Craig DeLuz

Writer, Actor, Public Speaker, Media Personality
Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

(Government) Jobs Bill overcomes filibuster and now has smooth road ahead

Once again Democrats with the help of a few soft minded Republicans have passed a massive spending bill to help keep state and local governments from having to make the tough decisions it will take to balance their budgets.
According to the Associated Press:
The $26 billion measure would help states ease their severe budget problems and – advocates said – stop the layoffs of nearly 300,000 teachers, firefighters, police and other public employees.
Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah… the Stimulus Bill. Remember that massive spending program that was supposed to stimulate the economy and create jobs? But what it mostly did was plug holes in state and local government budgets.
For example, in California stimulus spending was reported to have saved around 100,000 jobs. But a closer analysis found that 90% of those were government jobs; this at a time when the Golden State has actually increased the number of government jobs.
The sad part is that because the funding was for only one year, many of those jobs are on the chopping block this year. Not so fast! Here come the liberals to the rescue.
And what is their solution? Give states more money! This is like giving an alcoholic the keys to the freshly stocked liquor cabinet. They may be content for a while. But as soon as the well runs dry, they’ll be asking for your credit card to go shopping for more.
Any clear thinking individual has got to see that these same jobs are going to be on the line again next year as budget dollars will continue to be in scarce supply. Why keep putting off the cuts you know you are eventually going to have to make? A political payoff is the only explanation.

The current measure is heavily backed by unions for teachers and public employees, key allies of the Democratic Party. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ran ads Wednesday in four Maine newspapers urging Collins and Snowe to help break the filibuster.

Bailing out those who refuse to make responsible choices is a surefire way to ensure that they never have to. That is until we are no longer able to borrow or simply print the money to do so.

Black Republican Nominated to Congress in South Carolina. Democrats lament, “He’s no Alvin Greene!”

In 1854, the GOP is founded in opposition to slavery. In 1964, we elected segregationist Strom Thurmond. Now in 2010, we nominate an African-American to fill Thurmond’s old seat. The circle is complete!

Unlike their Democratic counterparts, South Carilina Republicans have nominated an African-American man who is undoubtably qualified and ready serve his constitutents in Washington DC.

The Associated Press reports:

Voters in South Carolina nominated a black Republican lawmaker for an open congressional seat Tuesday, rejecting a renowned political name and potentially changing the face of the national party.

State Rep. Tim Scott defeated Paul Thurmond, an attorney who is son of the onetime segregationist U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond. Scott, who won the runoff with 69 percent of the vote, is poised to become the nation’s first black GOP congressman since 2003.

Scott, 44, owns an insurance business and became the first black Republican in the South Carolina Legislature in more than a century when elected in 2008.

He’s now the favorite in the coastal First District, which has elected a Republican congressman for three decades. He would become the first black Republican congressman since Oklahoma’s J.C. Watts retired in 2003.

I think the fact that Mr. Scott defeated the son of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond is a wonderful bit of irony.

It will be interesting to see how the national establishment reacts to him. Will he be a game changer the way that JC Watts was during his tenure; helping the party develop policy to address issues beyond the usual GOP focus? Or will he be an establishment guy trying to sell the party as it’s ambassador to the black community?

I don’t know him. So, I cannot say which he will be. But I everything I have heard about him is that he is a conservative, independent thinker. That should bode well for the type of leader he will be in Congress.

The one thing I do know is that he is no Alvin Greene!

Congratulations Mr. Scott!

House Dems Declare, “Budget? We don’t need no stinking budget!”

