NewsViewz.com

Geithner requesting vast new power to take over any company he deems too big to fail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032502311.html?hpid=topnews

The news out of the Treasury just keeps getting worse.  Now the Secretary is before Congress today asking for broad new (unspecified) powers to take control over any company (not just banks) he and his "deem" too big to fail.

Do you really want some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. determining whether a private company needs to be taken over and controlled by the government?  Do they even have the Constitutional authority to do so?

How to balance the budget? Increase the number of abortions.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/pelosi-defends.html

You've been warned about this thinking coming from the Democrat party, and here it is straight from the lips of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

In these tough economic times, the way to reduce the cost of government is to reduce the number of people by way of increased abortions.

This is the way they justify money in the ill-advised "stimulus" package.  It will help the bottom line because there will be less people being born who will cost money.

Nice, Madam Speaker.  Real nice.

Don't say you weren't warned about this.  Democrats will talk out both sides of their mouth on this issue until their blue in the face.  In the end, they want your tax dollars to fund abortions simply to reduce the financial burden on the federal budget.

Folks, ask yourself this question: Why is there ANY money in the federal budget going to anything related to abortion, whether pro or against?  This is a state issue, at best, and the federal government should be silent on it.

Don't be fooled by "tax cuts" in President-Elect Obama's Stimulas Proposal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/05/AR2009010502752.html

There has been a considerable amount of buzz in the media about the President-Elect Barack Obama's forthcoming stimulas package and the inclusion of some $300 Billion Dollars in so-called tax cuts.

His positions during the campaign on "tax cuts" should be cause for worry on this front, and smart observers will pay close attention to the details of the plan and not just the talking points.

For starters, a tax cut is only a tax cut if the person receiving the tax cut is already paying taxes.  Otherwise, it's just another form of welfare.  Part of President-Elect Obama's plan has always been to take tax revenue from those paying taxes and give it to those who do not pay taxes.  His so-called "tax cuts" are mostly targeted toward those people who already pay very little to no taxes.

To give him credit, the President-Elect Obama is discussing cutting business taxes, and that part of his plan needs to be discussed and thought through a bit more.  There may be some good there.

But, in general, President-Elect Obama's tax cut philosophy will always be centered around the idea that your money belongs to the government, and only through redistributionist policies will the government determine who gets how much back.  This is accomplished through tax credits and other incentives that first require the government to collect the money.

This is a big difference between traditional conservatives and big government liberals (both Democrat and Republican).  Conservatives argue that it's our money (private property rights are paramount), and that the government has a very short list of enumerated powers granted to them by the States through the Constitution for collecting and spending our money.

Freedom of the press could be compromised if we start bailing out the media.

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE4BU53T20081231?sp=true

I don't want to get into the debate here about whether the government should be "bailing out" any private company or industry (I believe they should not).  The question here is whether we jeopardize freedom of the press by spending goverment funds to attempt to keep these media companies afloat.

I believe the answer is a resounding yes.  If the recent bailouts are any indication, the government will assume some control of the companies it bails out.  But in order for there to remain freedom of the press, I don't think the goverment can have any sort of control, express or implied.

To provide funds to these media types, especially newspapers, would be a clear violation of the seperation of media and state.  We must not let that happen, which means we must not allow the government to spend any money trying to prop up failing newspapers and other media.

Don't even get me started about whether they're "too big to fail."  I don't want to hear it.