Tea Parties to kick off tomorrow across the nation

Across the nation tomorrow, Tea Parties are kicking off in protest of the unsustainable tax and spending policies exhibited in the massive $700 billion bank bailout, the monstrous $787 billion stimulus plan, the $410 omnibus spending bill, and the bloated Obama budget boasting a shocking $1.5 trillion deficit. Rick Santelli had the right idea when he said we were rewarding irresponsibility and incompetence with these agenda-driven spending measures.

Michelle Malkin has more details on the tongue-in-cheek protests. The nearest one to me is in Cleveland, and I won’t be able to attend, but I’m 100% the effort to get people to realize the destructive impact of these economic policies and how fed up so many of us are at watching our money go down the drain.

I’m adding a Tea Party Twitterbox to this post to link to what’s going on (EDIT: No I’m not, WordPress doesn’t support JavaScript widgets). Good luck to all the organizers and attendees. Maybe we’ll wake up a few people.

Monstrous deficit in Obama’s bloated budget

President Obama today unveiled his $3.55 trillion budget that boasts a whopping $1.75 trillion deficit. So much for all that fiscal responsibility, eh? The budget will cost each American taxpayer $25,573.48.I don’t know what your financial circumstances are, but that’s over half of my yearly salary going down the drains in this sinkhole of a budget. Michelle Malkin has some other fun facts about the eye-popping budget.

Jake Tapper reports that the budget proposes nearly $1 trillion in new taxesover the next ten years. Along with Obama’s stated plan of rolling back the Bush tax cuts, we’re going to see suffocating tax hikes to pay for this monster, which is the exact opposite of what’s needed in this tenuous economic climate.

The bottom line is that this country cannot afford to be spending this amount of money because we just don’t have it, and it’s irresponsible to be racking up this much debt in a single year, debt which we keep issuing in unprecedented amounts. It’s why Senator Clinton urged China to keep buying up our financial obligations, making us beholden to a Communist nation that already controls a significant amount of our treasury notes.

The deficit will only grow larger in years to come as further spending programs are unveiled. I urge you again to look at the plight of California to see where reckless government spending growth will lead. This nation cannot sustain the stratospheric levels of debt that are being immortalized in our legislation, and I fear these moves will only serve to deepen the current economic crisis. The massive growth in government and increased dependence on its services, coupled with class-warfare-based vindictive tax policies that serve to redistribute wealth from producers to consumers, will rip America away from the populist principles of economic freedom it was founded upon. The transformation is tragic, and though there may yet be time to stay the hand of fate, the Founding Fathers will be quite restless in their graves in the months and years to come.

Senate victory and defeat for opponents of radio censorship

An amendment sponsored by Senator Jim DeMint passed today, the so-called Broadcaster Freedom Act, passed in the Senate 87-11. The amendment bans the Fairness Doctrine from being passed into law, which had been floated by several prominent legislators and President Clinton.

The outright rejection of the Fairness Doctrine by a dominating majority is a very good step. The downside is the passage of the amendment sponsored by Dick Durbin,which forces the FCC to examine ownership diversity and removes language in the DeMint amendment that would have prevented Fairness Doctrine-like language inserted into other bills. This amendment passed on a party line vote of 57-41.

Both of these amendments require the passage of the bill to which they’re attached, the DC Voting Rights Act, and the fairness amendment would have to survive a conference reconciling the bill to the House version. Media censorship had an important defeat today, but the debate is unfortunately still not put to rest.

More spending and more government despite Obama’s celebrated rhetoric

Fresh from a State-of-the-Union-style speech that CNN ridiculously declared as Reaganesque, President Obama hoped his optimistic talk would allay concerns and fears over the economy, concerns and fears that were largely stoked by himself and his own party to grease the wheels for the passage of the massive economic stimulus bill. Unfortunately, the market, which enjoyed a slight increase during the day, took a sharp nosedive shortly after Obama promised more government intervention. The rhetoric last night might have been flowery, but the hard reality is that Obama cloaks his liberal spending agenda in moderate to conservative tones to make it palatable to the American public. Massive spending and government control are his tools of choice, despite all his talk of tax cuts and supporting the middle class.