In 2006 Rep. John Spratt(D) declared of Republicans, “If you can’t budget, you can’t govern.” Well now that he is in charge of the budget, he has changed his tune!
House Democrats have chosen not to even pass a budget this year. Instead, they will pass a “Budget Alternative” which will continue spending at last year’s level. So what’s the big deal?
Well this alternative budget leaves out some very important facts; like a projected annual budget deficit averaging over $1 Trillion a year for the next 10 years!  As reported by The Hill:
House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) said the alternative would be the “functional equivalent” of a full-fledged budget. But because it won’t be a traditional budget resolution, it will be silent on future deficits, which are expected to average nearly $1 trillion for the next decade.
Democrats have expressed concern about voting for a document showing lots of red ink in an election year.
Even those who are fond of comparing the spending during the Bush years to that of our current President are silent. The truth is that the highest deficit under President Bush was $450 billion. Back in 2009 The Heritage Foundation Reported”
It is true that, between 2002 and 2009, the budgets largely shaped by President George Bush will have run cumulative budget deficits of $3.35 trillion. This calculation credits the entire 2009 budget deficit and TARP costs to Bush, even though Obama will have signed most of the discretionary spending bills and overseen much of the TARP spending.
But Obama does not have much high ground. The “stimulus” bill alone will create more debt (approximately $1 trillion including interest costs), than Bush’s first three years of budget deficits combined ($948 billion).
So, if the numbers are already out there, what are Democrats trying to hide? One has to wonder if the projected deficits are even greater that we know. And if President Obama signs this “Budget Alternative”, what does that say about his commitment to “Transparency”?

Pelosi & Margaret Sanger agree. Birth control = Economic Stimulus

Maybe it us just me. But I find it outrageous that Birthcontrol would be considered as a part of the economic stimulus package. Regardless of how you feel about birth control, to utilize funds from any economic stimulus proposal to pay for birth control is beyond obsurd.

It harkens back to the time when Planned Parenthood’s Founder, Margaret Sanger sought to use birth control as a method of population control. It was her desire to keep certain “undesirable groups” from multiplying. And her primary arguement was that they would be a burden on taxpayers.

Here is a quote from Margaret Sanger:

Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”

This quote comes from Margaret Sanger’s- The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition. And as you can see Pelosi, like Sanger believes that the goverment should be in the business of making sure that “poor folk” don’t go having babies.

While I do agree that everyone should be responsible in their reproductive choices. I cannot belive that anyone would go as far as to promote birth control as economic stimulas.

In 2004 Maxine Waters said Fannie & Freddie weren’t broken

As Democrats continue to try and hang the financial crisis around the neck of John McCain, their own words are coming back to haunt them.

Republicans are the ones who have pushed to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while Democrats continually fight any regulation.

I am not saying the Republicans are completely free of blame. The fact is, they were in charge in 2001 when this issue first popped up, all the way until 2005. And no legislation was ever passed providing the sort of oversight they knew was needed.

But it is clear from this video and other media reports that Democrats have been the ones preventing the reforms that could have prevented this crisis. I just think it’s sad thata the MSM is letting them get away with such hypocracy.

Democrats fought McCain’s efforts to address pending finaincial crisis

The following was sent out by the California Republican Party. I figured that I woud pass it on to my readers, unfiltered.

Democrats Attack McCain Even Though They Blocked Reform Efforts He Sought To Help Fix The Financial Markets

Obama’s Congressional Allies Have Been Attacking Sen. John McCain For Engaging In Negotiations On Legislation To Stabilize Financial Markets:

“In Interviews After The Meeting, Obama Pointed A Finger At His Rival For The Faltering Talks…” (Michael D. Shear and Jonathan Weisman, “Debate Still In Limbo As Democrats Blame McCain For Interrupting Process,” The Washington Post, 9/26/08)

Obama Suggested The Negotiations Were Damaged By Presidential Politics. “Obama suggested the talks were damaged by politics. ‘When you start injecting presidential politics into delicate negotiations you can actually create more problems rather than less,’ Obama said on CNN.” (Alison Vekshin and James Rowley, “House Republicans Undercut Bush On Rescue, Slow Talks,” Bloomberg News, 9/26/08)

But McCain Has Led Efforts To Reform Financial Markets:

The Washington Post: “[W]hen It Comes To Regulating Financial Institutions And Corporate Misconduct, Mr. McCain’s Record Is More In Keeping With His Current Rhetoric.” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation?'” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)

John McCain Urged Action More Than Two Years Ago, Co-Sponsoring Legislation To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Warning: “If Congress Does Not Act, American Taxpayers Will Continue To Be Exposed To The Enormous Risk That Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Pose To The Housing Market, The Overall Financial System, And The Economy As A Whole.” McCain: “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, “McCain Statement On Co-Sponsorship Of The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005,” Press Release, 5/26/06)

In 2002, McCain Called For Greater Oversight Of Financial Markets Following Accounting Scandals. “In the aftermath of the Enron collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. ‘I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation,’ he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the New York Times. ‘But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor — and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years — can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work.'” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation?'” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)

McCain Led The Charge To Remove Former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt. “Mr. McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he ‘seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government’s demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well.'” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation?'” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)

And Obama Ally Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Blocked Multiple Attempts At Reforming Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Spanning Back To 1992:

“[Frank’s] Record Is Close To Perfect As A Stalwart Opponent Of Reforming The Two Companies, Going Back More Than A Decade. The First Concerted Push To Rein In Fan And Fred In Congress Came As Far Back As 1992, And Mr. Frank Was Right There, Standing Athwart. But Things Really Picked Up This Decade, And Barney Was There At Every Turn.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)

“Two Years Later, Mr. Frank Was At It Again. ‘I Do Not Regard Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac As Problems,’ He Said In Response To Another Reform Push. And Then: ‘I Regard Them As Great Assets.'” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)

“A Month Later, Freddie Mac’s Multibillion-Dollar Accounting Scandal Broke Into The Open. But Mr. Frank Was Sanguine. ‘I Do Not Think We Are Facing Any Kind Of A Crisis,’ He Said At The Time.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)

“Three Months Later He Repeated The Claim That Fannie And Freddie Posed No ‘Threat To The Treasury.’ Even Suggesting That Heresy, He Added, Could Become ‘A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.'” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)

“In April 2004, Fannie Announced A Multibillion-Dollar Financial ‘Misstatement’ Of Its Own. Mr. Frank Was Back For The Defense. Fannie And Freddie Posed No Risk To Taxpayers, He Said, Adding That ‘I Think Wall Street Will Get Over It’ If The Two Collapsed.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)

Obama Ally Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) Led Efforts To Block Reform Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, After Receiving A Sweetheart Deal On Loans For His Own Houses:

Obama Joined Sen. Dodd – Both Top Recipients Of Fannie And Freddie Contributions – In Opposing Reform Measures And Weakening Existing Regulations. “During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.” (Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner, Op-Ed, “Where Was Sen. Dodd?” The Washington Post, 9/12/08)

Dodd Called On The Regulator For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac To Lift Portfolio Caps. “Both Schumer and Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, have called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator to lift the portfolio caps. They argue that allowing the two firms to buy more mortgages, at least temporarily, would inject much needed liquidity into the market and calm the financial markets.” (Michael R. Crittenden, “Schumer Will Seek To Lift Cap On Mortgage Portfolios Of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 8/16/07)

In 2003, Dodd, Chairman Of The Senate Banking Committee, Received Preferential Loans From Countrywide Financial On His Two Homes Which Saved Him $75,000. “Senators Christopher Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut and chairman of the Banking Committee, and Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, refinanced properties through Countrywide’s ‘V.I.P.’ program in 2003 and 2004, according to company documents and emails and a former employee familiar with the loans. … Senator Dodd received two loans in 2003 through Countrywide’s V.I.P. program. He borrowed $506,000 to refinance his Washington townhouse, and $275,042 to refinance a home in East Haddam, Connecticut. Countrywide wai ved three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the first loan, and one-fourth of a point, about $700, on the second, according to internal documents. Both loans were for 30 years, with the first five years at a fixed rate. The interest rate on the loans, originally pegged at 4.875%, was reduced to 4.25% on the Washington home and 4.5% on the Connecticut property by the time the loans were funded. The lower rates save the senator about $58,000 on his Washington residence over the life of the loan, and $17,000 on the Connecticut home.” (Daniel Golden, “Countrywide’s Many ‘Friends,'” Portfolio, 6/12/08)

Obama Ally Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Has Been A “Leading Voice For [Financial] Deregulation,” Led Efforts To Block Reform Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, And Was Instrumental In The Collapse Of Bank IndyMac:

Until The Current Financial Crisis, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) “Had Been A Leading Voice For Deregulation,” Supporting Repeal Of Great-Depression Era Regulations, Re-Examining Corporate Oversight Laws, And Opposing Reducing Taxpayer Risks Associated With Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. “Until the current credit crisis, Mr. Schumer had been a leading voice for deregulation: He ha s championed the repeal of a Great Depression-era law that prohibited commercial banks from underwriting securities; he has written an opinion piece calling for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be ‘re-examined,’ and he has opposed a bill that sought to reduce taxpayer risk in the event of a housing market slowdown by requiring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to sell their entire investment portfolios of about $1.5 trillion worth of mortgage assets.” (Joseph Goldstein, “Pro-Deregulation Schumer Scores Bush For Lack of Regulation,” The New York Sun, 9/22/08)

Schumer Called On The Regulator For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac To Lift Portfolio Caps. “Both Schumer and Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, have called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator to lift the portfolio caps. They argue that allowing the two firms to buy more mortgages, at least temporarily, would inject much needed liquidity into the market and calm the financial markets.” (Michael R. Crittenden, “Schumer Will Seek To Lift Cap On Mortgage Portfolios Of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 8/16/07)

Rep. Richardson’s home declared a ‘public nuisance’.

Laura Richardson just can’t get get it together!

Today, the LA Times is reporting that Laura “Pimp my ride Richrson’s Sacramento home (you remember the one that was foreclosed on, sold, stolen back by the bank that sold it and given back to Richrson… that home) has been cited by Sacramento Code enforcement as a public nuisance.

First Rep. Laura Richardson was having problems making house payments, defaulting six times over eight years.

Then after a bank foreclosed on her Sacramento house and sold it at auction in May, the Long Beach Democrat made such a stink that Washington Mutual, in an unusual move, grabbed it back and returned it to her.This week, in the latest chapter in the housing saga, the Code Enforcement Department in Sacramento declared her home a “public
nuisance.”

The city has threatened to fine her as much as $5,000 a month if she doesn’t fix it up.Neighbors in the upper-middle-class neighborhood complain that the sprinklers are never turned on and the grass and plants are dead or dying. The gate is broken, and windows are covered with brown paper.

“I would call it an eyesore,” said Peter Thomsen, a retired bank executive who lives nearby.

The city action was prompted by police action.

Police were twice called to investigate reports of a suspicious person in or around the house, perhaps a homeless man squatting there. Officers called the Code enforcement Department, which boarded up a broken door.

Code enforcement inspectors visited the house twice in July, finding “junk and debris” in the driveway and “rotting fruit on the ground in the rear yard which creates rodent harborage,” according to department documents.

Ron O’Connor, operations manager of the Code Enforcement Department, said homes in the Curtis Park area seldom were tagged as a public nuisance.

“It’s a really nice neighborhood,” he said.

Asked about the house, Richardson’s office released a statement that said: “Neither Congresswoman Richardson nor her attorney have received any information referring to this matter. Any additional information will be provided at a later date.”

Richardson has few worries in the November election. The 37th District is so solidly Democratic that no Republican is running against her. Democrat Peter Mathews, who has sought the seat several times before, is mounting a write-in campaign.

Taxpayers pay $1300 per month for Laura “Pimp My Ride” Richardson’s government vehicle

I wish I could say I was suprised to see Laura Richardson in the news again for her fiscal irresponsibility. But once again here she is.

Yesturday, the LA DailyBreeze.com was reporting that Richardson’s $1300 lease of a 2007 Lincoln Town Car cost more than any other representative in congress:

When she arrived in Congress last fall, Rep. Laura Richardson sought out a vehicle that would match her newfound status.

She settled on a 2007 Lincoln Town Car – the choice of many representatives who
lease their vehicles at taxpayers’ expense. But hers was distinct: at $1,300 a month, it was the most expensive car in the House of Representatives.

They go on to point out that the freshman congresswoman is a veteran when it comes to having others pay the tab for her transportation.

But her history with vehicles has been similarly fraught. When she was a councilwoman in Long Beach, she crashed her BMW, abandoned it at a body shop, failed to pay a prior repair bill, and then racked up 30,000 miles on a city-owned hybrid in one year – apparently violating a policy against personal use of city cars.

In her brief stint in the Assembly, she leased a 2002 Lincoln LS for $304 a month – all but $36 of it paid for by the state. So Richardson was already well versed in the use of government vehicles when she got to Washington.

