"We Are Ready" (or not)

When Nancy Pelosi predicted that the Democrats would hold on to the House through 2012, there were understandable guffaws on both sides of the aisle.  Claiming that "we are ready ... and in the past when there [have] been these swings, it's been when people have not been ready," Pelosi seems to believe that readiness is enough.  I wonder what she'll make of the radical swing reflected in today's publication of Gallup's weekly polling, that gives Republicans a major jump to +6% over Democrats, the largest Republican margin ever recorded for Gallup. The enthusiasm gap between the two parties also continued to grow, indicating possible deep problems for Democrats get-out-the-vote drives.  The Gallup polling played a major role in once again flipping the RCP Generic Congressional Vote average to +0.8 for the Republicans (from +0.2 for the Democrats the day before).  Rasmussen's likely voter screen gives the Republicans a +7 average, while the Quinnipiac poll (last published May 26) give the Democrats +6.  The RCP Congressional Job Approval average is telling: -50.6, with all recent major polls giving Congress a -40 or greater.  Keep your head in the sand Nancy - it might improve your outlook.

Updates to Last Night's House Vote

The threat of having passed Deem and Pass through committee, combined with the Stupak deal, was enough to push the final vote on the initial Senate bill (HR 3590). The vote tally was 219:212, a three vote margin over what Pelosi needed for passage. The passage of the reconciliation measure quickly followed, and will be rapidly sent to the Senate. Sen. Reid states that he has the 51 votes necessary for passage of the reconciliation, but as mentioned here last night, Republicans are gearing up for a procedural fight. Republicans are allowed to offer unlimited amendments, each of which must be debated for instance. Additionally, the earlier ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian requires President Obama to sign in to law HR 3590, before signing the reconciliation bill, should it pass the Senate. That means that if the reconciliation bill is stalled, HR 3590 goes forward unimpeded, which is likely to anger members on both the left and right, not least because of the Stupak deal.

Whether or not the threats of appeal are grounded in reality (the president has another two years to work on his sales pitch), one thing seems increasingly likely - the Democrats have ensured a bloodbath come November.

See Nancy .... Pole Vault?

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi thinks that health care reform is an Olympic sport, rather than a very serious reorganization of 1/6th of the economy.

'“It means, we will move on many fronts, any front we can,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people, for their own personal health and economic security, and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit.”'

The two fences she has to surmount are general public opposition, and more specific concerns by various Democratic factions. Even rah-rah cheerleader, Mary Landrieu, took at shot at the president today. Perhaps if the president were to get serious about bipartisanship, they'd have a way forward, but short of that, it seems unlikely that either the Senate or the House bill can pass as written. The latest proposals center around breaking the bills up into manageable pieces, but as Pelosi's first-up piece has nothing to do with decreasing costs or increasing competitiveness, it's difficult to take her seriously.

'Aides said that a first candidate for a stand-alone measure could be the proposal to eliminate the exemption from federal antitrust law that health insurance companies have long enjoyed. Such a proposal was incorporated in the larger House health care bill.'

I wonder which event Pelosi is competing in?

UPDATED: A Pox On All

Update 1: As expected, the sanction of Rep. Wilson passed the House on a largely partisan basis. The hyperbole involved was enough to choke a horse. Hypocrisy marches on.

For all I know, the sanction of Rep. Wilson for the shout heard 'round the world last week, is fully justified. What's bothering me is the sheer hypocrisy. Democrats loudly booed, hissed and called out at President Bush during the 2004 and 2005 State of the Union addresses. Sen. Reid famously called Bush a loser and a liar (several times) later apologizing via a surrogate. Nancy Pelosi is refuses to sanction or take the gavel from Rangel, despite multiple investigations into tax evasion and corruption, but she'll happily sanction a man who did what she herself participated in a few years ago? This is the very definition of political hypocrisy and the reason so many voters say 'a pox on both your houses.

What a Charmer!

The opinion pages of the Las Vegas Review Journal bring us this little gem:

'On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.'

How collegial and senatorial of the Senate's Majority Leader.

Glen Thrush of Politico wonders (hopes) if Reid was engaging in some obscure dry humor, while The Washington Examiner wonders if the pressure of a tight election & falling poll numbers are getting to him. A separate paper, the Las Vegas Sun is privately and locally owned, and shares a joint distribution arrangement with the Las Vegas Review Journal. Wikepedia reports that the current and former editors are personal and political associates of the Clintons, both both papers appear to be publishing poor poll numbers and doubtful editorials about Sen. Reid, so the animosity is puzzling.

