Great News: Recovery.org Says There Are 30K Saved Jobs & $6.4B Sent to 440 Districts That Don't Exist

Do they have no shame or are they really that bad at math? Recovery.org greatly over exaggerated the "success" of the stimulus bill:

The government Web site that promised to show exactly where the $787 billion in stimulus spending was going to "create or save" jobs is allocating billions of tax dollars to hundreds of congressional districts that don’t exist.

Researchers at the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity found 440 “phantom districts” listed on Recovery.gov, consuming $6.4 billion and creating or saving nearly 30,000 jobs. Their findings are listed HERE.

For example, Recovery.gov shows 12 districts, using up more than $2.7 billion, in Washington, D.C, which only has one congressional district.

Recovery.gov also shows 2,893.9 jobs created with $194,537,372 in stimulus funding in New Hampshire’s 00 congressional district. But, there is no such thing.

The site also shows $1,471,518 going to New Hampshire’s 6th congressional district, $1,033,809 to the 4th congressional district and $124,774 to the 27th congressional district. In fact, New Hampshire only has two congressional districts; inviting confusion about where the money listed for the 00, 4th, 6th and 27th districts is going.

We don't really have enough money for the districts that we do have. Do we need to be sending it to districts that we don't have? Seriously, where is all the money going to? I guess it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, when Biden said that there would be some mistakes made. With them misspending our money on such at such an obscene level, why do them want them to take control of 1/6th of the economy through the healthcare bill.

Obama's Response to TEA Parties: I'll Cut $100 M Out of $3.5 Trillion Budget, AKA: DC Pocket Change

In response to the TEA parties last week, Obama must have realized that he was in a little trouble. His extravagant policies are beginning to get under the skin of the American people that he represents. He tries to answer them with this pathetic excuse for being more "fiscally responsible":

President Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time today and instructed department heads to trim their budgets by a combined $100 million over the next 90 days, cuts he said would help overcome a "confidence gap" among the American people about the use of their tax dollars.

While in any town, USA, $100 million is a lot of money. However, in DC, it's pocket change especially when you consider that they will spend $3.5 trillion in this year alone. That is largest federal budget ever by far.

To put it in perspective to the everyday Joe and Jane, let's say one has a $30,000 per year salary and budget. It would be the equivalent of that person cutting almost $900 yearly, or $75 monthly, out of the budget. It is not really that much.

"In the next few weeks, we expect to cut at least 100 current programs in the federal budget so that we can free up those dollars in order to put them to use for critical areas like health care, education, energy, our foreign policy apparatus," Obama said.

So, what this says to me is that he isn't "freeing up those dollars" so we can pay back our debt. No, he is going to respend the money. Contrary to CNN's belief, that doesn't make him fiscally responsible. He still the big spender. He's just going to spend his money elsewhere. This isn't going to get us out of debt any faster.

"I'm very pleased about the work that we've done, but we've got more to do," he said. "And one of the things that everybody here is mindful of is that as we move forward, dealing with this extraordinary economic crisis, we also have a deficit, a confidence gap, when it comes to the American people. And we've got to earn their trust. They've got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely."

This will not satisfy those who were protesting the spending orgy in Washington. They will see it for what it is. It's just a ploy to soften his opposition's stance to him. He doesn't want the TEA party movement to gain any more momentum. He wants to get any protests that are against his policies out of the news. If he doesn't, the truth about his policies will be brought into the light, and his approval ratings will continue to fall.

This token gesture is just that a token gesture. In the big scheme of things, $100 million means nothing especially since the money he "saves" will be respent on other equally inadequate in decreasing the deficit.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air explained that the $100 million is equal to "a whopping 0.0029% of the budget". Ed broke it down for us:

• $100 million from a $3.5 trillion budget for FY2010: 0.0029%

• $100 million from the $1.2 trillion White House deficit projection for their FY2010 budget: 0.008%

• $100 million from the $700 billion Porkulus stimulus bill Obama demanded: 0.013%

• $100 million from the $634 billion “down payment” on nationalized health care: 0.016%
• $100 million from the $555 billion omnibus spending plan completing the 2009 budget: 0.018%

• $100 million from the $13 billion in pork from the omnibus spending plan: 0.77%

The cuts that Obama proposes don’t even amount to 1% of the pork Obama signed into law last month in the omnibus spending bill.