And just like with all her other financial debacles, she is hiding from reporters, leaving her staff to defend the undefensable.

About 130 representatives leased cars last year, according to a report compiled earlier this year by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Most were in the range of $400 to $800 per month.

Richardson’s 2007 lease costs show up on a more recent congressional spending report, because she did not pay the bill until February. According to the report, her first bill was for $1,299, and covered a one-month period from mid-October to mid-November. She then paid a prorated amount of $2,035 for the 45-day period from mid-November to the end of the year.

That makes her lease $300 more expensive than the costliest car in the Taxpayers for Common Sense report. As of last winter, the newest member of Congress had far and away the most expensive car in the House of Representatives.

“A $1,300 lease is a gold-plated lease,” said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator for the watchdog group. “Because it’s federal money and not their personal money, they’re not looking for the best value.”

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Los Angeles, also leases a 2007 Lincoln Town Car, but she pays only $686 per month for it.

According to a former staff member, Richardson insisted that her Lincoln be specially customized, which may explain the high cost.

Richardson’s spokesman, William Marshall, initially stated that Richardson is paying only $940 per month for her Town Car, but gave no documentation of that. After he was presented with the expense report showing the $1,300 lease amount, he declined to answer further questions.

“No comment,” he said.

Oh…. But there’s More!!!!!!

Richardson got the car from a local Enterprise Rent-a-Car office for her use when she needed to travel around her congressional district. The cost would not have been affected by her personal credit history, because it was paid for by the federal government. The price tag also did not include insurance, which Richardson agreed to pay for on her own.

At 8:30 p.m. April 3, a staff member was driving the car on the San Diego (405) Freeway, when he got into a crash. According to a California Highway Patrol report, the staffer, Henry Rogers, reported being struck in the rear by a white sport utility vehicle. The impact caused him to spin out and hit the center median and left major damage to the left rear of the Town Car.

The CHP report gives no information about the insurance on the car, other than to say that it was a “rental.” But Richardson’s subsequent actions suggest that Rogers may not have been listed as an eligible driver on her insurance policy.

According to the former staffer, after the crash Richardson required her district employees to buy additional insurance so they could legally drive the Lincoln. The former staff member did not want to be identified out of fear of jeopardizing future employment prospects.

Another former staffer said Rogers was not forced to pay for the damage to the car, but did not know how the issue was resolved.

Rogers referred questions about the crash to Richardson’s spokesman, who did not return a call about the crash on Friday.

Richardson did not report the crash to Enterprise, but it is not clear that she was required to, given that she was self-insured.

Records also indicate that Richardson owes $83 for illegally parking the Town Car in Long Beach. The ticket was issued Jan. 23, in the amount of $40, but has since doubled because it was not paid on time.

One has to wonder, at what point will this disgraced Congresswoman offer her resignation? Knowing Laura Richardson, probably never.

But an even more interesting question is when will her fellow Democrats start asking for her to step down? Knowing Democrats, probably never!

In Case You Missed It: Muslims barred from picture at Obama event

This press release just arrived in my inbox:

OBAMA GIVES THUMBS UP TO THE PELOSI PREMIUM
Meanwhile CA Gas Prices Up $1.82 Per Gallon Under Democrat-Controlled Congress

In 2006, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) made this bold election-year statement: “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.” Nearly two years later, what exactly has that “commonsense plan” gotten California families and businesses?

JANUARY 16, 2007: $2.61 (Source: AAA of Northern CA)

JUNE, 2008: $4.43 (Source: CA Energy Commission)

This week we learned that the Barack Obama is just fine with higher gas prices. In fact, congressional Democrats blocked efforts to lower them and instead proposed higher gas taxes that will further burden California’s working class.

Is this what the Democrat leadership mean by “commonsense”?

The Democratic Majority has given consumers the Pelosi/Obama Premium, which this week clocks in at $1.82 per gallon. That’s right, from the time the new Democratic Majority took control of congress, gas prices in California have skyrocketed almost two dollars from an average of $2.61 per gallon in January to $4.43 per gallon now.

As predicted before the summer driving season, the Pelosi/Obama Premium has only gotten worse, yet Barack Obama and other Democrats have done nothing to help Californians’ Pain at the Pump.