase along with his campaign warchest. The same dynamic applies to K-12 spending. The Mercatus Center found that we spend an average of $91,700 per pupil between grades 1-9, yet our students score lower than countries that spend much less. Again, the president just wants to throw good money after bad without making necessary reforms for fear of upsetting the teachers' unions and their PAC's that will contribute millions to his campaign.

We also have the 700+ waivers for Obamacare, 40% of them going to unions that contributed $25 million to the president. Are you seeing a pattern yet?

President Obama isn't, and will never be the pragmatic centrist of the media's fantasies. If this ploy to repackage the same failed policies that have done nothing but run up record deficits, $1.5 trillion this year, doesn't convince the American public to see the light, he'll try again, because he's never wrong. The next time there'll be $1 billion of Wall St., Environmentalist and Organized Labor dough to spend communicating to the bitter clingers of Middle America in borrowed Republican language that he's courageously standing(T-Paw), without apologizing(Mitt) for freezing his 24% increase in discretionary spending in place, cutting a pitiful $775 million when 40 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed(almost $5 billion a day) and rocketing our national debt to $20 trillion and beyond. All for our benefit of course.

T-Paw's Sound Advice: Don't Raise the Debt Limit

With President Hu Jintao of China in the U.S. for a state visit former Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty took to the pages of the Wall St. Journal and the Washington Post to argue against raising the debt limit. Hopefully, our largest creditor was able to find the time amid all the pomp of lavish dinners, joint press conferences etc. that entail a state visit to read them. I believe he may have been pleasantly surprised to learn there is a voice in America calling to get our fiscal house in order and to do so responsibly.

From T-Paw's Washington Post Op-ed:

But the Obama administration is offering a false choice between more debt and default. The chaos that unfolded when Greece risked default last summer can and should be avoided here without raising the debt limit this spring. There is a better option available.

Contrary to what many people are saying, when the national debt approaches the limit set by Congress, as it could by March, it will not mean that the federal government suddenly won't be able to pay its bills. In fact, the government has enough projected cash flow and other resources to pay its outside debt obligations on time and in full for much longer - at least several more months - than the administration has been letting on.

Default on such debt need not occur if Congress passes and the president signs a law directing the Treasury to sequence our spending and prioritize the payment of interest and principal on the debt, as well as other critical budget items such as the military

After exposing the Obama administration's rhetoric of "catasrophic" consequences if we don't raise the debt limit above $14.3 trillion, $3.4 trillion of which occured on Obama's watch as false, he then provides a realistic plan to work within our current debt limit. How can we know it's realistic? Because in his eight years as governor, he did just that:

When I was elected governor in 2002, Minnesota faced a historic budget deficit. Recognizing that taxes were too high already, we used priority budgeting to cut spending. From 1960 to 2002, state spending in Minnesota had increased by an average of 21 percent every two years. During my two terms in office, we lowered the growth of spending to about 1.5 percent per year.

It wasn't easy. We had government shutdowns, special legislative sessions, numerous lawsuits and one of the longest transit strikes in American history. It was a battle, but we changed the state's spending pattern dramatically.

This is the choice America faces: more record spending and debt or finally taking the painful steps to get our economic house in order. According to a poll by CBS News the American public supports Pawlenty's position:

Most Americans believe the massive federal budget deficit is a very serious problem that will create hardships for future generations, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

Sixty-four percent say they are very concerned the deficit will create hardship in the future, and another 26 percent are somewhat concerned. Just eight percent say they are not concerned.

Fifty-six percent say the deficit needs immediate action, while 38 percent say efforts to address the deficit can wait until the economy has improved. Republicans and independents were more likely to push to deal with the deficit now, while Democrats were more likely to say it can wait.

Americans strongly prefer cutting spending to raising taxes to reduce the federal deficit. While 77 percent prefer to cut spending, just nine percent call for raising taxes. Another nine percent want to do both. …The most popular ideas for reducing the deficit are to reduce Social Security benefits for the wealthy, reduce the money allocated to projects in their own community, reduce farm subsidies and reduce defense spending. More than 50 percent supported reductions in each of those programs. …Forty-seven percent say it will be necessary to cut programs that benefit people like them to reduce the deficit.