For whatever reason, Harry Reid seems to be straying further and further from the calm, even-tempered leader he projected (and that contrasted so directly with Nancy Pelosi). Perhaps this is Reid's real problem.

Nevada Senate - Lowden vs. Reid

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	Lowden (R)	Reid (D)	Spread
Mason-Dixon	8/17 - 8/18	400 RV	45	40	Lowden +5

UPDATED: President's Press Conference on Health Care

Update 1: Text of the President's prepared remarks (prior to questioning) may be found here.

Live blogging President's press conference:

Claims and comments that jump out:

1. The 'Recovery Act' has already saved new jobs and created new ones: where?
2. Investment in green energy is what will make the economy ready to compete in the 21st century.
3. Failure to act 'now' on health care will prevent elimination of the deficit.
4. "The reform we're proposing will ... keep government out of health care. ... prevent out of pocket costs ... "
5. The failure of Congress [over 50 years] is a major reason he 'inherited' a 1.3 trillion deficit (umm - try looking at what the deficit was on the day you took office Mr. President and then look at the contributions of TARP 1 and TARP 2 and the stimulus and your budget and the health care proposals and .....)
6. If Congress would only take on the President's cost-saving proposals, all would be well.
7. Any opposition is just about people wanting to 'play politics as usual,' and to 'get' the President.
8. Medicare should be cut- that will help the elderly.
9. People are skeptical about the proposals because they're cynical [yes, we are, but that's not entirely the point].
10. "The plan that I put forward ... the estimates are that it will cover 97 - 98%." According to the Dems, part of the problem is that the President hasn't actually put forward a plan, and that various parties and interests in and out of Congress are the ones making the plans.
11. The August deadline isn't really a deadline, it's just a goal to make sure Congress is debating and working.
12. "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans." Huh???!!!
13. "If they've [the Repubs] got a good idea, we'll take it." Guess you haven't read any of the alternate plans.
14. Taxation is OK, as long as it's not on the middle class.
15. Jake Tapper: "Experts say ... Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life-care. When you talk about [it] you, understandably don't talk about sacrifices ..." Asks the President to state what sacrifices are really there. Reply: "They're going to have to give up paying for things ..." That answers the question (not)! Goes on to rhetorically ask why we would want to pay for what doesn't work. Still not answering the actual question. Wait, maybe: "It will require doctors as well as patients to be more discriminating consumers." Dancing up to the edge of discussing rationing. Moves on to deficit and debt, and concerns people have, then say those concerns are no more than, "...that argument has been used by those who don't want to reform health care." No - it's been used by those of us who are completely fed up with government take overs and expenditures and taxes.
16. "If we had done nothing, you'd have a 9.3 trillion-dollar deficit over the next nine years. Because of the changes we've made, we'll have a 7.1-trillion-dollar deficit ... but it's 2.2-trillion less than what we would have had we kep the policies in place when we came in." Complete and utter B.S. that. The deficit expansion is utterly due to the stimulus and budget and TARP. "Health care reform is designed to lower it [the deficit]." Not according to CBO.
17. Sacrifice question on current and future beneficiaries of Medicare. "It's not going to reduce Medicare benefits, it's going to change how those benefits are delivered so it's more efficient." Not if one reads the bill - the plain language of the bill (and the language of Pelosi and others in leadership) make it clear that both total benefit dollars and benefit allottment will be reduced. Savings from private monies from Pharm. doesn't mean that benefits aren't being reduced.
18. Slam! Called on transparency promises vs. what's really happening. Interesting that his own IG on TARP says transparency isn't happening.
19. Anything bad (deficit, TARP, etc.) is all inherited.
20. Moving far afield (it is a press conference and they can ask what they want): financial regulatory reform is next up. Government will be able to step in to ensure share-holders are aware of compensation packages. May impose fees for 'risky' investments. Who defines what's 'too risky?' I don't mind the first idea, but the second is a non-starter.
21. "To follow up on Jake's question, sir ... Can you guarantee that this legislation will lock in, that the goverment will not deny any coverage ... and that you and the Congress will abide by the same plan." President says that the reform plan will be the same thing as the fed. employee plan. Moved on to talking about decision-making about what's best for patient-care, by not doing unecessary procedures. Great, but who decides what's necessary. You, Congress, some faceless bureaucrat? Decision-making means someone has to make those decisions. Cited the Mayo and Cleaveland Clinic as examples. Mayo Clinic has rejected the House plan as it stands, and the proposed reform of Medicare.

Here are some articles to be considering while you consider to the sales pitch.

Blue Dogs. Taxation. Cost. Partisanship. More costs.