CNN Reporter Misses Spendapalooza Forest For Tax Trees

Objective CNN Reporter to Chicago Tea Party Attendee: ‘Why Are You Complaining? Don’t You Know Obama Gave Your State Billions in the Stimulus!?”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/04/15/objective-cnn-reporter-to-chicago-tea-party-attendee-why-are-you-complaining-dont-you-know-obama-gave-your-state-billions-in-the-stimulus/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

It's not like Obama took it out of his own pocket. He took $ from my kids and grandkids to waste on meaningless pork projects.

As Emanuel pointed out, it's not just about taxes. It's about the misuse of our tax dollars by both Democrats and Republicans.

The bailouts that were started by Bush and expanded by Obama was just the start. The porkulus bill that will only stimulate the growth of the Democratic party with no real help for the economy was beyond atrocious.

It's about the national debt doubling in the Bush years and on pace to triple during the Obama years assuming he's re-elected.

After Setting March Record: Obama On Pace to Quadruple Previous Deficit Record

Federal budget deficit sets March record $192.3B

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics
Fri Apr 10, 7:02 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department said Friday that the budget deficit increased by $192.3 billion in March, and is near $1 trillion just halfway through the budget year, as costs of the financial bailout and recession mount.

Last month's deficit, a record for March, was significantly higher than the $150 billion that economists expected.

The deficit already totals $956.8 billion for the first six months of the budget year, also a record for that period. The Obama administration projects the deficit for the entire year will hit $1.75 trillion.

A deficit at that level would nearly quadruple the previous annual record of $454.8 billion set last year. The March deficit was nearly four times the size of the imbalance in the same month last year.

Nearly $300 billion provided to the nation's banks and other companies to cope with the most severe financial crisis in seven decades has pushed government spending higher.

The Treasury report said that through the end of March, $293.4 billion had been provided to support companies through the $700 billion bailout fund Congress passed last October. That support has been provided primarily to banks, although insurance giant American International Group Inc. and auto companies General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC also have received assistance.

Besides the bailout fund, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received $46 billion last month, bringing the total assistance provided to the mortgage finance companies to $59.8 billion since October. The government took control of both last September after they had suffered billions of dollars in losses on mortgage loans.

Through the first six months of the budget year that began Oct. 1, tax revenues have totaled $989.8 billion, down 13.6 percent from the year-ago period. The government's receipts have been reduced sharply by the recession, which is shaping up to be the longest of the post World War II period. The downturn began in December 2007.

Government outlays totaled $1.95 trillion through March, 33.4 percent higher than the year-ago period. Besides higher payments for the financial rescue, the government is paying more in such areas as unemployment benefits and food stamps.

The Treasury report showed benefit payments from the unemployment trust fund totaled $44.6 billion so far this budget year, up from $19.4 billion last year.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last month that President Barack Obama's budget proposals would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, a figure $2.3 trillion higher than estimates made in February in the administration's first budget proposal.

The CBO review projected Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion annually over the decade ending in 2019.

The administration said it remained confident its forecasts for declining deficits over that same period could be achieved. But private economists have faulted those estimates for relying on economic assumptions they believe are too optimistic.

The administration projects that after hitting $1.75 trillion this year, the gap between spending and tax revenues will dip to $1.17 trillion in 2010, and plunge to $533 billion in 2013. If accurate, that would fulfill Obama's pledge to cut the deficit he inherited in half by the end of his current term in office.

