Forward?

On May 2, 2012, in Barack Obama, Congress, Unemployment, by PolitowskiWander129

From the diaries. Dear Mister President: I stopped by your house the other day because I wanted to talk with you about what’s happened since we last met. I vividly remember the day you passed through my neighborhood during your 2008 campaign for President. I looked you in the eye and asked how your tax plan would affect a business I was going to buy. Ultimately, after describing a complicated tax scheme that seemed to require jumping through hoops to avoid being punished for success, you finished by saying that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”. Surely you remember that, don’t you? More after the jump… In the time since we first met, a lot of folks have lost their job while you got the one for which you were applying. Funny how that worked out: millions of folks out here are living the nightmare of broken dreams, lost livelihoods, and crushing unemployment under your watch while you enjoy the perks of your new job being President of the greatest country on earth. It must be nice to get lavish vacations in exotic places for you and your family, playing unending rounds of golf at the world’s best country clubs while most of us Americans are just happy to be able to pay our bills. Your burdensome and punishing regulations made sure that job-creating small businesses suffer like never before. And yet, through it all, your friends, bundlers, and campaign contributors seem to be doing just fine. Thanks to your “spread the wealth” message, we’ve got people “occupying” legitimate businesses and industries, terrorizing the children of business leaders in their own homes, and calling for government control of everything and everybody. I thought you’d like to hear how all that is working out for us out here in the real world. Mister President, I think it’s time you and I continued our conversation. I tried early and late, but you weren’t home and I couldn’t find anyone to take a message. Perhaps you had a good score at the golf course today? Any luck getting more campaign donations? I’m sure that’s taking up a lot of your energy. By the way… you may have heard I am running for Congress in the OH-9 district. I’m going to win. Maybe you can stop by my office when you and your family visit DC and I’ll show you around my new digs. We can finish that chat then. Crossposted at Joe for Congress 2012

See the original post here:
Forward?

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress
Tagged with:
 

This should send a chill down everyone’s spine. Imagine having the most powerful man on Earth singling you out by name then slandering you for donating to his opponent’s campaign? Via WSJ: Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in

See the rest here:
Unreal: Obama Singles Out Private Citizens By Name For Donating To Romney, Accuses Them Of “Betting Against America”…

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress
Tagged with:
 

As we’ve noted in recent weeks, there is an effort to bail out the Postal Service with phony accounting measures.  Democrats are currently voting on amendments to  a bailout bill ( S. 1789 ) that leaves taxpayers on the hook, without reforming the USPS with structural changes that the Postmaster General himself supports. This bill will offer a backhanded channel to grant the USPS $41 billion from the Treasury.  This is accomplished in two ways.  First, the bill would rebate $11.1 billion in “overpayments” to the Treasury.  The problem is that these are not overpayments. Last year, the GAO ruled that the Postal Service was wrong in their assertion that they overpaid for employee retirement benefits. After all, like anyone who pays a fixed amount into a pension fund with a variable rate of interest, there are ups and downs depending on the market. As such, any money recouped from the Treasury would engender more taxpayer funding. Second, this bill would re-amortize the entire prefunded payment structure, denying the Treasury of nearly $30 billion. Supporters of the bill refer to it as an intra-governmental transfer. In reality, it is a backhanded bailout. Even the Postmaster General, Patrick Donahoe, wants to reform the Post Office and cut $22 billion in costs by closing offices and ending Saturday delivery.  This bill precludes those reforms and ensures that the USPS will remain insolvent, exposing taxpayers to future bailouts. Earlier in the day, Senator Sessions tried to raise a point of order against the bill, noting that it would violate the Budget Control Act by increasing the debt through reduced funding in the treasury.  This is yet another example where Republicans could have blocked a bad piece of legislation by denying Democrats the 60 votes they needed to waive the point of order.  But with the help of 9 Republicans , they defeated the point of order and proceeded with debate on the bill that will likely pass. Later on, Senator McCain proposed a substitute amendment (S. 1625), which would create a new postal oversight board (similar to BRAC)  to close $3 billion worth of facilities over a two-year period and seize financial authority over the Postal Service if it defaults with more than a $2 billion deficit for more than two years.  It would also allow them to make reforms, such as ending Saturday delivery.  This will ensure that the USPS either succeeds on its own merits or becomes a private entity – free of government regulations, but also free of its government-sponsored monopoly on first class mail.  The bill closely mirrors the Issa-Ross bill in the House.  Yet, once again 16 Republicans joined with Democrats to defeat this modest reform bill. This is going to be a long week on the Hill….

