Welfare Strikes Back

Charles Hurt in the NY Post:

“Buried deep inside the massive spending orgy that Democrats jammed through the House this week lie five words that could drastically undo two decades of welfare reforms.

The very heart of the widely applauded Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is a cap on the amount of federal cash that can be sent to states each year for welfare payments.

But, thanks to the simple phrase slipped into the legislation, the new “stimulus” bill abolishes the limits on the amount of federal money for the so-called Emergency Fund, which ships welfare cash to states.

“Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund,” Democrats wrote in Section 2101 on Page 354 of the $819 billion bill. In other words, the only limit on welfare payments would be the Treasury itself.

“This re-establishes the welfare state and creates dependency all over the place,” said one startled budget analyst after reading the line.”

A blank check to the welfare state?  Apparently.  A friend told me that we’ll spend the next 40 years trying to undo what Obama and the Democrats do in four or eight.  Stopping the Stimulus has to be job one for anyone who loves liberty.  Creating a dependency class to ensure their power into perpetuity is the point of the legislation.

Getting the economy going again is anathema to the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats.  They want us poor, stupid and dependent. Economically well off is not in their interest. “Moderate” or any other kind of Republican who votes for this is simply selling the rope they will be hung with.

CBO: Stimulus Breaks $1 Trillion Mark

Mike Allen at Politico reports:

“The cost of President Obama’s stimulus package could cross the $1 trillion mark when interest costs are figured in, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday. 

The administration points out that the stimulus would produce a greater gross domestic product, meaning higher tax revenues, partially offsetting the cost.”

It’s nice to see the Administration is falling back on dynamic scoring to defend themselves.  I guess we finally one that one.

 

Tribune Claim: Obama Order on State Emission Standards Moves Us Toward a Single Standard

According to the Chicago Tribune President Obama is moving us toward a uniform standard for emission controls by giving states the right to set their own standard:

“By signaling Monday that he’ll let California and other states regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, President Barack Obama appears to be laying the groundwork for a single federal carbon standard for vehicles.

Such a standard is already in force in Europe and Japan. A national rule would please environmentalists but surprisingly could also satisfy the automobile industry, which has argued that trying to comply with a California greenhouse gas rule in addition to a federal mileage standard would be cumbersome and costly. ”

How allowing different states to set up a different standards leads to one national standard is the stuff of the Korean Central News Agency.  Arguing that opponents of the measure could support is right out of the Pravda.  According, to a report on Edmunds.com auto-makers were going to be banned by Congress from suing to prevent it as part of the bailout package.  On the January 25th the NYT reported:

“The auto companies had advocated a denial, saying a waiver would require them to produce two sets of vehicles, one to meet the strict California standard and another that could be sold in the remaining states.”

 I’d love to hear KCNA reporters Jim Tankersley and Ken Bensinger defend this one.  There is a reason why the Tribune is bankrupt and it isn’t just because of the economic environment.  It’s because they are about as honest as Rod Blagojevich.  And judging by the shape of their business… They have the same job prospects as the guy, too.

GOP Finding its Backbone

The Politico reports this morning that the GOP won’t support the stimulus Bill and it continues to point to the disconnect between the President’s rhetoric and the reality under Nancy Pelosi:

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner and his No. 2, Whip Eric Cantor, told their rank-and-file members Tuesday morning during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussion. Boehner told members that he’s voting against the stimulus, and Cantor told the assembled Republicans that there wasn’t any reason for them to support the measure, according to another person in the room. Cantor and his whip team are going to urge GOP members to oppose it. 

In a nod to the president, Boehner did point out that this is the third time that Obama has met with Republican leaders, compared with the zero meetings they’ve held with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — a now-familiar refrain from Republicans in the House. But Obama’s diplomacy clearly isn’t buying any votes yet. 

Nagging Questions Remain About the Blagojevich Impeachment

Commentary

 Nagging Questions Remain About the Blagojevich Impeachment

(Springfield, Ill.)  That Gov. Blagojevich should be removed from office is obvious, however that he should be removed from office in the manner that he is does raise serious questions and implications for future officeholders as well as taxpayers.