To add insult to injury, little more than a week after we spent $787 billion in a lot of spending that was hardly designed to stimulate, the House has today passed a a $410 ominbus spending bill, loaded to the gills with pork. That’s almost $1.5 trillion, gone in less than two weeks, in addition to the $700 billion TARP money and Geithner’s coming second bank bailout, dollar amount to be determined but sure to be north of $500 billion. All this wasted money is before we even consider Obama’s budget, and $634 billion for nationalizing health care alone doesn’t instill me with any confidence that Obama is going to be frugal.

If Obama signs this omnibus spending bill after the Senate passes it, then proposes a mammoth budget with a monstrous deficit, there is no way he can ever claim any modicum of fiscal responsibility, not that he really could now. These wanton spend, spend, spend tactics will not save us and instead will put us in even further trouble. Look at California – massive government spending does not solve the problems of a sick economy. Is it any wonder governors, including Democratic Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesan, are becoming reluctant to accept the stimulus money?

One last thought – Bobby Jindal deserved better than the panning he got from the media and from pundits. He’s an intelligent and articulate man, and an effective politician. That people react towards him with such visceral dismissal and childish hatred says more about their lack of acknowledgement of character than it does about Gov. Jindal. I hope he keeps up the good fight, as he seems to be a fundamentally decent man.

Leahy pressing forward with Bush Truth Commission

It looks like Senator Patrick Leahy is plowing forward with his plans to form a Truth Commission to investigate crimes of the Bush administration. I’ve said it before, this has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with partisan grandstanding. Leahy talks in circles about how “we cannot move forward until we understand what happened.” It’s nonsense, and Leahy knows it. If we’re to have a fair accounting, let’s not limit it to the last 8 years, let’s look at all the decisions modern Presidents have made! Of course, that’s not the goal, it’s to go on a fishing expedition to further highlight anything that can be played as a negative.

Is this really going to change the tone in Washington? Is this the bipartisanship Obama wants? I’ll tell you this, if this happens, Republicans are going to be completely alienated with little chance of ever bringing them to your side. If the goal is to have a juvenile victory dance, then I guess good for you – if the goal is to have an inclusive government, then you can kiss that goodbye. And if Obama goes along with unspoken approval, he’ll be just as guilty of the venomous partisanship he supposedly wants to get rid of.

Arrogance: Obama accomplishes more in a month than any other modern President

As President Obama prepares for a State of the Union-style speech tonight, his staffers are busy pounding their chests and inflating Barack’s ego. Jake Tapper reports that a White House official made the jaw-dropping claim that “President Obama has accomplished more in 30 days than any president in modern history.” Apparently he’s got such an impressive set of wins under his belt in a span of time where previous Presidents were merely warming up their legislative efforts.

Strictly speaking, you could perhaps make an argument supporting that based on the legislation passed so far. However, we hardly know for certain yet what the ultimate effect of these “wins” is going to be on the country, and a lot of opinion is that it will be a net negative. That’s not the point – the over-the-top, “we are living history” rhetoric has got to stop. Every time we turn around, Obama is compared favorably to Lincoln, to FDR, to Kennedy, even, shockingly, to Reagan. Obama has accomplished nothing in a month except to cheerlead bills he did not write, harmful spending bills which will bankrupt the country.

The arrogance is staggering, and the narcissistic disregard for history in the sentiment does nothing to bring the country together – instead, it only serves as call to subservience to the President and his agenda, a supposed reminder that this political neophyte really is the greatest President in history, and we ought not question his motives or plans. I might have a better time accepting Obama if it weren’t for these messianic hallelujahs that have been directed towards him and which he has done nothing to dissuade, because they serve him.

“Greatest President in modern history?”

I say shut up and govern.