Sadly, the Wall St. Journal reports that President Obama still isn't listening to the American people:

President Barack Obama will call for new government spending on infrastructure, education and research in his State of the Union address Tuesday, sharpening his response to Republicans in Congress who are demanding deep budget cuts, people familiar with the speech said.

Mr. Obama will argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The new spending could include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding—and rebuilding roads to improve transportation, people familiar with the matter said. Money to restructure the No Child Left Behind law's testing mandates and institute more competitive grants also could be included.

He's still following the marching orders of his union allies that donated millions to his campaign. From the Hill:

Working Americans are waiting on President Obama to lay out a bold plan for investing in jobs and infrastructure, a top labor leader will warn Wednesday.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is set to lay down a marker for the Obama administration ahead of next week's State of the Union address by urging the president to lean on expansive spending initiatives to fuel the economic recovery.

The AFL-CIO leader's been a consistent voice for more spending, a request that had been frustrated over the past two years by Republican opposition in Congress. Now that the GOP controls the House, getting approval for more spending will become even more difficult.

Republicans shouldn't cave to the demands of a president and party that continue to protect their cronie's interests at American taxpayers expense. I give the final word to likely presidential candidate Pawlenty:

Last year's midterm elections demonstrated that the public is eager to cut the deficit. But every program has an interest group that will fight hard to defend it. We can succeed only if lawmakers are given no other choice. That's why it is so important that we use the debt limit debate to force hard choices now.

Rep. Tierney: Myopia or Hypocrisy?

Never let a tragedy go to waste seems to be the Democrats' new mantra. With lightning and sickening speed Democratic politicians and their message machine have tried to pin Saturday's assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) on the tea party and Sarah Palin. If politicians like Rep. Tierney and their media allies are to be believed, our country is in the midst of an age of vituperation and hatred like no other in our history. Our good congressman took to the pages of this paper (1/10) to state :

"Part of that blame goes to talk radio, shock radio and television talk shows that spew "venom" into the political debate,".

Now, it's possible that Mr. Tierney is just forgetful instead of following the playbook of the “veteran Democratic operative” who told Politico that that he/she believes that President Obama should “deftly pin [the Arizona shooting] on the tea partiers.”.If that's the case, I would like to remind him of a time when passions were every bit as heated as todays.

During the Bush(43) administration Democratic activists and politicians used rhetoric and imagery that would put to shame anything the tea party has been accused of employing. Here's a small sampling of signs that were proudly displayed at anti-war rallies in New York, Chicago and San Francisco: "Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush", "Hang Bush For War Crimes", "Bush is the Disease, Death is the Cure", "I'm here to Kill Bush (Shoot Me)". Or how about the guillotine that some Obamabot created for some Halloween fun and dubbed the "Bush Whacker" and brought to a campaign rally in Denver(10/26/08) so others could enjoy in the merriment of seeing our president's severed head? Sadly, this bloodlust for a president wasn't confined to the nutroots. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for president in 2004 fantasized of assassinating President Bush on the Bill Maher show (10/06). The transcript:

Maher: You could have went to NH and killed two birds with one stone.

Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.

I can't recall Rep. Tierney accusing his fellow delegation member of using hateful or dangerous language that could wind up with Kerry having the president's blood on his hands.

Perhaps Mr. Tierney also forgot that his own Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) put bullseyes on the districts of "targeted" Republicans when he blamed Sarah Palin for inciting violence by using similar imagery?

By Rep. Tierney's logic President Obama was responsible for nightstick wielding thugs from the New Black Panther party intimidating voters in Philadelphia because he said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl" at a campaign event. And I suppose Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina was equally responsible for the savage beating of Kenneth Gladney at a town hall event by SEIU goons because he promised "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard"? In fact if the left were held to the same absurd standard they are trying to impose on the right then our president would be complicit in every violent act committed by a hispanic because he implored them to go out and "punish their enemies".

The left telegraphed their strategy when veteran democratic pollster Mark Penn opined "

what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing"

and journalist Mark Halperin of Time postulated

“No one wants the country to suffer another catastrophe. But when a struggling Bill Clinton was faced with the Oklahoma City bombing and a floundering George W. Bush was confronted by 9/11, they found their voices and a route to political revival.”.

