Isn't it counterproductive to pass one-size-fits-all punitive taxes that target the recreational ginger ale drinker, along with the depraved Coca-Cola abuser?
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
5.14.2009
"Rise of the Soda Jerks"
ReasonOnline
1.29.2009
Via WSJ
A 40-Year Wish List
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.
Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before.
So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
8.03.2008
On Second Thought...
In a move Wired called, "[an] outbreak of common sense in the Navy's former fantasyland," the Navy wants out of the DDG-1000 destroyer program. Two have been funded and construction has begun on the first one, so--if the Navy gets its way--we'll only procure two of them.
[Very accurate concept art: two DDG-1000s. Only two.]
I've never been a fan of this program for various reasons, so I'm happy. I think it's great that the Navy, after having defended the multi-billion dollar warships to Congress only four months ago, did an abrupt about-face and told Congress last week that it no longer feels that it really needs them. This move was a huge "FUCK YOU!" to the administration (who has been pitching a tent over this thing since Rumsfeld came in and scrapped previous plans for this class), Congress (who have been covering for the gross failures and cost overruns by shipbuilders), and the shipbuilders (who have been drooling over this potential cash cow for a decade).
The Navy says that, when asked, admirals stated they would prefer 8 DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers to 2 DDG-1000 destroyers. Of the many reasons cited, the DDG-51's advanced theater ballistic missile defense capabilities, extreme reliability, and versatility ranked the highest. So the Navy is asking Congress to fund 8 more DDG-51s, and has stated that any more DDG-1000s should be built only if Congress increases the Navy's shipbuilding budget (which has been frozen for years now) appropriately. In other words, the Navy doesn't want to pay for them out of its current budget. At ~$4 billion a copy, who can blame them.
[The ship you'll see the most if you go to any Navy base: the DDG-51s. We have 56, with 6 more coming and, now, 8 more proposed.]
Also bad for Our Fair State, Israel picked GD's competitor's ship.
[Two Lockheed Martin LCSs, which is what we should have gotten for the cost of the first one. Israel wants four.]
The good news is that both LCS prototypes should be in sea trials later this year, and their much-touted interchangeable "mission modules" are finally starting to near completion.
[Very accurate concept art: two DDG-1000s. Only two.]I've never been a fan of this program for various reasons, so I'm happy. I think it's great that the Navy, after having defended the multi-billion dollar warships to Congress only four months ago, did an abrupt about-face and told Congress last week that it no longer feels that it really needs them. This move was a huge "FUCK YOU!" to the administration (who has been pitching a tent over this thing since Rumsfeld came in and scrapped previous plans for this class), Congress (who have been covering for the gross failures and cost overruns by shipbuilders), and the shipbuilders (who have been drooling over this potential cash cow for a decade).
The Navy says that, when asked, admirals stated they would prefer 8 DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers to 2 DDG-1000 destroyers. Of the many reasons cited, the DDG-51's advanced theater ballistic missile defense capabilities, extreme reliability, and versatility ranked the highest. So the Navy is asking Congress to fund 8 more DDG-51s, and has stated that any more DDG-1000s should be built only if Congress increases the Navy's shipbuilding budget (which has been frozen for years now) appropriately. In other words, the Navy doesn't want to pay for them out of its current budget. At ~$4 billion a copy, who can blame them.
[The ship you'll see the most if you go to any Navy base: the DDG-51s. We have 56, with 6 more coming and, now, 8 more proposed.]Meanwhile, it's bad news-ok news for the Navy's other new warship program, the LCS. Mobile, AL shipbuilder Austal is in deep shit with the Navy for it's lack of auditing during construction of General Dynamics' prototype.
[The cooler-looking General Dynamics LCS. Made in Alabama. Once. Eventually.]
[The cooler-looking General Dynamics LCS. Made in Alabama. Once. Eventually.]Also bad for Our Fair State, Israel picked GD's competitor's ship.
[Two Lockheed Martin LCSs, which is what we should have gotten for the cost of the first one. Israel wants four.] The good news is that both LCS prototypes should be in sea trials later this year, and their much-touted interchangeable "mission modules" are finally starting to near completion.
7.02.2008
Finally, Congressional Oversight
Congress finally starts doing what it's supposed to: check the executive branch. No surprise it involves oil and Iraq, and it's not going to be pretty.
I don't think this story of oil deals should surprise anyone, nor should anything else that comes out of other congressional investigations into how this administrations was [not] run.
Congress, hold him to those words.
I don't think this story of oil deals should surprise anyone, nor should anything else that comes out of other congressional investigations into how this administrations was [not] run.
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.-Patrick Henry
I'm the decider.-George W. Bush
Congress, hold him to those words.