Roddick says “no” to Dubai

I give tennis star Andy Roddick massive kudos on his recent decision to drop out of a tournament in Dubai in protest of the United Arab Emirates’ refusal to issue a visa to Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer. He says, “I don’t know if it’s the best thing to mix politics and sports, and that was probably a big part of it.” The UAE is being fined by the World Tennis Association, which is taking action to ensure that discrimination like this won’t be allowed in the future.

Roddick is the defending champion in that Dubai tournament, and he showed guts by publicly dropping out. It was absolutely the right move, as hatred and racism should have no place in the “pure” world of sports.

So NOW Obama wants fiscal responsibility

President Obama today met with senior lawmakers today in a so-called “fiscal responsibility summit” – by rights, the title ought to be more of a punchline. After the passage of a bloated $787 billion stimulus package, President Obama now pledges to cut the federal spending deficit in the future. In one of the biggest cackle-worthy quotes I’ve yet seen, he says, “We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences.”

… Excuse me, Mr. President, but what exactly did you think that stimulus package was all about?

I highly doubt anything meaningful is going to come out of this PR stunt for both parties, which Michelle Malkin rightly refers to as just another barrel of monkeys. John McCain wasted time by whining about an over budget helicopter order. Sure it’s useful to be cognizant of individual items of wasteful spending like that, but by focusing on minutiae the policy-makers will miss the forest for the trees.

Big surprise, Obama plans on taxing the wealthy (read: small businesses) to reduce the deficit, along with some other measures that may actually be useful, such as a pay-as-you-go measure that requires an equal spending cut every time an increase is proposed. I don’t know how seriously I can take such a measure, though, given all the reckless spending that has already taken place. RedState has commentary on the fiscal discipline trial balloon that’s being floated.

One thing I’ll back Obama on is his newly stated desire to solve the Social Security insolvency disaster. The only problem? His own party is giving him the finger on it. (Heads up from Patterico.) It’s really quite tragic, as a reform effort would go a long way to placate conservatives, but the liberal elite have no intention on wasting time on other people’s agendas, however responsible they might be.

It’s important to note that Wall Street remains unimpressed by all these “bold and sweeping” moves, today shedding 251 points to fall to 1997 levels. I maintain that we are following the California model of reckless spending into bankruptcy, except we are now doing it on a national level. As Human Events notes, Obama is failing these early tests of leadership, and he has few opportunities remaining to get it right.

Two quick notes: I have to for now give the Obama administration props for shooting down the idea of taxing motorists by the mile and for denying the institution of the Fairness Doctrine (although the celebration may be quite premature.) I say “for now” because I’m not fully convinced either one of these issues has been fully put to rest, especially not when there are rabid activists hoping for their implementation and willing to exert pressure to ensure their passage.

Update: Yeah, so much for the fiscal responsibility. Michelle Malkin has the heads-up on a new $410 billion spending bill coming down the pike, with pork a-plenty. Let’s see … $700 billion in failed bank bailouts, $787 billion in pork-choked stimulus spending, a new $410 billion in more spending, and Geithner’s TBA 2nd bank bailout which could be as high as $1 trillion (we’ll assume half gets cut, which is a generous figure) … we’re talking about $2.5 trillion with a “T” thrown down the tubes, all of it taxpayer money. It’s 3 times the cumulative cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, so any drawdown of operations is not going to produce a comparable financial impact. I believe the point I’m reaching at is … we’re screwed.

CNBC anchor rages against the administration’s economic plan

I hope by now you have seen the eyebrow-raising video of CNBC anchor Rick Santelli (in the upper right corner) vent about the mortgage bailouts in the stimulus plan while other traders on the floor of the Chicago exchange whooped and applauded his diatribe against the irresponsibility of rewarding those who made ill-advised lending choices. You don’t hear CNBC mentioned that often, as it’s usually a fairly tame financial reporting network, and in the video, it’s almost humorous how it seems the other hosts almost don’t know how to respond when Santelli tells them he wants another Tea Party, this time dumping derivatives into Chicago Bay. I’m tempted to join him.