More here:
Another Capitulation on Postal “Reform”

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress
Tagged with:
 

Lost Sense of Duty

On April 23, 2012, in Barack Obama, by Cougar01

The mindless gnomes of the General Services Administration and the highly-trained agents of the United States Secret Service have one thing in common: they are all federal civil servants. But the difference between them, and the import of the scandals now hanging heavily over both agencies, are symptoms of something bigger that we ignore at our peril. We expect very little from the GSA, and we get it. The GSA culture on display in the planning, execution, and celebration of their infamous $800,000 Las Vegas conference was the inevitable result of the permissive “you’ll die before you can get fired” culture that predominates many federal bureaucracies. The GSA’ers are fat, dumb, and happy in their jobs and have no interest in being responsible stewards of the public purse. Like so many other dysfunctional agencies, GSA should be disbanded entirely, which can be done without much effect on anything else. The GSA scandal gives the lie to the liberal ideology. More government isn’t better government. More government, and an ever-expanding unaccountable bureaucracy, means more waste, fraud, and misbehavior by civil servants who don’t believe they’ll ever be fired for bad job performance. But the Secret Service is not the GSA, the Department of Education, or HHS. It’s a law enforcement agency, an intelligence agency and it has close connections to the military. It and the rest of the law enforcement community have a lot in common with the military in terms of culture, mindset and — most importantly — sense of duty. When a dozen or more Secret Service agents chose to party with hookers at the Hotel Caribe in Cartagena, Colombia, their decision was a deviation from the military-law enforcement culture which needs to be as closely examined as the misbehavior they apparently engaged in. Part of it may be a diminution of character, as Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal. But it is much more than that. The deviation from Secret Service practice and tradition demonstrated by the hooker party was a knowing and intentional abandonment of their duty. Duty is a concept little known outside the military and law enforcement communities. Military members and law enforcement officers — including Secret Service agents — take an oath which requires them to perform the duties of their office and obey the lawful orders they are given with the understanding that those duties may cost them their lives. Like the military, the Secret Service people are volunteers. And, like military members, Secret Service agents undertake those risks willingly and by taking their oath, they seek to be a part of something larger than themselves. Those who seek to be a part of a larger-than-self organization do so because of the pride it instills in them. They dedicate themselves to the training and discipline that is necessary to meet the standards of their cohorts. They work and train when they’re off duty, running on their own time, shooting at public ranges and building the kind of tight-knit teams that can function together quickly and reflexively. Like the military, by that kind of “muscle memory” teamwork, Secret Service agents do what they’re sworn to do, whether it’s thinking about an investigation or throwing themselves over a president to take a bullet. And in those off-duty times, duty is ever-present. Yes, character is part of it. Men of character don’t carouse with prostitutes wherever they find themselves, they don’t take illicit drugs or hit the booze to an extent that they can’t be at 100% alertness and strength to do their jobs when they report for duty — that word again — the following day. The sense of duty — a deep commitment — isn’t something a person who is dedicated to their purpose can abandon. It’s ingrained in body and soul, a habit and creed. When people abandon it with malice aforethought, as the suspects in the Cartagena incident apparently did by planning the big party in advance, that act bespeaks of an abandonment of duty that runs too deep for the agency to function. The fact that two Secret Service supervisors are among them tells me that the problem is not something that can be solved by firing a few people. And, if you believe the U.S. News and World Report study of the Secret Service from a decade ago, these problems have been building for too long without anyone taking them on. The investigation of the Cartagena incident continues, and there are reports that other agents will be fired or retired. Those involved shouldn’t be retired: if accountability has any meaning at all, they should be fired for cause, deprived of their retirements, and cast out as the misfits they are. When that’s over, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan may have to go. We don’t — thankfully — know the daily inner workings of the Secret Service, nor should we. We don’t know if its culture has been so damaged that its history of valor and skill has been betrayed completely. I doubt that is the case. But from the obvious failure in Colombia we can see one problem and a solution to it. One thing we can deduce from the facts we have is that the system of peer pressure, which supports the sense of duty in all within the group, has apparently failed in the Secret Service. Like the military, its people train, practice, and work as a team and it’s the team members who work hard to train to satisfy each other as much as to satisfy the training regs. It’s a matter of pride and sense of duty. If the team feels no need to discipline itself, the sense of duty fails. Without that sense, that common purpose, the Secret Service becomes nothing more than the GSA. The solution will be found among the youngest and the oldest of the Secret Service cadres. The director, whether it is Sullivan or his successor, needs to go among them himself, taking the time to find a few dozen who not only have the strongest sense of duty but the leadership skills to re-instill it across the agency. That’s the hard part. The easy part will be for those leaders to take a mandate from the director and restore a culture of duty, honor, and country that must predominate agents’ thinking. The damage done by the Cartagena incident will be deeply felt by every agent worth his salt. The team the director selects will be able to spot the remaining bad apples, and there will be some who have to be sent packing. For the others, a restoration of pride and purpose will come quickly and will last as long as every agent takes it as his personal responsibility to have a sense of duty as his — and his fellow agents’ — purpose in life.

