= U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts
Once again, the Obama administration uses government money to control others: "The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget."
Do we really want them paying for our healthcare?
= CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations' "In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations."
So she knew they thought it was legal -- the only part the Obama administration wants to prosecute -- and didn't say anything.
= EU calls for shorter work week to create jobs
Didn't France already prove this doesn't work?
Oklahoma looks like it's about to be the next state to remind the federal government about the 10th Amendment. It sounds great, and I'm sure it's very cathartic.
Beyond that it's really quite meaningless.
I think the states should pay attention to Prof. Randy Barnett's recommendation to "petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution."
His point is that such conventions, once convened, can do just about anything, so Congress would naturally want to avoid such an event. Thus they might be inclined to behave and maybe even offer the states a constitutional amendment to address their concerns. It's certainly worth a try.
Or maybe we should just repeal the 17th Amendment. Instant return to federalism.
Specter hints Hemp died of GOP agenda "Sen. Arlen Specter ... suggested that had the Republicans taken a more moderate track, Jack Kemp may have won his battle with cancer."
"'If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.'"
Which is a load of crap. As the WSJ pointed out today, "Between 1994 and 2006, when Republicans controlled Congress or the White House or both, NIH biomedical R&D spending more than doubled in real terms, jumping to $25 billion in 2003 from about $10 billion in the early 1990s."
"Most of the advances in biotechnology and pharmacogenomics that are revolutionizing the diagnosis and treatment of disease are occurring in America. One reason is a research environment that is less centralized, more competitive, tolerant of risk and richer in cash -- public, yes, but especially private."
The truth is, if we had adopted a single-payer healthcare system in the 90s, we would almost certainly have a program like Great Britain's NICE that determines which treatments are sufficiently cost effective. More to the point, they decide if a new drug's promise to give a cancer patient a couple of more years are worth the cost of said drug.
If the Democrats had their way in the 90s, Sen. Kennedy would probably be dead today.
Taxpayers to Get Rude Surprise Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring.
The government is going to want some of that money back.
Apparently the stimulus will only be a short-term loan for some people. Leave it to Washington to screw this up.
The last election saw the Republican party beat down, cussed out, and given a wedgie by the electorate. And it was all well deserved. The party of the Contract with America became just like the party it had deposed. After the election, pundits spent a lot of energy and ink on what they need to do to return from the wasteland.
Did they listen? Signs suggest they might have done just that. The Republicans in Congress have worked hard to not just oppose but to counter-propose on just about every issue that's come up. They offered a different vision on the stimulus and on the budget and at least tried to have a conversation about the bailouts. Not that any of it had any impact.
Meanwhile some Republican governors have tried to highlight the difference in their approach to governing from the Washington Democrats by refusing at least some of the "stimulus" money offered to states. That's putting your money where your mouth is. And it will probably cost at least one of them his job.
Has it done any good? Not really. First, the media pays little attention to out-of-power Republicans. If their counter-proposals get no air time, they will be of little use. They're going to have to figure out a way to get their message out despite that. Of course, this is the age of the alternative media -- Fox, Drudge, blogs, twitter, etc; they should be able to make some headway, but they've got a lot of work to do.
Second, when they call the president or congressional Democrats on spending, the voters will rightly think them hypocrits. They are going to have to work very hard to earn back the people's trust -- or wait for the Dems to make such a mess of things that people are ready to vote for anyone who isn't a Democrat.
In the meantime, they should take every opportunity to remind the voters -- and the president -- of Mr. Obama's promises of bipartisanship. Of course it was just a campaign promise, but there are a lot of people who need to learn that Barack Obama is just another politician.
I give them a C+ for lots of effort with little results.
So it’s the time when people rate how a president has done in his first 100 days in office. How can a conservative rate an unabashedly liberal president? Well, if it is done carefully, I think it can be done fairly.
The operative question is, “what did I expect”, or maybe “what did I fear?”
From that perspective, the Obama administration hasn’t been the train wreck it could have been. He’s allowed continuity with the last administration in handling the war, he hasn’t pulled the all the troops from Iraq, he’s increased the troops in Afghanistan, and he’s left wiggle room in the closing of Guantanamo.
Though he’s certainly not pro-life or pro-gun, he hasn’t pushed for FOCA or new gun controls. Yet. And many of his cabinet appointments are far less liberal and far more responsible than they could have been.
Beyond that, well, he’s a Democrat, so there have been few real surprises.
He ended the Mexico City policy and sort of funded ESCR. Well, he pretty much promised that up front. The European Apology Tour, though irritating, was hardly surprising. His “stimulus” was a typical liberal response to any problem – give money we don’t have to people who produce nothing and expand government power and influence.
The death of the post-partisanship wasn’t surprising – every politician claims to want to bring a new tone to Washington; the swing voters require it. The only surprise is that they still believe anyone.
The only real surprises have been the dismissing of corporate officers as if they were government employees (I really didn’t expect that kind of gall) and the administration’s passive approach to this new flu (of course, this is still fairly new).
If the rest of Pres. Obama’s term is as quiet as the first 100 days, we’ll be lucky. Broke, but lucky. Unfortunately all signs suggest he’s only getting started. My rating? C (You can decide whether that stands for "could be worse" or "conservative bias.")
/* --------------
-----analytics code */