By trying to gain political advantage from tragedy Rep. Tierney is reaching into the depths of depravity. The would-be assassin has been described by former friends as a "left-wing pothead" who enjoyed reading the Communist Manifesto. That sounds more like the profile of someone who submerged himself into the bile of the Democratic Underground or the Dailykos where none other than Markos Moulitsas "targeted" Giffords, on his descent into madness . Democrats like Rep. Tierney should remember the old adage about how those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Sen. Brown's Support of DADT and START leave America a Sitting Duck

I wish advocates of repeal of DADT like Sen. Brown would explain how they plan on replacing the 32% of Marines and members of our special forces that indicated in the Pentagon survey that they would leave the service. Maybe students will be lining up at Harvard to join the ROTC when it's allowed back on campus or the advocates of repeal have received commitments from thousands of homosexuals, Unitarians and atheists to make good the losses, now that those knuckle dragging evangelicals have been shown the door. I don't believe they have the slightest clue how to keep the combat units and our military capabilities from dissolving before our eyes while engaged in two wars. They're shooting first and asking questions later during this lame duck session of Congress. Essentially, Sen. Brown is voting to break the offensive capabilities of our military.

If Sen. Brown is comfortable breaking America's sword, he at least believes in preserving its shield right? Not if he continues to support the ratification of New START he doesn't. Despite the protestations of the Obama administration the treaty precludes America from working on missile defense. The Russians insisted language be included in the preamble to the treaty stating exactly that and despite many senators' requests to review the negotiating record the Obama administration has refused to release it. What is Obama hiding? With Hugo Chavez signing an agreement with Iran to place medium range missiles capable of hitting the U.S. in Venezuela this isn't an academic exercise.

The simple fact is that neither of these issues need to be resolved in the lame duck session of Congress and shouldn't be, they're simply too important to rush. As much as advocates of repeal of DADT would like us to believe that the Senate must act before the courts do, it just isn't so. The ninth circuit hasn't even heard arguments yet and then the case would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Any decision imposed by the courts is at least a year away. What's driving the push for repeal at this reckless pace is politics, specifically the heavy losses Democrats suffered in the midterm elections. The Democrats' political "shellacking" is also driving the headlong push to ratify New START. They're more afraid of putting the votes off to make sure they get them right than they are with getting them right for the American people. Politics should never trump national security, period.

Sen. Brown should enjoy the praise of the liberals he's enabling, but he should understand that they won't be with him in 2012. Just ask Charlie Baker how effective being to the left of President Obama helped attract liberals to his gubernatorial campaign. Hint, he got thumped because he alienated conservatives in the bargain.

DADT: Mend It, Don't End It

Progressives proved with Obamacare that they wouldn't let reality hinder the realization of their idealogical objectives. Washington is giving us a repeat performance in the spectacle otherwise know as the lame duck session of Congress with DADT; but this time it appears Republicans are lining up to help them endanger our national security. Our Constitution couldn't be more clear in charging our government and its elected officials with the duty to "Provide for the common defence". Unfortunately, the current membership of the US Senate views the dogma of political correctness a higher authority than our founding document. How else is one to view their headlong rush to endorse a Pentagon report that was written by a political appointee who was installed by President Obama for that very purpose? The US Senate should place more credence on the opinions of those members of our military who will be tasked with implementing and managing the consequences of outright repeal and as they testified before that body the overwhelming majority doesn't support repeal.

As the AP reported:

The top uniformed officers of the Army and the Marines told a Senate panel Friday that letting gays serve openly in the military at a time of war would be divisive and difficult, sharply challenging a new Pentagon study that calculates the risk as low.

"If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat," the Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

changing the law now would "add another level of stress to any already stretched force" and be more difficult on the Army, particularly its combat units, than the recent Pentagon study suggests.Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey.

But most of the troops with concerns were serving in combat roles. Nearly 60 percent of troops in the Marine Corps and in Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said they thought allowing gays to be open about their sexual orientation would hurt their units' ability to fight on the battlefield.

"I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan," Amos said.

The chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, said it was likely that some highly trained combat sailors, including Navy SEALs, might refuse to re-enlist in protest of the personnel change.

