New Obama Regulations: BILLIONS More For His "Perfect Storm"

Mr Obama, at the point of the Perfect Storm economically, is proposing even MORE regulations which would cost billions and billions of taxpayer dollars. From The Washington Times:

President Obama told Speaker John A. Boehner in a letter Tuesday that his administration is considering seven regulations that would each cost the U.S. economy more than $1 billion per year, although he added that these rules are “merely proposed.”

All told, the seven proposed rules cited by Mr. Obama would cost companies at least $38 billion per year and could cost as much as $100 billion annually.

“Before finalizing any of them, we will take account of public comments and concerns and give careful consideration to cost-saving possibilities and alternatives,” Mr. Obama wrote to the Ohio Republican.

Right. Just as you gave massive consideration to the electorate before you shoved ObakaKare down America's throat in the middle of the night. Just as you crowed about "transparency" in your administration. Just as you decreed there would be days and days of posting on the internet -- for public consideration and scrutiny, in the name of fairness and transparency -- before any bill would be passed.

And we should, of course, believe you now?

To continue:

The president listed four proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules and three in the Department of Transportation as having the high potential cost. An EPA regulation on air quality standards could cost between $19 billion and $90 billion per year.

And this on top of the EPA regulations regarding coal-fired electrical generations stations which go into effect this coming January 1st -- regulations that Texas says will cause rolling brownouts in the state? I wrote about that here, on August 22nd.

Demorats and Leftists just don't "get it" and they never will. It's not to say that some of what the Demorats do or want don't have merit. But in times such as these, there has to be a line that won't and can't be crossed -- and we have crossed it. Way crossed it.

The Demorats want to both extend that line and, further, absolutely explode beyond it.

All for the sake of votes and power, with no thought given to potential current and future consequences and national conditions.

More taxes! More regulations!

Where does it end?

BZ

Monday's Obama: "A Run Of Bad Luck"

More people gushing over The One, his terrible trials and tribulations.

Mr Obama continued with his Deflection Tour this month.

Everyone and everything else is responsible for our current terrible state EXCEPT Mr Barack Hussein Obama:

We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again," Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. "But over the last six months we've had a run of bad luck." Obama listed three events overseas — the Arab Spring uprisings, the tsunami in Japan, and the European debt crises — which set the economy back.

Nothing at all, of course, to do with his previous, current and future anticipated policies, eh?

Along with his current worst ever approval rating of 38%. Something like the very tail end of President Bush's second term.

It's all simply due to a "run of bad luck."

Right.

BZ

P.S.
Note to Mr Obaka: you might also mention sunspots, tidal pull, mission creep, bad Tarot cards, increased flatulence, prevailing westerly winds and rust that never sleeps. Those things are likewise equally responsible, eh?

Sunday's Obama Says: C'Mon Baby!

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.'

Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

-- Senator Barack Hussein Obama, March 2006

BZ

Steve Jobs Steps Down

Steve Jobs, two days after his resignation announcement.

Say what you will about Apple, but Steven Jobs was a major portion of the creation of a company that, at one point, made more money than the federal government in a given day recently.

Jobs, with Steve Wozniak, started Apple in 1976, with Ronald Wayne. Wayne sold his shares in the company back to Jobs and Wozniak in 1977 for $800. One word: mistake.

Wozniak initially hand-built the first computers. And Apple first introduced actual 5.25-inch "floppy" discs which, then, truly were floppy. I wish I still had the ones I used back then, just for kicks. Apple invented the "mouse." Apple invented the GUI, graphic user interface -- as opposed to DOS.

With Steve Jobs stepping aside for clear health reasons, thus ends and closes a massive door in the computer world. Jobs was a master in terms of marketing, branding and ideas.

I can recall purchasing my brand new Mac IIcx in 1989, having to physically drive to Cupertino in order to buy it. I paid $6,000 for my Mac IIcx, which included an IBM-type full keyboard, Apple color monitor and b&w Apple Imagewriter. For $6K, I acquired 1 meg of RAM and a 40 meg hard drive. And I was sitting on top of the computer world.

After some challenging times, Apple now is known not just for quality products held apart from others, but the simple physical elegance and -- not so unimportant -- their packaging as well. Open an iPod or iPhone and you'll find true elegance and quality in presentational packaging.

These days, I purchased an iMac for my wife this year, and I have a 15" MacBook Pro purchased for me by my wife. I find, having used PCs for so long, that the Apple system isn't quite as "intuitive" as they promise. That said, there is no doubt that Apple is still a powerhouse in the computer and electronics world, and highly profitable as well.

I fear that Mr Jobs won't last the year. I suspect he has either cancer or AIDS, diseases that are terrible and relentless.

Mr Jobs was a major force in the creation and revitalization of personal computers. He changed a generation and, as such, helped to literally change the world. God bless, sir.

BZ

A Man And His Dog

Jon Tumilson was a US Navy SEAL.

He was one of 22 SEALs shot down in Afghanistan earlier this month, flying in a Chinook helicopter.

At his funeral on August 19th in Rockford, Iowa, his Labrador Retriever, Hawkeye, would not leave his casket.



Anyone who believes that animals do not grieve or feel pain would be wrong. There are animal/human bonds that can be incredibly strong, moving and unbreakable.

More than 50 of Tumilson's fellow SEALs attended the ceremony.

God bless you, sir. You were a true American WARRIOR and as such, to be honored. You didn't demand your "due" like the bulk of Leftist and illegal drones; instead, you not only asked what you could do for your country but placed your very life on the line, quite literally.

A Sheep, a Wolf or a Sheepdog? You, sir, were a Sheepdog.

America, beware: your MEN willing to make sacrifices for their country are a steadily-dwindling breed.

BZ

P.S.
And here is one of the comments featured in every video involving Petty Officer Tumilson:

God Bless the hands of the one that fired that RPG !
LearnToReadTheKuran 1 hour ago

My message to Islam: you need to be defeated on every front, in every way. I say: "Islam IS as Islam DOES." And Islam does nothing but destroy and kill. Yours is not a religion; it is nothing more than a barbaric Death Cult adhered-to by the weak, gullible, naive and the brain-dead.