 In general, while Senate removal is a political act, it should not be done lightly or in a manner that reeks of political pay back.  Because one has the license to act politically instead of legally, doesn’t mean one shouldn’t act judicially.  Just as one may have the right to act in a stupid manner doesn’t necessarily mean one must act stupidly.

 So what are these questions that should be asked of Illinois lawmakers as we begin the removal trial of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich?

 Gov. Blagojevich probably has a fair point in arguing that his defense is limited under Rule 15 in the trial.  Illinois lawmakers serve the people of Illinois and it is their constitutional responsibility; yet, they’ve given the Department of Justice a veto over witnesses.  Why is the federal prosecution of the governor a problem for the Illinoisans and not a problem for the Department of Justice? Who does the Illinois General Assembly represent?  We the people, or the Justice Department? 

 Our problem is Blagojevich and the assurance that our elective representatives are running a legitimate government not a banana republic.  Denying the governor access to witnesses sacrifices the legitimacy our impeachment process in support of the Fed’s effort at a criminal trial.  It’s pretty clear whom the GA is serving and it isn’t Illinoisans.

 Are the rules that led to the Clinton acquittal really being applied, here? 

 The governor’s defense can only call witnesses that are approved by a majority of senators and that is unlike the Clinton impeachment rules that required an objection to a proposed witness before a witness was to be rejected. It seems that the Democrats – who control this process – have finally found a criminal they can get tough on – a democrat governor threatening their chances at the ballot box.

 Next, the governor has portrayed himself as a victim who was only trying to help his constituents who needed “government services.”  When he ignored the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules, imported prescription drugs and expanded welfare programs (Medicaid) he was implementing policies that are part of his party’s platform.  He’s now being impeached for them.  A number of other governors joined the reimportation conspiracy.  Is supporting the Democrat Party Platform now an impeachable offense? 

 Again, at his Friday press conference the governor stated, “This [impeachment] will have a chilling effect on every governor in the future. No governor will be able to take on the General Assembly the way I have.” No doubt any free spending legislature loved hearing those words.  Yet, are future governors going to face impeachment for policy disagreements?   If a governor vetoed a popular but very imprudent program would he or she face removal from office? 

 This is particularly an important question for a potential Republican governor who in a blue state with a liberal media would be most likely to be up next on the guillotine.

 Unrelated to the impeachment, directly, are the governor’s allegations regarding tax hikes.  All of the Democratic leadership supports some kind of general tax hike — to pay for the fiscal mismanagement of the democrats.   When confronted they are demurring.  Lt. Gov. Quinn claimed on Friday not to know the state of the state regarding fiscal matters because the governor wouldn’t share information with him.  Quinn is apparently the only one in the state not aware of the state’s dire fiscal state. Either that or he is hiding something.

 Which is it?  Is he ignorant of the crisis or is this the kind openness and transparency the people in Illinois can expect from a Quinn Administration?

 Gov. Blagojevich, as a result of his actions in the criminal complaint, clearly merits removal from office.   However the manner in which he is removed should be a judicious one.   This should mean that the people of Illinois get first whack at the governor.  Outsiders shouldn’t determine who who can be called as a witness. 

 Defenders of the proceedings on the one hand claim it is fair and when it suits them they say it’s a political process and they can do what they want.  Well, which is it?  Is it a fair process where each side is allowed to put its best foot forward and decisions are based on merit?  Or, is it political where might makes right?   It really can’t be both.

-30-

Greg Blankenship is President for the Illinois Alliance for Growth (www.all4growth.org).  He can be reached at gkblankenship@all4growth.org.

Laying the Groundwork for a Tax Hike

From Crain’s:

Illinois tax receipts plunged late last year as the economy soured, putting the state’s already swollen budget deficit on track to hit a record $4 billion and increasing the odds of a tax increase.Total tax collections dropped 6.6% to $6.2 billion for the three months ended Dec. 31, according to Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes. Key funding sources including sales taxes, corporate income taxes and investment income shriveled as financial markets collapsed, consumers stopped spending and businesses retrenched.

State revenues projected to rise nearly $800 million during the fiscal year ending in June now are forecast by the General Assembly’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability to fall $1.3 billion — the first downturn in six years.Combined with rising Medicaid and other state payments, the shortfall will force Illinois legislators to confront painful decisions on spending reductions and tax increases. Frozen credit markets have choked off opportunities for deficit financing used to close budget gaps in the past.

“Without any changes, the hole is going to be $4 billion to $5 billion,” says state Sen. David Syverson, R-Rockford, a member of the forecasting commission. “Illinois was in extreme financial straits before the downturn even started; this just puts us in an even worse scenario.”

Asked about the likelihood of an income tax hike, state Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, says: “Possibly. Motor fuel tax? Possibly. I don’t think cutting is going to be the way we solve it.” A spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, declines to discuss possible tax increases.”

Of course, after the governor attacked them on it they have to deny the will but they are chomping at the bit.

The problem is, of course, no one has the money to pay the taxes.  The reason why tax receipts are down is because people and businesses are earning less.  So, the state will want more of the less that tax payers have.

No Federal Stimulus Until Blago is Gone

A big hat tip, as well, to Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com:

“Big H/T to David Weigel fo the Washington Independent for picking up on this line from the draft stimulus package:

None of the funds provided by this Act may be made available to the State of Illinois, or any agency of the State, unless (1) the use of such funds by the State is approved in legislation enacted by the State after the date of the enactment of this Act, or (2) Rod R. Blagojevich no longer holds the office of Governor of the State of Illinois.

Got that? Congress is saying no money for Illinois until Blagojevich is GONE!”

I wonder if that second clause is constitutional?  Would it amount to a Bill of Attainder?

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils.  They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” 

 James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

In the Illinois General Assembly you can leave no Federal Dollar behind — or anyone else’s for that matter.  You can bet if the unimaginable were to happen and we get stuck with Blagojevich (I’m a critic of the process not removing the crook) that the entire state of Illinois would suddenly become champions of state’s rights!

Unemployment Numbers Out for Illinois

Not good.

The Illinois unemployment rate rose to 7.6 percent in December, the highest rate since June 1993 and up from 7.3 percent in November and 5.3 percent a year earlier, the Illinois Employment Security Department said Friday.

The state lost 36,000 jobs in December from a month earlier, marking the seventh consecutive month of job loss. Year-over-year, non-farm payroll dropped by 100,700 jobs. In November and December, the state lost a combined 73,600 jobs, the largest two-month decline since that recordkeeping began in 1990, the agency said.

The Blagojevich Impeachment-income tax conspiracy? And other impeachment meanderings

There is some truth to this:

“In both the radio interview and the news conference, he presented a conspiracy theory, of sorts, for why the state legislature is diligently working toward removing him from office: “They want to get me out fast so they can put a huge income tax increase on the people of Illinois, an income tax increase that I fought for six years,” he said. Referring to a proposal to increase the sales tax on motor fuel, he said, “If I’m out of the way, they can quietly push this through, and the people of Illinois are going to see their taxes go up during an economic depression.”

Because Blagojevich is saying it the press and the politicians are ignoring it.  Republican Sen. Matt Murphy called it a “red herring.”  Yet, State Sen. President Cullerton (D-Chicago) is widely believed to support a tax hike and has been a proponent of income tax-property tax swap that would hike taxes by billions.  House Speaker Mike Madigan has long been supportive of an income tax hike but couldn’t get around a Blagojevich veto.  When challenged last week, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn claimed ignorance of the state’s fiscal situation because the governor hadn’t shared the state’s books with him… Never mind that the state’s comptroller and everyone even loosely affiliated with politics knows the state is a mess.  

Did these pols cut a back room deal to get rid of Blagojevich?  Of course not.  Are circumstances working in favor of a tax hike once Blagojevich is justifiably gone.  Yes.  Should a Republican like Murphy be calling this a red herring and dismiss it?  No.  

Republicans should and must get in front of a tax hike less their impeachment vote become a de facto tax hike vote.  REPUBLICANS SHOULD TAKE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT THAT DEMOCRATS INTEND TO RAISE TAXES AND THAT ONCE BLAGOJEVICH IS GONE THEY WILL NEED TO FIGHT AGAINST A TAX HIKE.  TO DISMISS  THE GOVERNOR’S CLAIM IS POLITICAL MALPRACTICE AND EVIDENCE OF A FECKLESS, INEFFECTIVE REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION PARTY. Once again Democrats will make Republicans complicit in a tax hike — gain political cover to maintain and extend their majorities — while the Republican base sits on its hands come election time.

Murphy also is agreeing with the claim that this is a fair process.  (And btw, Sen. Murphy, defending yourself is always self serving. No need to point that one out… it’s…uh… kind of obvious.) According to The Swamp, Murphy is parroting the line that this is a fair process because neither side can call certain witnesses because the Senate has given Federal Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s office a veto over witnesses that could be called in a Senate trial.  

But conservatives aren’t necessarily seeing it that way.  Ralf Seife of Truth in Accounting, Fran Eaton of Illinois Review have voiced reservations about the entire process and precedents it could be setting. Last night former Republican State Sen. Roger Keats called State Senate President John Cullerton’s explanation of the process as disingenuous on the Beyond the Beltway radio broadcast. Objective observers are starting to notice. On the Tom Roeser show last night, fill in Deborah Rowe, observed a sense that the fix was in. All, including me, have problem with the process.

I can’t do A and you can’t do A in one sense is fair.  But not all witnesses are equal.  If Blagojevich can’t call witnesses to defend himself because that witness could be part of the criminal trial while the Senate doesn’t necessarily need to call a potential criminal trial witness is a potential issue. How can that be fair?

Here are the federal impeachment rules that Illinois’ are modeled upon.  Note there is a form that the defendant can use to subpeona witnesses.  As I understand them, please correct me if I’m wrong.  They can subpoena whom the wish and a Senator can motion to object, arguments are made and a vote is cast.  Here are the Illinois rules. Under these rules a subpoena is presented by the Chief Justice to the body who then votes on whether the witness can be heard.  At least that’s how I read it.  One gives the defendant a presumption that the witness is relevant and provides opportunities to object, arguments to be made and a vote.  The Illinois version takes away that presumption.  (Note: If anyone wants to explain why I’m reading this wrong please do, I’d welcome the clarification.)  And the DoJ veto is a stark departure.  (I’m trying picture the US Senate giving Ken Starr that kind of power — a laughable prospect.)

It does present a fairness problem for the governor.  It does give him the opportunity to build political support agaisnt impeachment for going on national television.  Prior to the trial Senate and House membes were almost crowing that this is a “political process,” so they don’t have to be fair. Now that the governor is taking them up on their offer and appealing to the political popularity of America’s sense of fairness…No…Wait…He’s being self serving.  Well… self serving and politics kind of go hand-in-hand.  

On the pro-process side, I think it important to point out the process is not unlike a courts martial. However, this only takes you so far.  The Senate is voting to remove the Rod Blagojevich’s commission to be the state’s chief officer.  Unlike a military trial, however, we are overturning the will of the voter.  Not a public opinion poll but a vote that offers the closest we have to metaphysical certainty regarding legitimacy of the state.  Public opinion is fickle, the vote isn’t. If you are going to turn someone out of office then you need to be more than fair.  

Impeaching and removing Rod Blagojevich should be a one car funeral but the potential mishandling of it is becoming apparent to those not caught up in the feeding frenzy.  I guess we now who can screw up a one car funeral…the Illinois General Assembly.

Everything You Wanted to Know About the Stimulus but were Afraid to Ask

Timothy Carney explains at Heckonomics.

We are going to spend a trillion dollars over a multi-year period in which the economy will be stimulated now when the vast majority of the money will be spent later.  And what will we get? According to Carney:

“Obama has said his stimulus plan (and we still don’t know what it is) will create 3.675 million jobs and boost GDP 3.7% higher than it would be without. His campaign makes these findings without even an actual stimulus blueprint, but based on an analysis of “some of the prototypical recovery packages being discussed.”

His job-creation estimates are interesting because it suggests that in any event, certain industries will be very stimulated, including energy and construction. So, if you invest in the construction companies with close ties to the Obama administration, your portfolio might get some stimulus, too.”

In sum, no one really knows.  

This monstrosity needs to be killed.

Next Page »