The notoriously homophobic NY Times followed up with:

Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the chief of staff of the Air Force, recommended delaying repeal until 2012 because of the strain the military is bearing now. “I do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low,” he said. “It is an inescapable fact that our officer and non-commissioned officer leaders in Afghanistan, in particular, are carrying a heavy load.”

General Schwartz concluded that “it is difficult for me, as a member of the Joint Chiefs, to recommend placing any additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres at this particularly challenging time.”

Let's take another look at the results of the survey that's being heralded by the advocates for repeal.

58% of Marines in combat units believe repealing DADT will negatively impact their military readiness.

40% of the Army units in combat responded the same.

It's the same result for special ops, the most highly skilled, hence hardest to replace warriors we have. Just in case any senator has been locked away somewhere for the last nine years they are playing an irreplaceable role in our war against the jihadits all over the world.

Furthermore, 32% of Marines answered that outright repeal would cause them to leave the service earlier than they had planned.

How can any reasonable person regard this as constituting a "low" risk to morale and the effectiveness of our troops fighting two wars? The sad truth is that our national security is an afterthought in this decision.

One should also ask why a survey with such a low response rate 115,000 of the 400,000 sent out is being treated as if it were Holy Writ. A Marine officer wrote to the publishers of Powerline to give them and us a little insight to how the survey was conducted and why the response rate was so low:

I have to say that as an active duty Marine officer, I have been pretty heartened by the willingness of our leadership to stand up and say what a bad idea repeal of DADT would be. I think you have done a good job of sniffing out the phoniness of the DADT survey the Department of Defense sent around and the results that Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are running around trumpeting.

For the time that DoD was compiling the survey, I received 6 snail-mail letters and a dozen emails to my work email and my personal email address, telling me to access the survey with a special code, then input another special code as my password before I answered a bunch of questions about DADT. Of course, according to the emails and letters, my input would be completely anonymous. Riiiiiiiiiiight. Anonymous input requires 15 digit log ins.

I think that anyone who has been in the military more than a couple of years recognized what was going on. The decision to seek repeal has already been made and this survey is just part of the show trial. The results from the junior enlisted would be dismissed as ill-informed and contrary to "evidence," just as you suggested. The results from officers and senior enlisted foolish enough to actually provide negative answers will be used later to "remediate" those whose answers showed that they were not with the program.

Even with the clear disincentives to provide negative feedback, the Marines still weighed in overwhelmingly against the political correctness. God bless them. Once again, for yet another reason, I am proud to be a Marine.

Semper fi, and thanks for all you do.

Is it possible that the results of this survey could represent the same political correctness run amok that caused several officers to look the other way with Maj. Nidal Hassan, of Ft. Hood massacre infamy and hope for the best?

The advocates of repealing DADT appear more than happy to cashier the men and women currently fighting for our freedom if they're uncomfortable serving with openly gay members:

Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday.

and

The top enlisted adviser for U.S. forces in Afghanistan said on Friday that he believes the troops are ready for a repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' and that those who oppose ending the policy should leave the military.

Instead of telling the servicemen and women to "go to hell" and not to let the door hit them in the back as it seems Admiral Mullen is inclined to do, is there a better solution? Currently, women are prohibited from serving in combat units even in countries that have gays serving openly. From Wickipedia with a hat-tip to Hotair.com:

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression…

Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers “are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it’s is not as easy to program men to neglect women.”

If the US military feels it's necessary to prevent women from serving in combat units because it will negatively impact those units fighting ability, why not use the same policy for open homosexuals? By closing certain specialties to women the military is saying that national security trumps equal treatment of the sexes. Considering that it's the combat troops that are most resistant to serving with open gays it only makes sense to preserve DADT for those units and let them serve openly is support roles, the risk isn't worth the reward of equal career opportunities. The French used the term esprit de corps to desribe the intangible element that holds troops in combat together and makes them an effective force, even when facing long odds. The US Senate messes with this at our peril, unlike the French, the US still fights.

The Taxman Takes Another Bite

The Newburyport City Council provided quite a show Monday evening. There was drama, deal-making, possibly a little skull-duggery and for the PG-13 set, several councilors even discussed their showering habits and it was all topped-off with a $300,000 tax hike. The meals tax pushed by Councilor Cameron was nearly de-railed when a proposed ordinance that put the spending cart before the tax horse was deemed legally suspect and tabled, splitting the coalition committed to making it more expensive to dine in our city. Undaunted, Cameron with the able assistance of Councilor Connell and input from Mayor Holaday, who was watching it all on t.v., devised a plan to keep the taxpayer squeeze alive. At this point, the committee recessed to hastily write a new proposal to keep the votes of the "sidewalk two" in favor of the tax.

Now, prior to the meeting I took a quick gander at the city budget and found a line in nearly every department labeled "Longevity". During the break in the action, I asked Councilor Earls what exactly these longevity payments were. As I feared, he informed me that they were payments, above salary and overtime that the city was contractually obligated to pay public employees based on their length of service. These bonuses start at $718 for the Harbormaster's Dept. and top out at $128,133 for the Fire Dept. and total $313,573.38 for this fiscal year, excluding the school department which didn't itemize their personnel expenses. Councilor Earls also informed me that education was one of the few areas that isn't walled off by collectively bargained agreements, so it receives the vast majority of whacks from the budget axe.

It is a given in America that contracts are inviolable, unless you were a secured creditor of Chrysler and your rights conflicted with the president's political patrons at the UAW, that is. While the city must pay these bonuses, even though it meant cutting foreign language programs from the schools and guarantees future cuts, there is nothing stopping the unions, other than greed, that represent the public employees of this city from re-negotiating these ridiculous contracts. I've been around long enough to realize that AFSCME, which represents most public sector union members in this country sees taxpayers as nothing more than an ATM. Which is why they spent $87.5 million in the mid-term elections trying to keep as many of their Democrat party patrons in office to keep that money flowing. But won't they do it for the children? Shouldn't a decent salary, generous health and retirement benefits and plentiful overtime be enough?

The residents of this city, state and nation need to realize that public sector union contracts are bleeding us dry. Because the pension fund for state workers has an unfunded liability of $22 billion, $1.3 billion was spent this year to shore it up. That's a devastating $1.3 billion in cuts to local aid, which could have been spent on schools statewide. You can bet that Gov. Patrick and the Democrat-controlled legislature will bail the fund out again this year and every year until we wake up and stop them. Here's hoping watching California go banrupt will wake the voters' of Massachusetts up.

MassGOP Must Reach Out To Hispanics To Survive

There have been many interesting takes this week on Tuesday night's debacle and how to prevent it from happening again in 2012. While there is much to be said for organizing RTC's and focusing on GOTV,that only gets you so far.In short, as 11% of the electorate,we can organize and coordinate with a precision that would put the Michigan State Spartan marching band to shame and we will still lose in near landslides. I believe it was SSR that brought up the demographic hurdle Republicans face in statewide elections. He broke the Democrats' base into three groups:

1) Progressives/Moonbats

2) Public/Private Sector Unions

3) Minorities

If we hope to start winning elections outside of Worcester County we need to cut into the Dems base in addition to appealing to independents. Of the three legs of the Democrats' stool the only one we have a remote chance with is minority voters, particularly hispanics. Let's face it, most voters' make their decision based on who will best protect their interests. A Republican party that is committed to limiting the size and scope of government and promotes individual opportunity will never appeal to progressives or union voters. Why do I think that message has a small shot of winning over hispanic voters? Because Puerto Rico has a Republican governor that is advocating those positions.

From the WSJ:

Move over, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. You’ve got a tax-cutting, pro-growth competitor who may be even bolder than you. His name is Luis Fortuño and he is the governor of Puerto Rico, a place that, if you can believe it, is in worse fiscal shape than the Garden State.

When Mr. Fortuño took office in January 2009, Puerto Rico had a 46% budget shortfall equal to $3.3 billion. Things were so bad, he told me in a telephone interview from San Juan on Tuesday, that he had to fly to New York while still governor-elect to explain his fiscal plan to the investment community in order to avoid a sharp downgrade of Puerto Rican debt. “We were one step from junk status,” he says.

and

The governor says he cut 20% of the budget but “it was not enough.” Puerto Rico needs “to provide an environment for our people to flourish and to let their ingenuity take them where they want to go.” He adds: “Puerto Rico has not been competitive. Investors have been going to Singapore and Ireland. Our system was failing us.” And it wasn’t for lack of capital. Commonwealth debt offerings, he says, always sell out quickly. “There is plenty of money here but it has not been worthwhile taking risk” in private-sector ventures.