Dissent Is Patriotic?

These days, if you ask a Demorat or Leftist, dissent is now racist.

And I am profoundly sick of that double standard.

If you disagree with Mr Obama, you are doing so simply because you are a racist. Former President James Earl Carter, Jr certainly seems to think so.

But allow me to proffer a few salient points, if I may:

• 1. William Jefferson Clinton was called the first black president;
• 2. Barack Hussein Obama is only half black; his father was black, mother white

So, question: when one disagrees with Mr Obama, is an individual disagreeing with the white side or the black side? Many people mistakenly believe Mr Obama is completely black and that, as such, when one disagrees with Mr Obama one is simply racist.

That said, it is actually the Leftists and Demorats who regale in name-calling and personal attacks, as they -- like defense attorneys -- absent actual facts, craft their "defenses" predominantly in terms of personal attacks. Because, absent actual facts, that is all they have.

Case in recent point? Maxine Waters, who said that the TEA Party can "go straight to hell" in, oddly enough, an SEIU-packed Inglewood, Fornicalia audience.



Case in recent point? Frederica Wilson, who said:

Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, blasted the tea party movement on Monday night at a jobs fair in Miami.

“Let us all remember who the real enemy is,” she said. “The real enemy is the Tea Party. The Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that’s to make President Obama a one-term president.”

The only things that Mr Obama and his addled minions seem to have solidified are the following:

1. Skyrocketing debt with no accountability or responsibility;
2. Race warfare;
3. Class warfare

Job well done, sir. You've almost, in the span of just three years, broken the entire back of our nation and, with that, placed the rest of the planet, literally, in jeopardy.

BZ

P.S.
If you enjoyed the very first video, you'll likely enjoy this:

John Bolton For President?

Rumors indicate that Mr Bolton is thinking of making an announcement on Labor Day.

Trust me, I would seriously consider Mr Bolton in our current list of GOP/Conservative possibles.

Facebook has a Bolton For President site here.

Full article by Mr Bolton here, on Human Events.

I wrote about Mr Bolton here.

Your thoughts?

BZ

P.S.
I posit: if not a viable candidate for 2012, his name will be known and as such available for 2016.

Mr Obama: Killing Your Power Next

Because of new EPA rules regarding coal-fired electrical generation plants, it is anticipated that two things will occur:

1. Power prices will skyrocket and
2. Power supplies will range from rolling blackouts to complete blackouts

Already, Texas is addressing the issue due to the regulations which begin January 1st of 2012. From the DFW Star-Telegram:

The head of the Texas Public Utility Commission expressed concern Friday that a new federal air quality rule, set to take effect Jan. 1, will cause disruptions in electric service.

If implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is not delayed, "I have no doubt in my mind that this rule will result in reliability issues and rolling outages in Texas," Donna Nelson said at the start of the commission's meeting.

In review, you of course recall the comments made by Mr Obama in 2008:

I was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter," Obama continued. "That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Question for you: did we already vote "yes" on CapN Tax in Congress and I missed it?

Why, no, we didn't. This is simply the EPA acting on its own.

Further, from The Washington Post:

Industry groups such the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, and the American Legislative Exchange Council have dubbed the coming rules “EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck.” The regulations, they say, will cost utilities up to $129 billion and force them to retire one-fifth of coal capacity. Given that coal provides 45 percent of the country’s power, that means higher electric bills, more blackouts and fewer jobs. The doomsday scenario has alarmed Republicans in the House, who have been scrambling to block the measures. Environmental groups retort that the rules will bring sizeable public health benefits, and that industry groups have been exaggerating the costs of environmental regulations since they were first created.

I should care to point out that Texas has one of the more solid electrical generation grids in the nation. A state such as Fornicalia, which is an abortion of regulatory restrictions, will be further throttled. One has but to do what I call the Logical Extension:

At this point, anyone living in a dense population center such as LA, San Francisco, Sacramento, had best be prepared not just for a lack of power, but the resulting riots and looting from (no longer "minority) majority thugs.

But hey, in the midst of a second recent recession, whilst bordering on an actual Depression, it's the perfect time to both jack up electrical -- and hence, all -- energy rates and ensure an interruption of electrical power because Americans can so afford both of these things presently.

Is there any aspect of American life that Mr Obama simply doesn't want to eviscerate or kill?

Yes, one: the Good Life in DC.

Backslapping all around.

BZ

P.S.
And any American would even remotely consider giving the man another four years to further grind this country flatter still, under his political heels?

Sunday Larf!

BZ

P.S.
Thanks, Chris P!

To US Farmers: Could Mr Obama Be More Insulting?

Well, perhaps if he directly told them to "go to hell," he might.

A corn farmer asked Mr Obama, "please don't challenge us with more rules and regulations," when farmers have enough to contend with, via Mother Nature every growing season:



For the specifics, go here:

At Wednesday’s town hall in Atkinson, Illinois, a local farmer who said he grows corn and soybeans expressed his concerns to President Obama about “more rules and regulations” – including those concerning dust, noise and water runoff -- that he heard would negatively affect his business. An Illinois farmer gets called on, and he tells Obama that he is a farmer who enjoys growing “corn and soybeans.”

“Mother Nature has really challenged us this growing season – moisture, drought, whatever. Please don’t challenge us with more rules and regulations from Washington D.C. that hinder us from doing that. We would prefer to start our day in a tractor cab or combine cab rather than filling out forms and permits to do what we like to do.”

He had barely gotten the words out of his mouth before Obama was shouting that “we have the Secretary of Agriculture here,” and then proceeded to tell the farmer not to “believe everything you hear.”

The president, on day three of his Midwest bus tour, replied: “If you hear something is happening, but it hasn’t happened, don’t always believe what you hear.”

When the room broke into soft laughter, the president added, “No -- and I’m serious about that.”

Obama's advice: “Don’t always believe what you hear. Contact USDA. Talk to them directly. My suspicion is, a lot of times, they’re going to be able to answer your questions and it will turn out that some of your fears are unfounded.”