RedState has it right – no one wants to bail out irresponsibility, but that’s exactly what we’ve done here. Analysts like Mish Shedlock argue that the mortgage modifications are a bad idea all around, that borrowers got over their heads and should have known better. Should responsible mortgage-payers be on the hook for those who bought more house than they could afford? And what about renters, who seem to be left out of the equation?

It’s important to note that even Democrats are noting how non-partisan the stimulus bill was. When it fails, be on the lookout for what the nexy big government solution will be.

Jihadist kids shows – why there won’t be Middle East peace anytime soon

I meant earlier to link to this fantastic article by Patterico highlighting hateful jihadist programming shown on Palestinian TV and, yes, aimed at children. We have delightful examples of a cartoon bee wishing to follow the path of martyrdom, a giant bunny excited about getting rid of Jew filth, and a bear vowing to wage jihad and carry a gun to, of course, protect the children of Palestine. Whatever you think of Israel, you must admit their children aren’t subjected to vicious hate like this.

With violent rhetoric like this, designed to inoculate hate into the most innocent and unspoiled minds, peace in the Middle East just simply cannot be possible, not when one side has trained its youth from such a tender age to hate and kill their adversaries, and to celebrate their deaths. Patterico has it right – it’s a culture of death, and dealing with such reckless hate has no easy solution.

AG Holder: We’re a “nation of cowards” on race

In an address to Justice Department employees marking Black History month, Attorney General Eric Holder described America as a “nation of cowards” on racial issues, remarking the workplace is integrated, but we self-segregate on the weekends and don’t discuss unresolved racial issues. He’s taking some well-deserved heat for his ill-conceived comment.

Holder wants more of a dialogue, but what happens when one tries to present an alternative view to liberal positions on racial issues? Rush Limbaugh and Bill Cosby are two recent notable example who were pilloried for their questioning of liberal orthodoxy when it comes to race. If you don’t think affirmative action is that helpful, you’re a racist. If you think welfare should be scaled back to save government costs, you’re a racist. If you take issue with thuggish elements of hip-hop culture, you’re a racist. If you think that people should be judged by the content of their character and not on the color of their skin, then you’re not being sensitive to the unique experiences of minorities.

Conservative opinion is denounced almost the moment it is spoken, and its arguments are rejected without consideration because they are “racist.” This is intellectually lazy, as instead of coming up with reasoned arguments to refute points of contention, one can simply disqualify an entire point of view as “hateful” and be done with the so-called discussion. I agree that we need to be more open about racial issues, but political correctness has made it almost impossible to have a meaningful dialogue that gets at the root cause of our nation’s race-based  headaches and misunderstandings.

So we’re a nation of cowards, are we? If so, it’s due to only one cause – politically correct liberal bullying.

High school students skeptical of Obama as he visits them

In a story that may make you feel a little bit more hopeful about the future, take a look at this story  from the East Valley Tribune in Phoenix (heads up from MM). The article goes into the skeptical reactions of Dobson High School students as they watch Obama speak in their school gymnasium. They watched him on TV, so I guess the students weren’t allowed to physically attend the speech. Some students laughed and shook their heads at Obama’s proposals, questioned why Obama chose to come to their particular school, and joked that the new sod in front had been rushed in for the presidential visit.

I think a lot of folks take for granted that youth are TV-numbed MySpace zombies that don’t care about current events and when they do, go for flash and style over thoughtful substance. These students show that a lot of our kids are paying attention and forming their own opinions. It makes you feel hopeful for the future, for maybe, just maybe, the Idolization of our culture won’t take hold.

Obama signs monstrous stimulus; stocks tank

With a soaring speech outlining his hope for the new legislation, President Obama today signed the $787 billion stimulus package into law. Despite all the supposed optimism, the Dow dropped 300 points, reflecting pessimism on Wall Street that this bill will do any real good.

I have already railed so much against this pork-ridden non-job-creating legislation that I run the risk of repeating myself if I recount all that is wrong with it here. It has passed, and the money will soon be doled out – or I should say, the money will soon be borrowed or printed to dole out. The big beneficiaries here are the favorite spending programs of the liberal elite, not the American workers. The protests against it today have been amusing so far.