I strongly suggest (and hope you sign) the: Responsible Health Care Reform Pledge.
Text:

'All 535 Members of the U.S. House and Senate have received multiple copies of the Pledge by fax, email, regular mail or personal visitation. Any Representative or Senator not shown on the list of signers below may therefore reasonably be classified as having declined to sign. A few Senators have insisted that although they are supportive of our Pledge, they have adopted a blanket policy against signing pledges that prevents their signing ours. Although Let Freedom Ring believes that that they should make an exception for our pledge, because it is narrowly drawn and quite specific, we have agreed to post letters from those Senators in a separate section following the list of signers. You may read the letters by clicking on the Senators’ names.'

Click here to download the pledge.

Pelosi's War

The San Francisco Chronicle recently quoted the Speaker of the House as saying that her motto is: "The best preparation for combat is combat." It would seem that Pelosi has acquired herself a war with the last agency on Earth that she should engage: the CIA. After weeks of repeatedly changing her story, Ms. Pelosi came out swinging: 'Pelosi waited for her regular weekly press conference to address the issue, after a trip to Iraq had left unanswered for nearly a week media reports fueled primarily by GOP sources making accusations. "Yes, I am saying that they are misleading - that the CIA was misleading the Congress," Pelosi said. She said she would "be very happy" if the CIA would release the notes from the 2002 briefing so that everyone could see for themselves. She repeated her call for a "truth commission" to air the facts.'

The press conference was almost painful to watch, with the Speaker fidgeting, shuffling her notes, practically wringing her hands and clearly contradicting not only her prior statements but her own statement of a few minutes earlier. The Washington Times article title declared, 'Lady's got ants in her pants.' More interestingly, the article took at look at the kind of defense Pelosi's increasingly desperate press conferences has raised from her own side of the aisle. All except her most partisan supporters seem to be more interested in a self-CYA than in fully backing their Speaker, even if they're not quite ready to throw her off the train. 'Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, attempted to defend the speaker with the argument that what someone said seven years ago must be measured against the temperature of the times in the wake of 9/11, when nearly everyone was terrified of a "second wave" of attacks. But Democrats have to be careful with this line of argument, lest they arouse speculation about just why there has been no "second wave."'

The liberal bastion SLATE Magazine, while expressing apparent admiration for Pelosi's toughness, seemed a little concerned over the tenor and mood of the latest press conference. 'Pelosi is on the attack because she's been on the defensive. Republicans charge that she's a hypocrite. She wants a truth commission to examine the role of Bush officials who authorized enhanced interrogation techniques (some of which amounted to torture), but she was in the loop when those techniques were first discussed and didn't cry foul. ... Pelosi said the CIA account was wrong and then went a step further. She said briefers in that meeting explicitly said water-boarding was not being used. We now know that at the time Abu Zubaydah had been water-boarded 83 times. Pelosi charged the agency with deliberately misleading Congress as part of the larger effort to mislead the nation in the run-up to the Iraq war. [As if that was relevant] ... At some point the president may be asked what his view of the Pelosi matter is. It's a tricky spot. He doesn't want to get in the middle of a he said/she said debate. If he defends Pelosi, he alienates the CIA. That relationship is already tender because Obama released Bush-era torture memos against the wishes of the CIA, whose agents participated in the torture. On the other hand, if Obama defends the CIA, he undermines his leader in the House and angers her liberal supporters.'

Laughing at the Speaker (something increasingly easy these days, alas, although she lends herself to a good soundtrack) is all well and good, but what is the real significance of her almost manic behavior? Does it really matter if she calls the CIA a bunch of liars, and spends yet more precious time ragging on the Bush Administration? Does it matter when she obviously flounders, 'parses' her answers, and blames her aides? Does it matter that the Administration has selectively released memos to make its own case, but refuses to declassify documents that may demonstrate the efficacy of the programs in question? In fact it does. Certainly it matters that the person third-in-line for the Presidency is showing herself up as a hypocrite and a liar. It matters that the day after Pelosi attacked the CIA and declared them to have lied to the Congress (a federal offense), she tried backtracking in response to Leon Panetta (no friend of the Bush Administration) shot back in defense of his agency. The New York Times thinks this is merely a rare stumble in Pelosi's stride. 'Mr. Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from California and a longtime associate of Ms. Pelosi, issued a statement that said the agency’s “contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that C.I.A. officers briefed truthfully,” a rebuttal of Ms. Pelosi’s claim on Thursday that intelligence officials had lied to her.The deepening dispute over what Ms. Pelosi was told in September 2002 has challenged her credibility and raised new questions about whether she passed up an early opportunity to expose the Bush administration’s harsh treatment of detainees.'