And with that said and written, MJ Lee at Politico.com decided to take Mr Obama up on his offer.

Mr Lee wrote:

When this POLITICO reporter decided to take the president's advice and call the USDA for an answer to the Atkinson town hall attendee's question, I found myself in a bureaucratic equivalent of hot potato — getting bounced from the feds to Illinois state agriculture officials to the state farm bureau.

Here's a rundown of what happened when I started by calling the USDA's general hotline to inquire about information related to the effects of noise and dust pollution rules on Illinois farmers:

Wednesday, 2:40 p.m. ET: After calling the USDA’s main line, I am told to call the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Here, I am patched through to a man who is identified as being in charge of "support services." I leave a message.

3:53 p.m.: The man calls me back and recommends in a voicemail message that I call the Illinois Farm Bureau — a non-governmental organization.

4:02 p.m.: A woman at the Illinois Farm Bureau connects me to someone in the organization’s government affairs department. That person tells me they "don't quite know who to refer you to."

4:06 p.m.: I call the Illinois Department of Agriculture again, letting the person I spoke with earlier know that calling the Illinois Farm Bureau had not been fruitful. He says "those are the kinds of groups that are kind of on top of this or kind of follow things like this. We deal with pesticide here in our bureau."

"You only deal with pesticides?" I ask.

"We deal with other things … but we mainly deal with pesticides here," he says, and gives me the phone number for the office of the department’s director, where he says there are "policy people" as well as the director's staff.

4:10 p.m.: Someone at the director's office transfers me to the agriculture products inspection department, where a woman says their branch deals with things like animal feed, seed and fertilizer. "I'm going to transfer you to one of the guys at environmental programs."

4:15 p.m.: I reach the answering machine at the environmental programs department, and leave a message.

4:57 p.m.: A man from the environmental programs department gets back to me: "I hate to be the regular state worker that's always accused of passing the buck, but noise and dust regulation would be under our environmental protection agency, rather than the Agriculture Department," he says, adding that he has forwarded my name and number to the agriculture adviser at IEPA.

On Thursday morning, POLITICO started the hunt for an answer again, this time calling the USDA's local office in Henry County, Ill., where the town hall took place.

9:42 a.m.: Asked if someone at the office might be able to provide me with the information I requested, the woman on the phone responds, “Not right now. We may have to actually look that up — did you Google this or anything?” When I say that I’m a reporter and would like to discuss my experience with someone who handles media relations there, I am referred to the USDA’s state office in Champaign. I leave a message there.

10:40 a.m.: A spokeswoman for the Illinois Natural Resources Conservation Service calls me, to whom I explain my multiple attempts on Wednesday and Thursday to retrieve the information I was looking for.

“What I can tell you is our particular agency does not deal with regulations,” she tells me. “We deal with volunteers who voluntarily want to do things. I think the reason you got that response from the Cambridge office is because in regard to noise and dust regulation, we don’t have anything to do with that.”

She adds that the EPA would be more capable of answering questions regarding regulations.

Finally, I call the USDA’s main media relations department, based here in Washington, where I explain to a spokesperson about my failed attempts to obtain an answer to the Illinois farmer’s question.

This was their OFFICIAL response, via email:

“Secretary Vilsack continues to work closely with members of the Cabinet to help them engage with the agricultural community to ensure that we are separating fact from fiction on regulations because the administration is committed to providing greater certainty for farmers and ranchers. Because the question that was posed did not fall within USDA jurisdiction, it does not provide a fair representation of USDA’s robust efforts to get the right information to our producers throughout the country.”

I say: what a bunch of multi-syllabic, unhelpful, unmitigated, ignorant, specious, no-load, political BULLSHIT.

What NOW, Mr Obama?

This does NOTHING for that farmer.

And that is only a PORTION of the problem with Big Government, sir.

The ball's in your court, sir, to utilize a euphemism in which you'd likely be familiar. But God forbid if any backspatter, attributions, responsibility, accountability, commitment or duty actually fell upon you or your administration.

We can't have actual Leadership, after all -- can we?

BZ

P.S.
You, Mr Obama, wouldn't know a leader from a manager from a knowledge worker from an American farmer from a toadstool. You might want to open, for example, any book by Peter Drucker.

Christine O'Donnell:

Frankly, you look like a buffoon.

With a poorly-thought-out stunt like that, you axed whatever voters you may have had left in any future campaign. You are a public figure and, as such, subject to questions that, in truth, were neither rude nor "creepy."

And to intimate it may have been "borderline sexual harrassment"? You really want to play that card?

BZ

Colt Model 1911: 100 Years!

The birthday -- that was predominantly ignored by the DEM/MSM?

The 100th birthday of Colt's Model 1911 semi-automatic pistol. (1911 Centennial commemorative here.)

1911 to 2011. A "game changer" of the highest order. The handgun of issue during WWII.

I personally carried one of these guns, in Condition One, in my holster, whilst working for my department in 1981. The holster I mounted placed a black leather Safariland strap between my hammer and the frame.

I carried my Colt 1911 Series 80 with hammer back, left-frame thumb safety up. All said, it was a tidy, thin and easily-carriable handgun -- with a big hole at the end.

I carried that gun for only a year, until I replaced it with my Sig-Sauer P220, in .45 caliber, European release, and then expanded the magazine carriers on my belt. I carried four magazines on my Sam Browne in double pouches, horizontally, to be loaded by my left hand, throat-down for faster insertion.

There's nothing wrong with carrying a Colt 1911 in Condition One.

When I hired onto my department, I purchased three specific things back then:

1. A Honda CB750;
2. A pair of crocodile cowboy boots;
3. A Colt 1911 Series 80 handgun;

I should care to point out that the .45 ACP round is uniformly excellent.

But that, of course, is another post for other days.

Happy birthday, thusly, to the Colt 1911!

BZ

P.S.
And, of course, Colt still manufactures (much to the chagrin of Leftists and Demorats) its guns in the United States of America.

