NewsViewz.com

Stimulus spending could alternately pay off 90% of mortgages. Which would you prefer?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok

I hadn't thought about it quite like this article puts it.  But it is an interesting point to think about.

Do you think that paying off 90% of U.S. mortgages would stimulate the economy?  I think it might stand a better chance at economic stimulus than how it's being spent now.

What do you think?

But here's why it won't fly: It's not really about stimulus, it's about payoffs.  The Democrats who are cramming this so-called stimulus down our throats mainly cater their policies to lower income people who are least likely to own their home and have a mortgage.  (Hence, why they're so interested in throwing money at programs that supposedly get people into homes.)

If we paid off 90% of mortgages, we'd still be missing payoffs to the kinds of people who are likely to be Democrat votors.

Where are the real economic conservatives?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VULUO0&show_article=1

This article discusses President Obama's willingness to compromise on the so-called "stimulus package" that is likely to be voted on by Congress today.

Some Republicans quoted in the article say that they are getting more hassles from Democrats in Congress than the Democrat in the White House.  While I assume that's true, I think there is a bigger concern that Republicans (many - not all) have conceded the argument over whether it's the government's job to stimulate.

The argument they should be having on Capital Hill is whether they should even be spending any money to "stimulate" the economy.  Republicans seem to have conceded that core issue.  All that's left to discuss is the level to which it's appropriate for the government to spend.

If they truly believe that the economy is best recovered through government spending, then why stop at $800 or $900 billion?

Why's everybody in such a rush to stimulate?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

Months ago, when the first "bailout" plan was announced, we were told that swift, immediate, and decisive action was mandatory.  We must act now... or else.

We've been told the same thing as it relates to the global warming panic for decades now.

And now this latest round of bailouts and supposed economic stimulus must be done right now.  There is a sense of urgency beyond anything else, and it's getting a little rediculous.

So what's the rush?  Usually, we would argue against making rushed decisions.  About anything.  But certainly about spending this kind of money.

Time tends to bring light to things previously unthought about or considered.  I wonder how many congresspeople have even read half of the stimulus bill?  I doubt many, if any.

Senate Confirms Hillary as Secretary of State. No concerns about Bill's foreign donors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28750248

In light of the remaining concerns regarding Bill Clinton's foreign donors, I question the Senate's decision to confirm Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  I'm just not sure it was a wise decision in light of the risks.  Was there no one else?

Consider this scenario: Bill Clinton receives a big donation to his charity, or gets a big fee to speak in some foreign country.  Then, that country brings concerns regarding some U.S. foreign policy to our Secretary of State, who happens to be married to Bill.  Is there no concern that a foreign country would expect something from the State Department in return for big money given to the Secretary of State's husband?

It's just something to think about.  A concern.

The questions Hillary Clinton SHOULD be asked, but won't be.

http://www.slate.com/id/2208425/

Christopher Hitchens has a great article out in Slate Magazine that basically says that Hillary Clinton should not be confirmed as Secretary of State.

Some of the interesting questions sprinkled throughout the article:

"Picture, if you will, Hillary Clinton facing a foreign-policy conundrum. With whom will she discuss it first and most intently: with her president or her husband?"

"Will she be swayed in her foreign-policy decisions by electoral considerations focusing on the year 2012, and, if so, will she be swayed by President Barack Obama's interests or her own?"

"Who else will be approaching Bill Clinton for advice, counsel, and "input" on foreign affairs?"

"Does a contribution to Bill Clinton's foundation get you any traction with Sen. Clinton, at least in her political and official capacity?"

"Why such a big corporate interest doesn't just donate the money directly, rather than distributing it through the offices of an outfit run by a seasoned ex-presidential influence-peddler. What do they and the other donors suppose they are getting for their money? A good feeling?"

"Why is Sen. Clinton, the spouse of the great influence-peddler, being nominated in the first place?"

He goes on to answer this last question himself:

"We are getting a notoriously ambitious woman who made a fool of herself over Bosnia, at the time and during the recent campaign, and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom."

You really do need to read the entire article.  It's one of the best I've seen about why Senator Clinton should not be confirmed.

Raise your hand if you want the 250 Gitmo detainees in your back yard.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/obama_guantanamo_15

There are stories out today that President-Elect Obama will sign an Executive Order to close Gitmo within his first week of office, and possible on his first day in office.

Note in the article that the Executive Order may be signed, but that does not mean they really believe that Gitmo will actually be closed any time soon.  But perhaps the symbolism of the act will placate angry liberals who voted for him in part based on his promises to close the prison.