But an even more significant argument remains, and once again, Charles Krauthammer has nailed the issue. He began his most recent part of this discussion by revisiting the argument that there are exceptions that would allow torture. 'That moral calculus is important. Even John McCain says that in ticking time bomb scenarios you "do what you have to do." The no-torture principle is not inviolable. One therefore has to think about what kind of transgressive interrogation might be permissible in the less pristine circumstance of the high-value terrorist who knows about less imminent attacks.' Krauthammer then advanced his argument with specific regard to Pelosi. 'On the morality of waterboarding and other "torture," Pelosi and other senior and expert members of Congress represented their colleagues, and indeed the entire American people, in rendering the reasonable person verdict. What did they do? They gave tacit approval. In fact, according to Goss, they offered encouragement. Given the existing circumstances, they clearly deemed the interrogations warranted.Moreover, the circle of approval was wider than that. As Slate's Jacob Weisberg points out, those favoring harsh interrogation at the time included Alan Dershowitz, Mark Bowden and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. In November 2001, Alter suggested we consider "transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies" (i.e. those that torture). And, as Weisberg notes, these were just the liberals.'

The problem that Krauthammer raises with Pelosi's backpedalling is her attempt to bite the dog she earlier fed. If she had the courage of her convictions, she would have followed the lead of Rep. Jane Harman, and put her name to the protest letter, rather than later claiming 'but I concurred.' Instead, she now pretends that she wasn't willing to go along with whatever it took to ensure there was no further attack. It was the right decision at the time, and she should be willing to stand by it. Instead she's proving herself to be a coward, and in the process, Pelosi and her supporters are contributing to the demoralization and handicapping of the CIA. That won't be helpful in the future as we try to avert other attacks. Of course, that's the optimistic view. The more cynical view is that Pelosi is so incompetent, that she has no idea what she's being briefed on and what her role as Speaker is. Her pretense that she was really accusing the Bush Administration, not the CIA (who does she think developed the intelligence and briefed her on on it), doesn't make it clear which of these views is the more correct.

There's an even greater opportunity looming for the Democratic leadership to stumble over conflicting ethics and party demands; that of what to do with the Guantanamo detainees. Already, certain Congressional members are backing out as fast as their lips can move, as is made clear in the Wall Street Journal article entitled 'Democrats Discover Gitmo's Virtues.' '''We're not going to bring al Qaeda to Big Sky Country. No way, not on my watch," declared Montana Sen. Max Baucus. "I wouldn't want them and I wouldn't take them," insisted Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Not Quantico, piped up Virginia's Mark Warner. After all, it "is in a very populated area in the greater capital region." Look, "Alcatraz is a national park and a tourist attraction, not a functioning prison" for terrorists, said the office of California's Dianne Feinstein.' Hey I don't blame them, I don't want suspected terrorists in my backyard either. But it's foolish and hypocritical to yell and scream about the evils of GITMO, and then refuse to accept and deal with the consequences. 'This was not part of the Obama team's calculation. It figured it would get its bucks and make its calls. Releasing specific plans for where it intends to land these detainees will cause geographic uproars. But six weeks ago, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions sent the first of two letters to Mr. Holder demanding to know the administration's legal authority for transfers, given that the federal Real ID Act prohibits admission to the U.S. of any alien who has engaged in a terrorist activity. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee has yet to receive a response.'

President Obama's response to the growing issue over what to do with the detainees seems to be a delaying action; he's reviving the military tribunal system for some of the detainees, much to he dismay of his more liberal supporters. The New York Times reported that the lack of a suitable detainment policy for the Guantanomo prisoners and the revival of the military tribunals (along with the expansion of the action in Afghanistan and Pakistan) is creating a rift within the Democratic party. From the Guardian: 'Defendants will be given the opportunity to pick their own lawyers and be provided with more protection if they do not testify. The decision to persist with the tribunals was immediately attacked by critics. "It's disappointing that Obama is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment," said Jonathan Hafetz, a national security lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union. "There's no detainee at Guantánamo who cannot be tried and shouldn't be tried in the regular federal courts system. "Human rights campaigners point out that during last year's presidential campaign Obama called the tribunal system "an enormous failure" and that he vowed to "reject the Military Commissions Act". But the president's aides say he never rejected the possibility of using military commissions altogether, if they could be made fairer.'

The problem with hypocrisy is that it always shows up in the worst way at the worst time. The Democrats are going to have to come to terms with that before they effectively govern.