Man On Tulsa Tower: Spending Your Tax Dollars Wisely & Unwisely

It's time to be blunt and it's time to state the truth.

With budgets limited and with each county, city, state and our federal government challenged by limited funds, it's way past time to triage emergency response.

One example in the face of American media today is the man on the tower in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The man, 25-year-old Michael Sturdivant, who has a history of mental illness, has been on the radio tower since 11 am on Thursday, August 11th. That's over six days, now. He hasn't accepted any water since early Friday morning.

Tulsa County court records show that Sturdivant has convictions that include second-degree burglary and unlawful possession of a controlled substance. He was released from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections in April, according to the DOC's Web site.

And yet, despite that, ER personnel are still on site in a fire ladder rig, inclusive of a negotiations team. Trust me, there is MUCH overtime going on there.

If I were the commander of that critical incident, I would fold it. Six failed days of negotiations and begging and cajoling? With no yield? And my very own valuable emergency response personnel in potential jeopardy? People whom I've spent, in training, thousands and thousands of dollars? People that I know, that are quality, that are actual producers and not civilian dregs?

It's way past time to pull the ladder and send fire, emergency and police personnel home to their stations and normal shifts.

That's called triage. These days, budgetary triage.

There is, essentially, "no fixing stupid." Or insane as well.

Either he comes down or he falls to his death. If I were a Tulsa taxpayer I'd insist: pull your ER personnel and start applying them to people and situations who want help and can be helped.

In the very early 70s, when I worked for the Santa Cruz Sheriff's Department (CA), I was sent to an event in the Santa Cruz mountains where a deranged man had called and said he'd kill himself if the police showed up. We were dispatched to the address. When my supervisor was made aware of that call and showed at the scene, Sgt Stony Brook, he cleared us. He said (and logically so): "The man said he'd kill himself if we showed up. So get the hell out."

I say: since there's no fixing stupid, it's time to start spending your ER budgets logically.

If that guy really wants to come down, he will. If he really wants to kill himself, he will.

Big deal. Who cares? I certainly do not. If he falls to his death you call a local fire engine for a washdown. If there were a major thoroughfare directly below, I would be concerned. If there is nothing but hard dirt below, no major concern. Simple as that.

Stop pissing away taxpayer funds for people who don't, by their own purposeful determinations, factor.

There are much larger issues to be addressed every day, by people who deserve help.

BZ

P.S.
And trust me, I'm only writing what the bulk of you are thinking but only a small percentile will have the guts to admit.

New Medical FICO Score:

Didn't see this one coming, eh?

But it's a logical extension of budgetary times via Mr Obama and ObakaKare:

NEW MEDICAL FICO SCORE SPARKS CONTROVERSY, QUESTIONS:

Within the next 12 months, whether you like it or not, about 10 million Americans are expected to be scored -- much like a credit score -- on how likely they are to fill a prescription and take all the pills the doctor ordered, on schedule.

FICO , creator of the widely used credit score that predicts whether you'll borrow responsibly, is now rolling out its new Medication Adherence Score.

FICO based its score on a formula that predicts whether you will take your prescription drugs. FICO says that since correct use of medication is important for patients, medical providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies, the Medication Adherence Score will help achieve that goal. They predict it will improve therapy effectiveness and reduce health care costs.

The company says those who score low can be targeted for extra reminders and educational efforts, with the goal of making patients more likely to complete their prescribed regimens.

"It's very important to identify those people who may need that additional education and that additional help," says Dave Shellenberger, senior principal consultant in FICO's health care division.

Critics aren't so sure. Since the score uses information on patients' employment, homeownership and living situations, they say that in the current economic environment, the Medication Adherence Score may unfairly target people who have found themselves in challenging financial situations. It could also, they say, open the door for a new way for insurance companies to charge different prices for different scores. This happened in recent years to consumers buying auto insurance: The cost of those policies are now likely based on an auto insurance credit score .

Hello, ladies and gentlemen?

Your every move from birth to death monitored by your Loving Federal Government? Not just "monitored" but RATED?

BZ

DC Political Pigs At The Trough:

With luck, I hope to be engendering a revulsion within each and every one of you with regard to all politicians -- not just Demorats, but staid Republicans as well.

The Old DC Guard need to be destroyed. On both sides of the aisle.

The only survivors we can afford, literally and figuratively, will be actual Conservatives.

That said, please let this video speak for itself:



DC politicians, with a handful of exceptions, are out for themselves, and you can be damned. They've "got theirs." You, as a singular individual, simply do not "factor."

These days, individuals enter politics for, predominantly, the sole purpose of increasing their individual wealth. Have you never considered or asked the question: WHY would people spend thousands or hundreds-of-thousands or MILLIONS of dollars to run for a given office if there were no RETURN on their investment -- lawful or, moreover, otherwise?

It is long PAST time to restrict government on all levels -- not increase it.

Don't you think it's time to kick Leftism, Liberals, Socialists and Progressives to the curb? Because, when you think about it, when and where is it that they've succeeded in bettering our society?

Do these names sound familiar? -- Castro, Khrushchev, Stalin, Rousseau, Lenin, Hitler, Marx, Pol Pot, Chavez, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jong-Il?

BZ

Felonious Munk: Obama, Pay Your Bills

Pretty simple. Mr Munk summarizes in language all urban Brethren and Sistren can grok:



BZ

P.S.
Thanks to The Pagan Temple for revelation.

Foreign Aid?

BZ

Congressman McClintock & The "Budget Control Act Of 2011"

[Again, from an e-mail, my congressman, Tom McClintock (4th District, Fornicalia) writes from experience and knowledge. -BZ]

The loss of America ’s Triple-A credit rating should have surprised no one. Standard & Poor’s warned explicitly for two months that a minimum of $4 trillion had to be cut from the projected deficit. But the same politicians who ignored these warnings were shocked-just-shocked when S&P finally lowered the boom. Instead they blamed the Tea Party that has been sounding the alarm for the past two years!