We ought to learn from the example of California, a state that has spent its way into oblivion and is now locked in a budget battle and can’t currently provide state tax refunds. Obama likes to talk about abandoning the failed policies of the past, yet a great deal of the stimulus funds are to be used to shore up states like California that have spent themselves into fiscal catastrophe, and yet their model is one that Obama continues to think will have success.

This isn’t the free market or capitalism at work, and it was obvious to many that Obama never planned to make sure those concepts were strengthened. In fact, along with a few Senate Republicans, he favors the Swedish model of bank nationalization to stabilize the financial sector. Nationalizing industries is by definition socialism, and his supporters during the campaign were fierce and quick to point out that Obama was no socialist, that his “spread the wealth” comments really didn’t mean the American people have anything to worry about. If he continues down this path toward a European socialist economic model, it will show how disingenuous Obama and his campaign were – if they thought a socialist model would fix the economic crisis, they should have said so. Instead, they falsely promised tax and spending cuts, because promising socialism doesn’t win you an election in America.

A note on the Swedish model: Sweden nationalized their banks, cleaned up the books, then auctioned them away. That means that, after nationalization, the Obama administration would have to give the banks back. I don’t know about you, but nothing I have seen in recent years gives me confidence that once government takes control, they will relinquish that power back to the people. After all, we are the uneducated unwashed masses; better that a comforting nanny state take care of all the pesky decisions for us.

Chavez now able to campaign for office for life

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has just won a term-limit referendum that allows he and other politicians to run for office indefinitely.  The measure passed something like 54% to 46% after being narrowly defeated a few years ago. Chavez of course took to the microphones to celebrate, proclaiming, “Victory! Victory! Popular victory! … A victory for the revolution.”

No matter what country, I think term limits are a good idea – it keeps fresh blood circulating in the political bloodstream and keeps forceful personalities from exerting a lengthy unhealthy influence on a society. I don’t personally like a lot of Chavez’s rhetoric, and I don’t like how cozy he’s getting with Iran and Russia, but for some reason a majority of Venezuelans thought it was a good idea to reward him with unlimited opportunity for reelection. That’s their choice, but I hope both our countries don’t come to regret that decision.

The noise continues on bringing back the Fairness Doctrine

Bill Clinton has now given his two cents in the push for media censorship (or “Fairness Doctrine” as some misname it). He told a liberal talk show host on Thursday that we need the Fairness Doctrine or some other form of balance on the airwaves. He joins Sen. Tom Harkin and Rep. Maurice Hinchey to echo Sen. Mary Stabenow – you know, the Senator married to liberal talk radio executive Tom Athans – in pining for the abridgement of conservative speech on AM/FM radio.

Can you guess the party of those above? It’s amazing to me that Clinton and Stabenow, complaining about the lack of liberal opinion on the airwaves, both made their comments on liberal talk shows – they exist, they’re just not as popular, and for a reason. Someone is going to have to explain to me again how exactly it’s fair to demand equal apportionment of political views exclusively on the one medium that conservatives seem to dominate. Why not apply the same standard to broadcast TV, making the networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, and – gasp! – even PBS in some markets subject to apportionment? Why not try it first on taxpayer-funded NPR instead of busting through to the commercial markets?

The clear answer is that it isn’t about ensuring equal time for opinions, it’s about shutting down an avenue of discourse for those that disagree with you. And the “we regulate porn, why not talk radio?” argument advanced by Sen. Charles Schumer is the most shameful of all – the Founding Fathers saw political speech as something important to democracy and something to be preserved, not a gutter pursuit that threatens kids, as the argument is made for pornography regulation. Government, whether conservative or liberal, has no business dictating to any media company what they ought to be publishing in the public realm – let the marketplace decide that. Politicians may disagree publicly with the content and opinions of those programs, but enacting laws that regulate those opinions is a major threat to the First Amendment.