Nancy Pelosi Can't Keep Her Stories Straight

Most parties involved, except Nancy Pelosi herself, now says that she was thoroughly briefed on the design and employment of enhanced interrogation techniques (or torture if you prefer), and that she should have understood that fact (makes you wonder why she was on the Intelligence Committee if she couldn't understand a briefing by the intelligence community, but that's a separate issue). If she truly believed this to be an immoral action, even if she didn't quite grasp the fact that we had already used waterboarding, she should have objected. It would have been her moral duty as a senior leader. Now she's just burying herself in excuses.

According to ABC: 'ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News. The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques. The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.'

The NYT reports that: 'The new chart of briefings, prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the first full listing of briefings, appears to call into question the assertion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was never told that waterboarding and other methods were used, only that the Central Intelligence Agency believed they were legal and could be used.'

I and many others wrote extensively about Porter Goss' editorial in the Washington Post stating clearly that he and others understood the briefings, and that Pelosi was derelict in her duty (or deficient in her comprehension - which is worse I wonder?) in not stating any objections at the time. Will Pelosi own up and take ownership or will she just keep finding excuses? I'm betting on the latter - she has no courage for the first.

Hypocrisy at its Shining Best

There are times when Charles Krauthammer is at best supercilious and at worst self-absorbed, but his May 1 article, 'Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible' is the Krauthammer at his best. It's a hard-hitting look at the hypocrisy and double-dealing in Congress (particularly within the Speaker's office) over the 'torture memos' and push to investigate those involved.

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works. ...

... Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

Krauthammer is dead on the money in this case. Rep. Pelosi is a perfect example of the CYA culture in Washington. The one where all principles are up for sale, even patriotism, and when the fact that they were sold cheap is exposed, blame someone else. I lean toward the argument, expressed in the opening paragraphs of the article, that there are unique exceptions that would permit torture for very specific goals. However, I can respect disagreement on this issue, and wouldn't condemn an opposing view. If one takes that opposing view however, it's important to ensure that one maintains it as a consistent principle. Pelosi sold out, pure and simple. She's been caught with her pants down, and now it's someone else's fault that she didn't understand future possibility versus present (apparently she skipped the lectures in school on verb tense). Krauthammer has the right of it here as well, holding Pelosi responsible for not doing everything she could to stop the CIA and the administration if she believed so strongly that these methods were absolutely and always wrong. Instead, she offered support and greater funding. She's not a liberal - she's simply a sellout.

We can do it all, now, and eliminate the deficit - in four years (and I have a nice bridge for you)

President Obama is currently addressing Congress, and has just stated that health care reform must be done this year, that the auto industry must and will be saved, that the spending spree must continue, and that anything wrong is the fault of the prior Administration (well, that was more implied than said, but was obvious). All this, AND we'll halve the deficit within 2 years and eliminate within 6 (implying a second term). Anyone interested in the Brooklyn Bridge? All-in-all, it's a speech that promises all things to all people with no explanations as to how and what the costs will be. In other words, a typical political nothing.

A few musings along the way.

The checks are in the mail for the tax cuts: all $13 per household.

Ahh - bribery for service - a higher education for all. I'm not totally opposed as long as service is determined by the individual and not the state, and no brown shirts or jack boots are required. I'm still a little worried about that non-voluntary, as-strong-as-the-military, not-the-police, civilian 'security force' the President talked about on the campaign trail.

The markets were up for the first time a few weeks today after the Fed Chair, Ben Bernanke, managed to calm fears that the Administration is planning on a wholesale takeover of the banking sector. Instead, Bernanke implied, there would be a partial and temporary government stake in the most troubled institutions.

Note to the President: find a way to not have Nancy Pelosi smirking at the Republicans right behind you when you're trying to look dignified and Presidential. She either looks like she's in rictus, or trying not to sneer. Either way, it's really undignified.

CBO Continues to Sound the Alarm

In, oh so polite language, the Congressional Budget Office has laid out alarming estimates of the debt HR1 is likely to incur in an open letter to Nancy Pelosi. A letter she's likely to take revenge for. The CBO Director is engaged in a futile but important battle to try to get Congress to be accountable for a mountain of debt that will be paid for by generations.

The CBO Director's blog can be found in the blogroll on this site.

Nailing Pelosi

Oink! Can I have a do-over please?

The breakdown, of the 'stimulus,' err, Santa's wish-list, passed by the House of Representatives yesterday (without one Republican vote and without 12 Dems, brave souls), in the Wall Street Journal today is astounding. I'll be there at least some voters out there wishing they could have a do-over from last Nov. 2. I just 'loved' Nancy Pelosi's grin as she announced the votes last night - she looked like she was in rictus. This thing is pure pork, and I've already written my Senators to demand they vote against it without substantial revision. We probably do need a stimulus, something this bill ain't.

Here's an excerpt:

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."