As you know, I was one of a handful of Republicans who warned the leaders of both parties that the “debt deal” would not preserve our Triple-A credit. Furthermore I am convinced that without getting our fiscal house in order, we will face a sovereign debt crisis in just a few years, when corrective measures will be too late.

Congressman McClintock continues to write:

Full Article: Dissecting the So-Called "Budget Control Act of 2011"

By Tom McClintock, on August 2, 2011

The “Budget Control Act of 2011” increases the debt limit by between $2.1 and $2.4 trillion, the biggest explosion of debt in American history. It allows the government to avoid spending reductions for the next two years while squandering our last best hope of averting a sovereign debt crisis.

I am opposed to this measure for the following reasons:

1. The purported cuts, even if realized, are far below the $4 trillion deficit reduction that credit rating agencies have warned is necessary to preserve the Triple-A credit rating of the United States Government.
2. It blows the lid off the House budget passed in April by more than a half-trillion dollars over ten years.
3. It makes no significant spending reductions for at least the next two years, essentially freezing spending at an unsustainable level. While the debt increase occurs this year, significant spending cuts aren’t to be made for many years and can be ignored or reversed by future acts of Congress.
4. The spending caps are easily circumvented by declaring appropriations to be an emergency, a response to a “major disaster,” or necessary for the “Global War on Terror.”
5. The balanced budget amendment provisions are illusory because the amendment is completely undefined.

THE ACT FLIRTS WITH A CREDIT DOWNGRADE

Let’s not forget the gorilla in the room. America faces an unprecedented fiscal crisis because of an unprecedented spending binge by this administration and the last. Credit rating agencies have openly warned that the nation’s Triple-A credit rating cannot be sustained without a credible plan to reduce the projected 10-year budget deficit by roughly $4 trillion.

This bill averts the threat of downgrade for failure to pay our current bills, but it also gives the most spendthrift administration in American history a credit line to continue spending at unsustainable levels through the next election. And it falls far short of the measures demanded by the rating agencies as necessary to maintain the Triple-A credit of the United States Government.

If the nation’s Triple-A credit rating is downgraded as a result of this failure, it will mean higher interest rates to maintain government debt. Given the enormity of that debt, even a small increase in interest rates can add crushing additional costs to government. Furthermore, interest rate increases would ripple through the economy, causing higher mortgage interest rates, higher credit card rates and a severe additional drag on the economy.

This would occur on top of the inherent economic damage this bill does. The borrowing authorized in this measure is not theoretical: it amounts to more than $7,000 for every man, woman and child in the nation or roughly $28,000 for a family of four. This debt must be repaid through that family’s future taxes just as surely as if it appeared on their credit card statement. In a real sense, this act means that every family in America has acquired the obligation to make the same payments as if they had just bought a new car.

Predicting the future decisions of the credit rating agencies is a fool’s errand. Much of their economic analysis is marred by perception, psychology, political pressure and self-interest. But there is no blinking at the fact that on many occasions in the last month their senior analysts have called for immediate adoption of a credible work-out plan for $4 trillion of genuine deficit reduction in order to maintain a Triple-A rating. We ignore these repeated and explicit warnings at our peril.

SAVINGS ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

The Budget Control Act purports to cut federal discretionary spending by $900 billion over the next ten years and set in motion another $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion in ten-year spending reductions by year’s end. A recurring theme by proponents is that it guarantees a dollar of cuts for every dollar of new debt.

However, while the debt limit increase occurs this year, the savings occur over the next decade and are heavily back-loaded toward the end of that period. The work of the great economist, J. Wellington Wimpy, can be observed here: “I will gladly give you a dollar of spending cuts ten years from now for a dollar of debt today.”

In reality, this bill will decrease total federal spending by just $4 billion between FY 2011 and FY 2012. Put another way, it cuts actual federal spending by one tenth of one percent – a breathtakingly underwhelming achievement after a 28 percent increase over the last three years. Between FY 2012 and 2013, the bill will increase spending by about $8 billion. (The CBO estimate of a $21 billion net reduction for 2012 is relative to the CBO baseline, not an actual cut relative to 2011).

At best, proponents can claim that between now and September 30, 2014, the “Budget Control Act” freezes spending at the unsustainable FY 2011 level.

In reality, spending will be much higher than these figures suggest, because of a variety of loopholes that allow Congress to spend outside the budget controls for any purpose that a simple majority declares to constitute an “emergency,” or necessary for the “Global War on Terror.”

All future savings that proponents claim are in the form of promises by a government that doesn’t have a stellar track record of keeping such promises.

Indeed, this bill authorizes discretionary spending levels a half trillion dollars more over the next ten years than is permitted under the House Budget Act, also known as the “Ryan Plan” that passed just four months ago.

COMMITTEE UNLIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROMISED SPENDING CUTS

Much of the Budget Control Act of 2011 depends on a bipartisan committee that is charged with the responsibility to cut the deficit, but not necessarily to cut spending, by $1.5 trillion. These are two very different things.

The 12-member committee is to be appointed by Congressional leaders, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans and between the House and the Senate. Its recommendations on deficit reduction will be decided by majority vote and put to both houses for approval or rejection. Absent adoption of a balanced budget amendment, the second tranche of debt limit increase depends on enactment of its recommendations.
There is little reason to be optimistic of its success.

First, although the committee’s formal goal is $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, the law only requires it to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion in order to avoid sequestration and trigger a $1.2 trillion debt limit increase.

Second, this is not a new concept. Since 1982, there have been 17 “bipartisan” commissions charged with reducing federal spending or borrowing. As evidenced by the current crisis, all 17 have failed. The Budget Control Act of 2011 heavily relies on the 18th such panel actually succeeding.

This particular panel is made up exclusively of a bipartisan group of current members of Congress. It invites the question, “If a bipartisan group of current members of Congress (which we often call, ‘the Congress’) can’t agree to reduce spending to sustainable levels at this critical moment in our history, why would we place far greater confidence in the proposed bipartisan panel of – wait for it – current members of Congress?”