I'm not saying Republicans should suddenly become pro-amnesty and attempt to out-pander the Democrats for Hispanic votes. Just the opposite. Senator-elect Marco Rubio (R-Fl) refused to play the pander game to the point that Charlie Crist accused him(a son of Cuban immigrants) of not "being hispanic enough". Republicans need to start going into their communities and asking hispanics for their votes instead of just assuming that because they tend to be Catholic that they'll magically start voting R because of social issues. And we need to get started on reaching out yesterday.

On NRO Jim Geraghty's political sage discusses the Republican's problem relating to hispanics leading to the wipeout in California:

Jim: You mentioned California. Is that state gone for Republicans for the foreseeable future?

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Michael Medved said yesterday that Fiorina won the white vote by 9 percent, which is 61 percent of the total vote. But she did abysmally among Hispanics, getting only 28 percent. If she merely got to 40 percent, she wins.

Hispanic voters for a lot of reasons are nascent Republicans. But there are perception problems that need to be broken through. Those problems are not solved by doing what the consultants recommend — talking only about the economy while dancing around other issues. Our candidates need to be talking about ideas and discussing the difference between conservative and liberal philosophies. The question is one of educating voters about what those philosophies mean to them.

As much as I admire Gov. Christie, the MassGOP should try inviting Gov. Fortuno to the Commonwealth to campaign for our candidates next time. It's not like we have anything to lose.

Tierney's Record is the Scandal

The last time the voters of the sixth district tossed an incumbent Democrat it was scandal-plagued "Nicky Pockets". This week, our very own Johnny "Double-Down" Tierney has found himself engaged in damage control due to his wife's guilty plea in federal court. Congressman Tierney owes the voters an honest answer of what he knew and when before the election. His lame, focus-grouped, answer of being in a "twenty first century marriage" simply doesn't cut mustard. Look, the most likely explanation is that Tierney knew nothing about the eight million his wife was managing for her fugitive brother because he chose not to know. The you know what was destined to hit the fan and the congressman needed to maintain "plausible deniability". The $9,600 his mother-in-law,(who received money from the accounts) donated to his campaign and his vote against an internet gambling bill in 2006 that led to his wife's prosecution should be explained to the voters as well.

What I find far more troubling is the congressman's dismal record on job creation.The government announced on Friday that the economy shed another 95,000 jobs in September, keeping the unemployment rate at 9.6%. Unemployment has now topped 9.5% for fourteen straight months, representing the worst jobs record since the Great Depression. Yet, when the American people were begging Washington to focus on fixing the economy, Democrats instead fixated on "moving progressive agendas forward".

That agenda: The $862 billion stimulus, cap and trade, and nationalizing health care. The stimulus has proven to be nothing more than a bailout for government workers and wasted billions on Democrat special interests. Oh, they also gutted welfare reform, which they had been chomping at the bit to do since 1996. Cap and trade will increase the average family's energy bills by $1,761 a year. Since India and China have both refused to strangle their economies with similar caps on CO2, it will only increase the outsourcing of American jobs to those countries. The federal takeover of health care has proven to be the most controversial. It was recently announced that 22,000 seniors in MA will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage due to Obamacare. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Enacting this agenda hasn't been cheap. Johnny stood shoulder to shoulder with Barry, Harry and Nancy as they have pushed spending to record levels. The current spending binge has resulted in trillion plus budget deficits that extend indefinately and will result in the doubling of the national debt by 2020. The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) has found that if spending continues at this pace that taxes for everyone, not just the rich, will need to increase drastically. Their findings: The 10% bracket will increase to 25%, 25% to 63% and the 35% bracket to 88%.

Voters need to ask themselves if they can afford to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table if we double the debt and more than double taxes. Johnny hasn't asked that question, he's too busy enacting his agenda. If elected, Bill Hudak's only agenda will be getting our economy back on track and people back to work. He understands that Americans want to earn a paycheck, not scrape by on unemployment and foodstamps. I hope voters heed the Gambler's advice as they cast their ballots on Nov.2 "Know when to fold 'em,know when to walk away and know when to run".