But the reality of the issue is much more complicated.  After all, which of the Senators will stand up and say their State will take on the 250 detainees?  None, I suppose.  Probably won't find any takers in the House, either.

Think some other Country will volunteer to have them moved to their prisons?  Doubtful.

Do you turn them lose?  If so, where?

Do you try them in American courtrooms, even though they're not U.S. Citizens.  That's not technically legal, and the ramifications are possible worrisome.

There are a lot of decisions to be made about Gitmo and the detainees being held there.  But remember that these are all enemy combatants who were captured fighting against the United States.  These are people who want you dead.  They want our way of life dead.  It's likely that some, if not all, of these prisoners will return to the battlefield if they are simply released and not detained somewhere.

Is that Senator Biden in Iraq, or the Vice-President Elect?

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50B36V20090112

You've probably heard that Joe Biden is on an International tour right now, with his current stop landing him in Iraq.  Some of the stories I've read about his trip has him there as the VP-Elect.  But I'm pretty sure that he could not be there representing the Executive branch of our government.  It's a minor detail to some, but it's important to distinguish between the two.  Until the new President is sworn in on January 20th, Mr. Biden is still just a Senator.

The President-Elect has been clear that he doesn't want to say anything that would cause confusion between the current administration and his incoming administration, and I applaud him for that.  It's the right move - even though people in the media would like him to.  But for now, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden are still Senators, and any trips like the one Mr. Biden is on right now must be treated as such.

Specifically, a problem could occur if Mr. Biden were to speak to foreign heads of State and confusion would ensue if the foreign State department were to take SENATOR Biden's words as being from the Executive department, that is the office of the President.

In Defense of Roland Burris.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/07burris.html

First of all, it's important to note that I know very little about Roland Burris.  This post is not to justify his selection as a "good pick."  It's only in regards to the uproar over his seating (or not seating) as the Junior Senator from Illinois.

To that end, there is no legal reason for Senate Democrats to reject the seating of Roland Burris to the Senate.  Senator Harry Reid has no legal leg to stand on in decling to seat Mr. Burris.

In short, it doesn't matter that there is a "cloud" over Governor Blagojevich, who appointed Mr. Burris to replace Senator Barack Obama.

Folks who are upset over all this need to read the rulebook on these things. (Yes, there's a rule book.  Each State sets their own policy for instances such as this, where a current Senator leaves his position and a replacement must be found.)

Governor Blagojevich has not (yet) been indicted, and there is no indication that Mr. Burris did anything illegal or immoral during the appointment process.  And as I understand it, that means that Mr. Burris must be recognized by the Senate, and Senator Reid simply does not have a legal leg to stand on in denying Mr. Burris his seat. 

An interesting day ahead as the Senate begins new session.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=090106031045.q3ocj6y2&show_article=1

The first line of this article says it all, so I'll use their words instead of mine...

"The new US Senate is set to convene in a swirl of allegations of corruption, voter fraud and dynastic nepotism that threatens to dog the early days of Barack Obama's presidency."

Well that about sums it up.  Will Al Franken or Roland Burris crash the party?  What's up with Hillary's seat?  Could be an interesting day on the Hill.  Keep your browser here for updates as information breaks.

UPDATE: Senate democrats are refusing to seat Al Franken.  For now.  Stay tuned...
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5045LF20090106?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Senator Al Franken? Surely not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html

Unless you've been living under a rock the last month, you know there have been plenty of rumors of funny business in the Minnesota Senate recount between Al Franken and Norm Coleman.  The linked article outlines some of the more recent stuff.

I find a couple of things interesting:

1. Isn't it odd that Al Franken demanded that every vote count (as should every legal vote) when he was trailing Norm Coleman.  But, as soon as the the recount tally shifted in Mr. Franken's favor, suddenly he demanded that the results be certified and he be declared the winner.  I find that fascinating - and absurd.

2. Normally, in a recount you'd find that the results would tend to line up with the results received during the election.  In other words, if candidate A received 60% of the vote and candidate B received 40% of the vote, the recount would show roughly the same margin.  Candidate B usually ends up just confirming the original results that they lose.  However, in this case, almost every single thing that had to go in Mr. Franken's favor did.  It smells fishy.

Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow when Congress reconvenes.  Some people call the last couple of weeks around Christmas and New Years the slow news cycle.  If that's the case, then we're gearing up for a whirlwind.  It's going to be exciting.