Third, the panel is not responsible for reducing spending, but rather for reducing the deficit. Tax increases may also reduce deficits (while doing significant economic damage). Since the committee is to be evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, it would take only one Republican to place a massive tax increase on the House and Senate floors. As the deadline approaches and yet another debt crisis looms, the pressure on that one Republican will be enormous, and if history is any indication, irresistible.

It must also be noted that the deficit reduction figures underpinning the Budget Control Act assume restoration of the Clinton-era tax rates. Proponents argue that with these tax increases already baked into the calculations, it will be politically untenable for the special Joint Committee to add even more taxes to reduce the deficit. I disagree. Tax increases score just the same as spending cuts when calculating their effect on the deficit, whatever is the underlying tax rate. In addition, building Clinton-era tax increases into the deficit projections sets up a self-fulfilling prophesy. Although the Act does not itself raise taxes, it assumes massive tax increases, making them more – and not less – likely to occur.

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT UNENFORCEABLE

Adoption of the Joint Committee report is one way to release the second tranche of debt. The other is for Congress to send the states a balanced budget amendment for ratification. I believe the states would ratify a genuine balanced budget amendment in short order and that it would send a strong signal to markets that the United States Government is finally serious about restoring the integrity of its finances. For two reasons, however, I believe the measure falls far short of this objective.

First, the act sets no specifications for what will be in the amendment. A genuine balanced budget amendment would forbid any government borrowing except by extraordinary majorities and for limited purposes. A balanced budget amendment that could be entirely circumvented through loopholes, or that could automatically trigger tax increases to finance Congressional appetites, would certainly meet the definition of a “balanced budget amendment” under this act.

Second, it is entirely possible – indeed, likely -- that the Congress as currently constituted would not reach 2/3 agreement on the precise details of an amendment while facing another debt crisis in December. Nothing in this bill would prevent Congress from simply scrapping all requirements for the second tranche of debt and approving a debt limit increase anyway.

SEQUESTRATION IS AN INSUFFICIENT GUARANTEE

The most promising feature of the Budget Control Act is an automatic sequestration feature that would order cuts in spending if Congress failed to enact the specified $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions to be recommended by the Joint Committee or if Congress failed to send a balanced budget amendment to the states.

As discussed above, these provisions can be circumvented to the point that they are largely meaningless, which makes sequestration much less a guarantee than it first appears. But assuming for a moment that the sequestration were actually invoked, its impact would fall heavily and disproportionately on defense spending while leaving general government spending relatively untouched.

After a maximum two percent cut to Medicare, reductions are split evenly between defense and non-defense spending. The problem becomes two-fold.

First, certain aspects of defense spending, such as Homeland Security, military construction, and veterans benefits are reclassified as “non-defense” for purposes of sequestration, meaning that defense programs could conceivably be subject to both sides of the reductions.

Second, core defense spending has already been subject to significant budget reductions in the last two years, while non-defense spending has been bloated by a parade of stimulus programs. The “evenly divided” cuts therefore begin to look like a contest between a marathoner and a couch potato over who can lose the most weight.

Should you wish to read further, go here for the full article in all six parts. Lengthy, but filled with breathtaking honesty and truthfulness. You will not find, on the entire internet, a more pointed, cogent, detailed and thorough examination of this bill. Period.

This is why Mr McClintock was one of only 22 House members who dared to vote down the "Budget Control Act of 2011" bill. You know -- those House members whom Mr Obama accuses of "partisan politics," whilst in the midst of a New York fundraiser hosting such stellar politically-intelligent luminaries as Gwyneth Paltrow and Jimmy Fallon, MENSA members all.

BZ

Truism

From a 1934 Chicago Tribune editorial cartoon. Check out the lower left. Truism?

BZ

And Whilst Rome Burns:

Mr Obama's administration worries about heavy duty truck emissions. From The Hill:

The White House on Tuesday announced the first-ever fuel-efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks, standards the Obama administration says will save billions in fuel costs, slash oil consumption and reduce harmful air pollution.

President Obama was slated to announce the standards at an event Tuesday morning in Springfield, Va. But the event was canceled possibly so the president could attend a return ceremony for the 30 U.S. troops killed Saturday in Afghanistan. The president instead held a closed-door meeting at the White House to discuss the standards with industry officials.

How wonderful to simply tap the magic wand on technology and say -- bing! -- make it happen. Just as The One mandated that CAFE ratings of vehicle fuel mileage be 54.5 mpg by 2025. The magic techno wand again -- bing! -- make it happen. Anyone besides me notice that there wasn't one word written about how this was going to occur?

The new standards are aimed at increasing fuel efficiency and cutting emissions from a range of model year 2014-2018 heavy-duty trucks, including big rigs, semi-trucks, delivery trucks, buses, large vans and garbage trucks.

“Thanks to the Obama Administration, for the first time in our history we have a common goal for increasing the fuel efficiency of the trucks that deliver our products, the vehicles we use at work, and the buses our children ride to school,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement.

Medium- and heavy-duty trucks are a major source of air pollution and fuel consumption. They make up about 4 percent of the total vehicles on the road in the United States, but they account for about 20 percent of oil used and 20 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by the transportation sector.

To me, this is the first step in the attempted elimination of the diesel engine. More on this in a moment.

That said, seems we may have forgotten about these salient tidbits:

Mr Obama thinks your energy plight is laughable. He's "got his," so to speak, since his new fleet of ObamaMobiles, a custom GM Cadillac built on the heavy duty truck Top Kick chassis gets, itself, 8 mpg:

If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

Mr Obama, you're just a barrel of laughs, sir. What a darned knee-slapper! Despite the fact that his vehicles are exempt from federal green regulations. But heck, Mr Obama thinks we all need to suffer massive price hikes in gasoline anyway.

The point of Mr Obama's recent mandate is to, again, eliminate the diesel engine. The engine that moves the bulk of our transportation. Diesel engines are found in local transport vehicles, semi-trucks, locomotives and even ships.

There isn't an electric motor strong enough to pull a locomotive absent a massive separate and hugely-expensive catenary infrastructure system. There is no electric motor powerful enough to push a 150,000-ton ship absent a diesel engine hence -- with locomotives and ships, "diesel-electric" transmission systems.

The goal, then, clearly, is to run all vehicles on electric power. Fusion isn't technologically possible and hydrogen isn't feasible either.

There's just one itty-bitty problem, as I wrote here:

At the same time, Mr Obama wants to radically increase the number of electric vehicles in the nation -- while, simultaneously -- putting dampers on the construction of additional electrical generation stations.

He and the Religious Left say:

- No coal (dirty, comes from the ground)

- No oil (see above)

- No nuclear (see Japan)

- No windborne (kills birds)

- No water-powered (means more dams and reservoirs)

- No geothermal (not enough, too unstable)

- No solar power (eats too much arable land, requires too much water for cleaning)

What's left?

YOU. Pedaling a bicycle on a pulley system connected to some fan blades in summer.

Here's what's likely to happen: Class 8 truck building -- one of the last bastions of actual American heavy manufacturing -- will crank up for a bit and then plummet.

It will also kill independent American truckers, because only larger fleets will be able to afford the new line of much-higher-priced trucks. Or will Mr Obama step in and nationalize truck manufacturing like he tried to do with light-vehicle manufacturing?

I'll let one commenter from the original The Hill piece summarize:

A 23% cut in fuel consumption in big rigs? Long haul companies all along have been working on decreasing their fuel consumption. Technology for the equipment is constantly changing. Fleet operations for example routing, delivery times and even giving bonuses to the drivers based on fuel consumption. Long haul companies have always attempted to cut fuel consumption for one reason and one reason only. The free market one. COST! Their fuel costs directly impact their bottom line.

Now the government is gonna step in and say "Cut 23% from your fuel consumption." For the clueless liberals. If the long haul companies could cut even 1% from their fuel consumption they would do in 1/100th of a heartbeat for only one reason, the best reason! TO PUT MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS!

Using a heavy regulatory hand will only achieve the opposite. Again some little Know Nothing in government comes up with an arbitrary figure: "Lets cut fuel consumption by 23%!" They pay no attention to the laws of physics or the laws of economics.

They propose a regulation based on "Miles Per Gallon" when it should be based on "Ton Miles Per Gallon" The first knee jerk reaction is to make the trucks & trailers lighter. The reality is the total weight of the trucks is regulated for safety reasons.

The normal standard being 80,000 lbs (40 ton) GVW (gross vehicle weight) limit. In steps the law of economics. For every pound saved in TARE (empty weight of the truck) you can haul one more pound of cargo. Which means more money on the company's bottom line. In simple terms you can lower the TARE of the truck but it won't lower the GVW. But you hauled more cargo for the same amount of fuel. In the end the government should stay out of this one. The laws of capitalism dictate that less fuel used means better bottom line. What better motivator is there than that?

Again, the jackasses in DC merely waving their Magic Techno Wand and making an Imperial Edict to abrogate technology itself, the laws of physics and gravity.

Where can I find one of those wands, eh?

BZ

INSANITY: "Obama Renews Call For More Stimulus"

From The Washington Times:

Pummeled by ghastly economic news, President Obama called Monday for more spending and extended tax cuts that he said would help stimulate the economy — but these also could deepen the deficit problems that helped the federal government earn its first-ever debt downgrade last week.

WE.

DON'T.

HAVE.

IT.

This is INSANITY.

BZ

Another "Stimulus" Coming:

Ladies and gentlemen, did I not predict this for the past two weeks?

Why yes, yes I did.

I wrote about it here and here and here.

You, me -- we are all about to have a white-hot piece of Porkulus rebar (Part III) shoved violently and unremittently up our taxpaying sphincters. And you will not be asked or consulted if this may even remotely inconvenience -- much less -- pain you.

DC simply does not care.

From the Financial Times:

Fed forced to consider fresh stimulus

By Robin Harding in Washington

The US Federal Reserve’s meeting on Tuesday is likely to be one of its most difficult and divisive since, well, last August.

Sharply weaker economic data in recent weeks, a new peak in the eurozone debt crisis, and a downgrade to the triple A credit rating of the US have shaken confidence in a way that could spiral towards a new recession. The Fed will be forced to consider fresh stimulus in response.

A "fresh stimulus." "FORCED" to consider a "fresh stimulus."

This IS the personification, the definition, the extension of insanity:

Doing the same thing again and again and again and again and -- miserably -- "hopefully" (with some Change thrown in for crappy measure) expecting different results.

The goal -- make no mistake whatsoever -- is to replace our Republic with an Imperial Federal Government.

And ladies and gentlemen, we are completely enroute this goal.

Because so few Republicans have guts -- save perhaps 22. Including Tom McClintock.

What makes anyone, anywhere, think that Mr Obama will suddenly experience his own personal and philosophical epiphany and exclaim: "my gosh, I was so wrong!"

There IS another "Porkulus" coming.

Porkulus 3.0.

BZ

Monday Wrap-Up:

Our DOW lost over 600 points. From ABCNews.com:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 600 points Monday after a one-two punch: the first-ever Standard & Poor's downgrade of U.S. debt, then the downgrading of government-backed mortgage debt. The Dow's one-day drop was its biggest point loss in a single day since Dec., 1 2008 and its sixth biggest point drop in its history.

The Dow closed down 634 points, the S&P 500 lost 79 points, and the Nasdaq ended 174 points lower, dropping almost 7 percent.

President Obama spoke this afternoon, saying the United States knew well before the S&P downgrade that it had a debt problem. "The U.S. will always be a triple-A country despite what rating agencies say," he said.

The good news, he said, is the debt is a "solvable" problem that can be addressed through tax reform and spending cuts.

Investors don't seem to agree. The Dow plunged an additional 100 points to hover around 500 after the president's speech.

Today's rout wiped out about $2.3 trillion in investor wealth in the United States.

As stocks reeled, gold surged today by $61 to $1,713 an ounce.

Question for you:

Do you believe the United States possesses the political will to halt the spending, put its fiscal affairs in order, and stave off a national and global economic crisis?

[ ] YES

[ ] NO

Please weigh in!

BZ

P.S.
"Today's rout wiped out about $2.3 trillion in investor wealth in the United States."

Monday So Far:

At this point, roughly mid-day,

- The DOW is down 500 points;
- Gold rose more than $70 an ounce;

And who is to blame?

Mr Obama & Minions says that the TEA Party is to blame (I was certain he'd go for Bush):

David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Obama, used the exact same phrase in dubbing the credit rating drop the “tea party downgrade,” as Democrats tried to position themselves as reasonable, pragmatic leaders and conservative Republicans as irresponsible ideologues who caused the downgrade by refusing to accept any new taxes.

Barney Frank blames our military (which, read correctly, is himself and DC):

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee says the biggest reason the United States is seeing its credit downgraded is that it spends too much money being "the military policemen of the world."

Rep. Barney Frank tells CBS's "The Early Show" that reining in defense spending is "going to be my mantra" for the next few months.

China blames DC spending and fiscal irresponsibility:

If the world's largest debtor kept eating May's grain in April and kept robbing Peter to pay Paul without fiscal discipline, eagerness to balance budget or effective efforts to boost sluggish economy, how can the creditors keep lending without doubts?

What else is happening?

- The S&P extends its US downgrade to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc;
- Moody's is now threatening to do the same thing: AAA to AA+;
- S&P itself says there a good chance the US will be downgraded AGAIN;
- Gas prices are up despite Mr Obama having opened reserves (a stupid thing to do);

And what of the future?

It's not happy. The One is not looking quite so god-like these days.

It's just like an alcoholic, ladies and gentlemen: day-by-day.

BZ

Early Monday Morning Thoughts

Some early thoughts in anticipation of Monday's NY Stock Exchange reaction to last Friday's news about the United States' AAA credit rating devaluation.

How do credit ratings come about? Go here for an interesting article about S&P, Fitch and Moody's.

An important quote:

Losing your rating or being downgraded can have a fatal effect on your country's ability to borrow money on the markets.

The Good:
The two other remaining credit rating agencies, Fitch and Moody's, weren't motivated to downgrade the United States. Yet. (Though S&P is considering another downgrade.)

The Bad:
Stock exchanges are ruled by emotions -- that is, how they tend to feel about the security, worthiness, consistency, strength and reliability of a given stock, country or situation.

Literally, if the exchange doesn't "feel" right about the downgrading of the US, there could be a massive sell-off and a divestment of anything US-branded.

From S&P's recent report (in PDF), I quote:

· The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

Less reduction in spending? You even remotely believe that Demorats will agree to less spending than reflected in the current "debt ceiling" bill? You're out of your mind; that won't occur because that conflicts with the core, foundational philosophy of the Demorats and Leftists.

S&P writes:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

"Containing the growth in public spending." Meaning that S&P has little confidence that the US government can contain said growth. Clearly, entitlements are an issue and cannot continue. Remember when President Bush attempted to reform Social Security? That was verboten! So now we're paying that price. And how do you raise revenues? With the Demorats it's TAX TAX TAX. With Conservatives, it's "get government the hell out of the way of a free market economy." And that the plan "falls short of the amount we believe is necessary to stabilize the federal government debt burden"? Of course!

Because the Demorats and Leftists and RINOs refuse to CUT.

Again:

We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

That's correct, and proud of them. "Raising revenues" = MORE TAXES. Raising taxes isn't the point and, in a recession, is a death knell for any economy. One could raise all the taxes on the "wealthy" and, further, even confiscate all their wealth and the debt/deficit problems wouldn't even remotely be solved. All the US "billionaires" combined don't have the earning power to take a small bite out of our debt. That is a specious argument, and one made politically in order to demonize capitalists. Any taxation, trust me ladies and gentlemen, will have to be borne by the MIDDLE CLASS, where the resiliency, consistency and true cash reside. That's YOU and ME. In addition, you and I are already going to be taxed via ObakaKare and the expiration of the "Bush Tax Cuts." But of course, conveniently, people forget that and the media won't cover it.

The US government does NOT have a revenue problem; it has a SPENDING problem. Simple logic and common sense tells us this, not convoluted economic theorems and formulas.

One can raise revenues by relaxing taxes and regulations on businesses. By making businesses feel like they are WELCOME in the national, state and local economies and not simply sources of governmental oppression. Perfect example: Fornicalia. Let THAT be your current lesson, Leftists. Businesses are FLEEING the FLEECING state of Fornicalia.

And "green jobs," Mr Obama? Where in the hell are those promised thousands of "green jobs"? Arnold promised "green jobs" as well. Where are they, I ask? I don't see them.

Infrastructure? You dare to go there, sir? Your first Porkulus was predicated upon the entire RESURRECTION of our national infrastructure. So where did that get you? Oh yes, that's right, concerned about the upgrading of airports under FAA because you didn't have sufficient cash.

Hello? Is ANYONE paying attention?

Further:

Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward.

Meaning: Mr Obama has been LYING to the nation, indicating that things are getting better when, in fact, they are not and, additionally, Mr Obama refuses to do what logic demands:

1. STOP further spending, and 2. Begin massive CUTTING

With that in mind, next up on Mr Obama's plate?

The Ugly:

That's right; another STIMULUS PACKAGE consisting of MORE SPENDING.

Just waiting for the conclusion of today.

It shall be, as the Chinese say, "interesting times."

BZ

P.S.
As Treasury Ignoramus Timmy (Incompetent) Geithner just said on April 19th of this year:

'No risk' the US will lose its top credit rating, says Treasury's Geithner

By Michael O'Brien - 04/19/11 10:33 AM ET

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said Tuesday there is "no risk" the U.S. will lose its top credit rating amid a new analysis that revised its outlook on American debt to "negative."

Geithner took to the airwaves of financial news networks to push back against a report Monday by Standard & Poor's that lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative," reflecting political uncertainty over whether lawmakers will reach an agreement to address long-term debt.