7.16.2007
Same tired old "Hitler card" ... & Robert Spenser's reply
Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress
'America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.
Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."'
Read it all at Telegraph.co.uk.
Spencer: Keith Ellison and the "Reichstag"
"....as someone who has sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Ellison has more to answer for than just hysterical anti-Bush rhetoric. Ellison has taken money from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group that has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving funding of the terrorist group Hamas. The mainstream media has been silent on this; would treat the specter of a congressman taking money from the Ku Klux Klan with similar indifference? CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad has declared his support for Hamas in the past, although he now disavows the group. And as for the Constitution, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has said: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.” And Omar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR with Awad, has declared that “Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” with the Qur’an “the highest authority in America.” Ahmad now denies having said this, but the original reporter of his remarks stands by her story.
Such statements don’t require forced and hysterical comparisons with Hitler to be recognized as explicit threats to the U.S. Constitution. Will Ellison, now that he has sworn to defend that document and appears so solicitous to fend off threats to it, now disavow CAIR, return the money he has received from that organization, and repudiate any attempt by Muslims in the United States to impose Islamic Sharia law here?
When Ellison was elected, some of his supporters shouted “Allahu akbar!” at his victory party, while the victor himself looked on with obvious embarrassment. But he had no need to be concerned. In a gushing piece on his victory, the New York Times never mentioned CAIR once – and dismissed concerns about his record as coming from “Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere.”
Read it all at Jihad Watch.
'America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.
Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."'
Read it all at Telegraph.co.uk.
Spencer: Keith Ellison and the "Reichstag"
"....as someone who has sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Ellison has more to answer for than just hysterical anti-Bush rhetoric. Ellison has taken money from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group that has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving funding of the terrorist group Hamas. The mainstream media has been silent on this; would treat the specter of a congressman taking money from the Ku Klux Klan with similar indifference? CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad has declared his support for Hamas in the past, although he now disavows the group. And as for the Constitution, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has said: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.” And Omar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR with Awad, has declared that “Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” with the Qur’an “the highest authority in America.” Ahmad now denies having said this, but the original reporter of his remarks stands by her story.
Such statements don’t require forced and hysterical comparisons with Hitler to be recognized as explicit threats to the U.S. Constitution. Will Ellison, now that he has sworn to defend that document and appears so solicitous to fend off threats to it, now disavow CAIR, return the money he has received from that organization, and repudiate any attempt by Muslims in the United States to impose Islamic Sharia law here?
When Ellison was elected, some of his supporters shouted “Allahu akbar!” at his victory party, while the victor himself looked on with obvious embarrassment. But he had no need to be concerned. In a gushing piece on his victory, the New York Times never mentioned CAIR once – and dismissed concerns about his record as coming from “Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere.”
Read it all at Jihad Watch.
3.29.2007
The trouble with trying to "punish" free-spending Republicans....
From Captain's Quarters
Democrats To Propose Largest Tax Hike In History
House Democrats today will propose the largest tax hike in American history, one which will add more poor people to the tax rolls and which will further burden millions of small businesses. They will position this as fiscal discipline while refusing to trim federal spending, according to Robert Novak:
The new Democratic majority begins dancing the next phase of the tax-and-spend minuet in the House of Representatives today. Following the example set by their Senate brethren last Friday, House Democrats will adopt a budget resolution containing the largest tax increase in U.S. history amid massive national inattention.
Nobody's tax payment will increase immediately, but the budget resolutions set a pattern for years ahead. The House version would increase non-defense, non-emergency spending by $22.5 billion for next fiscal year, with such spending to rise 2.4 percent in each of the next three years. To pay for these increases, the resolution would raise taxes by close to $400 billion over five years -- about $100 billion more than what was passed in the Senate.
....
Read it all.
Democrats To Propose Largest Tax Hike In History
House Democrats today will propose the largest tax hike in American history, one which will add more poor people to the tax rolls and which will further burden millions of small businesses. They will position this as fiscal discipline while refusing to trim federal spending, according to Robert Novak:
The new Democratic majority begins dancing the next phase of the tax-and-spend minuet in the House of Representatives today. Following the example set by their Senate brethren last Friday, House Democrats will adopt a budget resolution containing the largest tax increase in U.S. history amid massive national inattention.
Nobody's tax payment will increase immediately, but the budget resolutions set a pattern for years ahead. The House version would increase non-defense, non-emergency spending by $22.5 billion for next fiscal year, with such spending to rise 2.4 percent in each of the next three years. To pay for these increases, the resolution would raise taxes by close to $400 billion over five years -- about $100 billion more than what was passed in the Senate.
....
Read it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