Continued here:
Lost Sense of Duty

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress
Tagged with:
 

Via Hot Air comes this… I’m not sure what it is, besides pathetic. Anyway, Brian Schweitzer is apparently reveling in the curious freedom of being term-limited as the (Democratic) Governor of Montana; he decided to give The Daily Beast an earful, and I’m not entirely certain that Schweitzer has realized yet just how badly he stepped in it. Certainly badly enough that if he was hoping for a Senate gig in ’14, he should probably… stop hoping for that. The Daily Beast contacted the office of Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer today to talk about whether his state would be in play in the 2012 presidential election. About a half hour later, the governor called back, and he had a lot to say. He didn’t think that Montana would be a swing state, but the Democrat did say that Mitt Romney could have issues nationally because his father was “born on a polygamy commune in Mexico.” First off: Montana’s officially not in play, now? So much for that 49/47 split in 2008, then. And so much for the narrative that Barack Obama’s going to be doing anything except grimly pursue a defensive strategy in 2012, either. If they’re realistically not contending for any state that McCain won, our job gets a lot easier. But that’s not the bit that’s topical; the bit that’s topical is the “born on a polygamy commune in Mexico.” Normally you expect governors to be smarter than this. Yes, it is true: Romney’s dad came from a polygamous household. Funny thing is – and I refuse to believe that Governor Schweitzer doesn’t know this already – SO DID OBAMA’S . The line of polygamists in Obama’s family can be traced back generations in western Kenya, where it was an accepted practice within the Luo (pronounced LOO-oh) tribe. His great-grandfather, Obama Opiyo, had five wives, including two who were sisters. His grandfather, Hussein Onyango, had at least four wives, one of whom, Akumu, gave birth to the president’s father, Barack Obama, before fleeing her abusive husband. Obama Sr. was already married when he left Kenya to study at the University of Hawaii, where he married again. His American wife-to-be, Stanley Ann Dunham, was not yet 18 and unaware of his marital situation when she became pregnant with his namesake son in 1961. And that leads to an obvious question: exactly why does Governor Schweitzer think that is this going to be a problem for Mitt Romney, and not for Barack Obama? Is there some other factor in play here that he doesn’t want to have to have to say out loud – and thus have the statement be on the governor’s public record? Well, I think that if there is one that Schweitzer’s seeing but not saying, then he needs to spell it out. Explicitly. That is: if he has the guts, of course. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) PS: It is proving surprisingly entertaining to watch the Democrats struggle to find a way to call Mitt Romney weird that doesn’t immediately lead to a perfectly reasonable observation that Barack Obama’s actually weirder. What’s next? Discussing the parenting record of George Romney? – Because trust me: the Democrats don’t want to directly compare and contrast that , either…

See original here:
Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D, MT): having a polygamous family history is bad! …if you’re a Republican.

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress
Tagged with: