Four Corners Media

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Saving Money the Congressional Way

As the US Senate wraps up work on their version of the “pork laden” Federal stimulus bill, a group of moderate (aka “big spending”) Republicans and conservative (aka “we spend less than liberals”) Democrats met to recommend cuts on the package. So what does saving money look like in Congress?

US government proposed spending in Federal Stimulus that was partially cut:

• $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)

• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

• $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)

• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)

• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)

Source: www.americanthinker.com The Mighty Porkulus Oinks Along 2.09.09

For a complete PDF of the Nelson/Collins Stimulus recommendation (that still recommends spending more money than the US house version), go to the Senate Conservative Fund http://senateconservatives.com and click on the Nelson-Collins Stimulus Summary. The amounts of pork spending under the guise of creating jobs and jumpstarting the US economy will overwhelm the average common sense US taxpayer. Or I forgot, less and less Americans actually will pay taxes under the Obama tax plans, so I guess government spending and the resulting taxes don’t impact the average American. We save the tax increases for the rich!

Most Americans just don’t spend money at all, if they are trying to cut costs and save money. As for jumpstarting the economy, a focus on tax cuts for small business, reductions in capital gains tax rates for investors and some actual infrastructure projects would go much farther that the “Porkulus Bill” in term of turning the US economy around. Instead the Democrats in Congress and the new Democrat President are attempting to spend, then borrow, and then increase taxes on the “rich” to pay for their financial boondoggle.

For more on a conservative free market approach and to see a financial reality check, click through the CATO Institute www.cato.org/fiscalreality While the legacy media, main stream Democrats, the left coast and east coast elite are pushing the financially irresponsible Federal Stimulus package, the rest of America is wondering what are these Congressional big spenders are thinking? It is simple: The majority of the Congress and the President think that big government and massive spending is the answer. However a majority of Americans do not support the Democrat Federal stimulus package. Popular support is down at 37% approval, according the Rasmussen Reports www.rasmussenreports.com What will the US taxpayers say to their US Congressmen and US Senators when they get home to defend the Porkulus Package? Time will tell.

Friday, February 6, 2009

First Spend, Then Borrow, Then Tax

While the rest of the country is working hard to cut costs, reduce budgets and live within our means, the politicos in Washington are rushing to spend money they don’t have. The “pork-ulus” (stimulus) Federal spending bill has risen by the billions by the day. The Democrat majority in the House passed the so-call Federal economic stimulus bill without any support from Republican members. Now the $819B Democrat bill has swelled to over $920B based on US Senate amendments to increase spending and tax cuts.

According to the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com “Twenty moderate senators -- from both parties -- are pushing a plan to bring the total package's cost down to about $800 billion, and put more emphasis on tax cuts. Led by Sens. Susan Collins (R., Maine) and Ben Nelson (D., Neb.), the group has been combing over the bill for spending programs deemed unlikely to provide immediate benefit to the economy.”

The WSJ indicated that the House has issues with the Federal stimulus: “Separately, a caucus of fiscally conservative House Democrats, known as the Blue Dogs, urged party leaders to embrace a "redoubled effort to streamline the stimulus and recovery package." In the House, 11 Democrats voted against the $819 billion package, nine of them Blue Dogs. Several other Blue Dogs voted for the package, but with reservations.”

According to FOX news, www.foxnews.com the public opinion is mounting against the stimulus bill, and the US Senate is feeling the political heat. "This idea that the public is not excited about this package ... is really having an effect on Capitol Hill," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told FOX News, adding that most of the Senate suffers from a "herd mentality" and is swayed by public opinion. "There's nothing inevitable about this," said Phil Kerpen, director of policy at Americans for Prosperity. "The American economy is enormously resilient and it's always recovered in the past."

In an interview with Greta Van Susteren from Fox News Channel, Senator Lindsay Graham R-South Carolina was blunt in his criticism, “Senator Graham: Yes, I think the process (stinks) -- can you imagine trying to do -- can you imagine a group of people taking a trillion dollars from the next generation of Americans, borrowing money from children and grandchildren, and doing it in a week? If it looks like we're making it up, we are. There are 16 senators off in a corner trying to save $100 billion. God bless them, but that's not the way you get bipartisanship. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill set down and found a way to go forward with Social Security.

On Fox News, Senator Graham continued, “I like President Obama. (But on this bill) He's been AWOL…he's writing op-ed pieces trying to scare people to vote for this bill. He's had lunch with us, he's had cocktails with us, he's talked to us on the phone, but he's never done the hard work of getting Republicans and Democrats in a room and telling the left: This is not going to be a free-spending bill. You're not going to be able to spend a trillion dollars that doesn't create jobs. And he needs to tell Republicans: You need to do more than just cut taxes. The president has not led. He has tried to campaign. The campaign is over. We've got to govern. Roll up your sleeves. There are at least 15 Republicans who want to do more than cut taxes, understand we need to stimulate the economy, but nobody is going to agree to this process. This is not the way to govern this nation and obligate future generations to trillions of dollars of spending.” Interview with Greta Van Susteren, Thurs Feb 5, 2009

Americans for Prosperity has launched a petition on the Web site called http://nostimulus.com to oppose what it calls the "big-government pork-barrel spending bill." The conservative Cato Institute www.cato.org also recently took out a group of ads with a statement, signed by 200 economists, saying they "do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance." www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

The total US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is approximately $14 Trillion dollars. The proposed Federal stimulus bill plus interest (to borrow the money) is approaching 10% of the US GDP. Or to put the spending and tax cut binge in perspective: The US Senate package is about the size of the total GDP (economy) of Australia, and with the interest tacked on it will approach the total GDP of Canada. In FY 2007, the cost of the US government was $2.7 Trillion dollars. Clearly the amounts of money (from taxes, US Government borrowing or from the devaluation of US dollar due to inflation) that the US taxpayer is expected to come up with is staggering.

Leadership on fiscal policy would be for the US Senate to vote down the pork filled “so called stimulus package” and start over with a more reasonable bill. Or the President could veto the measure. Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership in the US Senate is determined to pass the bloated bill, at the expense of the US taxpayer for decades to come. Maybe it is time for the US taxpayers to throw out the big spenders (Dems and GOP) in Washington, and vote for a return of limited government that lives within it’s means and respects the taxpayers hard earned monies.

Monday, February 2, 2009

Obama Quietly Signs Death Warrant

One day after the 36^th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade US Supreme Court decision opening the legal avenue to abortions in America, the new President quietly signed the death warrant for additional victims yet unborn. In the quiet of his office, away the glare and scrutiny of the press, President Obama signed executive orders that will allow for US funding and government support for “family planning”. Literally a death warrant to babies yet to be born, and now denied life by the abortion lobby. Despite the thousands of protesters who were in Washington DC marching for life and the rights of the unborn, Obama ignored those voices, and instead paid back political favors with the blood of innocents. Harsh and unfair words you say?

Here is how the candidates handled the abortion question during the October 17, 2008 presidential debate. Mr. Obama attempted to hedge on his intense abortion rights position, but his debate answer clearly communicates his firm position: “With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.” Senator Obama, October 2008 presidential debate. “An exception” for the health and life of the mother? So if a fully alive child is partially delivered, and the abortionist kills the baby, this is okay with (then) Senator Obama when the mother’s health or life is threatened? This barbaric practice is about the termination of the fully alive child’s life. The mother’s health is not the substantive issue here, but rather the exception (excuse) to fully trample upon the baby’s human rights.

To this substantive issue, Senator McCain responded: “Here is it is “again, the example of the eloquence of (then) Senator Obama. He's (for) “health” for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health." But, look; Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We'll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country. But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn.” John McCain stood alone for the rights of the unborn, and pointed out the despite his eloquence, Obama’s position is extreme on the substantive issue of abortion.

So exactly what did the new President do within his first week in office to support his extreme pro-death views? A president can set public policy using executive orders. As POTUS 44, President Obama reversed pro-life executive orders by President Regan and President Bush (that President Clinton had also rescinded). According to the Pro-Life Action League http://prolifeaction.org “President Reagan was the first president to institute the Mexico City Policy. This policy withheld funding from groups promoting abortion overseas. Because it is an executive order, the current president simply has to sign an order to overturn it—no legislature necessary. Naturally Clinton overturned the policy; George W. Bush reinstated it; now Obama has overturned it again.”

According to the Pro-Life web site, “Obama continues to look for more ways to use our tax dollars to promote abortion abroad under the euphemism "family planning." Next on his agenda, according to his speech last Saturday, is funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Bush revoked the funding several years ago after the Population Research Institute revealed that the UNFPA worked hand in hand with those who enforce China's coercive "One Child Policy," which forces abortion and sterilization upon women who have already had their one, legal child.” Pro-Life Action League “hotline” posting

So with the stroke of a pen, many unborn children with be threatened with the end of their life, through the immoral guise of family planning and pro-choice (death) policies advocated by the Obama administration.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

New Mexico Political Blogs

Political news from Santa Fe, NM and the annual NM legislative session at the Roundhouse can be found on several blogs. Here are the two “must reads” for those who are trying to keep track of what is going on in New Mexico statewide politics:

http://haussamen.blogspot.com

www.joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com

Another source of information on the state of NM budget and spending in Santa Fe can be found at the Rio Grande Foundation http://www.riograndefoundation.org This NM think tank also has a new site to track bills at the Roundhouse that can be found on the web at http://www.newmexicovotes.org In addition, the Rio Grande Foundation has links to other resources that allow voters, taxpayers and citizens of New Mexico to be better informed on state government.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Keeping the Press Happy

As posted in an earlier Four Corners Media blog (January 12^th), the love affair with the legacy media and the Obama “spin the news” team was bound to be tested. The event that had White House orchestrated media control was the reenactment of the President’s swearing in. Only a selected few in the media attended, and no live video or audio was allowed from the press pool. The White House press corps membership is composed of the elite reporters of the Legacy Media, many of them being groomed for featured news anchor jobs or new programs by their news organizations.www.whitehousepresscorps.org

You’ll note that the WHPC site has a window “Obama Administration Twitter Coverage” built into the lower part of the home page.

Here is the view from the Politico www.politico.com on the media frustration with team Obama this first week in office.

A growing media frustration with Barack Obama’s team spilled into the open at Thursday’s briefing, with reporters accusing the White House of stifling access to his oath re-do and giving Obama’s first interview as president to a multi-million dollar inauguration sponsor.   Veteran CBS newsman Bill Plante was one of the most vocal critics, questioning the White House’s handling of Wednesday night’s second swearing in – which was covered by just a four-reporter print pool that didn’t include a news photographer or TV correspondent.   He also asked new press secretary Robert Gibbs why ABC, which paid millions to host the DC Neighborhood Ball, was granted the only inauguration day interview with President Obama – a move he equated to “pay to play.”   “We have a tradition here of covering the president,” said Plante, who is covering his fourth administration.

Later in the day, the Obama team was scrambling to get the dance steps right with the White House press corps. The Prez himself made a surprise visit to the cramped rooms the media works out of reporting on the White House beat.

President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.   Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.   "Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."   www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html

Welcome to Washington DC and your new role as the President of the United States. Team Obama is trying to make the shift from an image building campaign and sanitized press relationship to the rough and tumble of a national press corps looking for stories, not photo ops. If you watched or heard former President Bush’s last news conference, these legacy media reporters play for keeps. And Team Obama is being welcomed into their world.

It is a dance, between the media (4^th estate) and the President (POTUS 44) that is being ironed out and played out in the public eye. Historically, the POTUS and the White House Press Corps have had hot and cold relationships. Each president handles the press differently, including setting up an Office of the Press Secretary that will conduct daily briefings with the media. But every reporter is at the White House to ask questions of the President. That is when the real news happens.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Congratulations, Mr. President

Congratulations, Mr. President

The swearing-in of the President of the United States occurs upon the commencement of a new term of a President of the United States. The United States Constitution mandates that the President make the following oath or affirmation before he or she can "enter on the Execution" of the office of the presidency:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The newly elected or re-elected President traditionally adds "so help me God" to the constitutionally mandated statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_Day

We will witness the miracle of American Democracy, as another smooth transition of power will take place on Tuesday January 20^th in Washington. President Barack Obama, the duly elected President of the United States will be sworn in as the Commander in Chief by the Chief Justice Roberts. The United States of American stands alone in its democratic and bloodless transitions of power, which have occurred many times since April 30, 1789. On that day, the first president, George Washington was sworn in as President.

As Americans we will put aside our differences of opinion and unite as fellow Americans in support of the 44^th President of the United States. President Obama has many challenges that he will face. Our prayers are will him.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Obma & the Scripted Media

Obama and the Scripted Media:

From the media blog on National Review On-Line:

'[We] Don't Even Bother Raising Our Hands Any More...' [Guy Benson, January 12^th post http://media.nationalreview.com/

As I watched President Bush's final tango with reporters this morning, I was reminded of how Chicago Sun-Times www.suntimes.com columnist Carol Marin described President-elect Obama's press conferences thus far:

"As ferociously as we march like villagers with torches against Blagojevich [Governor of Illinois, under Federal indictment], we have been, in the true spirit of the Bizarro universe, the polar opposite with the president-elect. Deferential, eager to please, prepared to keep a careful distance. The Obama news conferences tell that story, making one yearn for the return of the always-irritating Sam Donaldson to awaken the slumbering press to the notion that decorum isn't all it's cracked up to be. The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day." Carol Marin, Sun Times

How long will the Obama-friendly press corps, no matter how "deferential" and "eager to please," tolerate such tight management? (Asked by Guy Benson on his NRO blog)

This is a good question? As I listened to the final Bush press conference on Sirius XM radio (Bloomberg channel 129 on XM), it was clear that the sitting President Bush was calling on members of the “unfriendly to Bush press corps” as they raised their hands. And the questions pushed the soon to be former president to ‘admit mistakes’ and ‘apologize to the American people’. Used to the unfriendly press, the Republican president fired away at his media critics in his usual folksy matter. However, on some issues, such as the gravity of the Office of the President and keeping the American homeland safe, President Bush didn’t mince words in the face of his media critics.

So how will the White House press corps treat President Obama next week, when it is his turn to deal with the 4^th estate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate Who will be first to ask questions, along the lines of the types of questions that President Bush faced in his last press conference? At some point, the Obama friendly press will have to choose: Should we continued the well scripted public relations campaign for Team Obama, or should we actually exercise our obligation to report the news as independent members of the press?

How the Legacy media answers this question will determine their long-term credibility as the 4^th estate in American politics and reporting.

Blog Search on 4C Media