Some economists have expressed concerns that the massive deficits being forecast could push interest rates up sharply, especially if foreign investors worry about the size of the U.S. deficit projections.

Lawrence Summers, director of Obama's National Economic Council, said Thursday there have been no indications that investors are growing worried about the size of the deficits. On the contrary, he said yields on Treasury securities have been pushed lower by increased demand from investors seeking to hold Treasury bonds as a safe haven in uncertain economic times.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/federal_budget
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Well, this is change. It doesn't really instill hope for the future in me, though.

Obama is truly Bush squared. His initial projections were already higher than Bush's, and he can't seem to stay at that high mark. In fact, he isn't even close.

The Californifation of America is on its way, if we don't stop the government and especially Democrats out of control spending.

The first step in cutting down the spending is to stop bailing everyone out. We have seen with Detroit, AIG, and Fannie & Freddie that if you do it once they will come back many more times. It's not a one-time expenditure.

If the spending doesn't stop, taxes will continue to rise. That will at best stall the economy, and at worst, collapse it.

Bill O'Reilly:Obama Must Stop Spending, View Audience Applauded

My Thoughts

When the mostly liberal audience of The View and Bill O'Reilly agree, there must be something to it. I also loved what he said about California. They are definately headed for bankruptcy. It is clear to everyone, but they continue to spend money like they have an unlimited amount of funds.

PS. I love the look of utter disgust on Joy Behar's face because she actually had to be in the presence of O'Reilly. She has the same look with any other conservative that comes on the show.

GOP Split: Rep. Ryan Courts Blue Dogs' Support, Rep. Boehner Says Who Needs Them

GOP Split on Whether to Reach Out to Moderate Democrats in Budget Battle

While Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., held out an olive branch to moderate Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" Wednesday, calling on his "friends" to join the GOP in opposing the budget, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, slammed the group as "lap dogs."

By Mosheh Oinounou FOXNews.com Thursday, March 26, 2009

House Republican leaders appear to be split on whether to reach out to their moderate colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fight the Democratic agenda.

While Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., held out an olive branch to moderate Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" Wednesday, calling on his "friends" to join the GOP in opposing the budget, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, slammed the group as "lap dogs."

The split underscores the difficulty the Republican Party is having finding a way to fight President Obama's budget blueprint, endorsed Wednesday by the House Budget Committee.

Ryan made a blunt appeal for Democratic allies this week.

"I want to make a plea to a special select audience. I want to ask my friends, the Blue Dog Democrats, do you really want all this government? Do you want your fingerprints on this massive and unprecedented growth in our national debt? You hold the cards. You hold the votes that can make a difference in this," said Ryan, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, during a hearing on the 2010 budget Wednesday.

Ryan's office went so far as to post his remarks to YouTube. And the Wisconsin congressman promoted the comments on his Twitter page.

Meanwhile, Boehner, who has said multiple times at recent press conferences that he had no plans to reach out to moderate Democrats, has teased the coalition.

"We'd love to have conservative Democrats join us. But every time they get a chance to do that, they always end up voting with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the left," he told FOX News Thursday, ahead of a planned unveiling of the GOP alternative budget plan.

He called the group "lap dogs" who refuse "to get off people's laps and actually do something," during a speech Wednesday, according to Politico.com.

"They're not the force they used to be in terms of moving the Democrats to do something," Boehner reportedly told the Yale Club and Federal Policy group.

The Blue Dogs, a coalition of 51 moderate House Democrats, include legislators from conservative districts who often cross the aisle to vote with Republicans on spending, gun control and social issues. A number of caucus members have been quoted in recent weeks expressing concerns about the size of Obama's budget.

The mixed GOP message comes weeks after House Republicans declared that they had found their "voice" as the 187 members voted unanimously to oppose Obama's stimulus plan.

However, the split message is the second example in a week of strife within the conference. Nearly half of House Republicans voted for a bill last week taxing the bonuses of AIG executives, with Ryan joining GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., in supporting the legislation. Boehner and the rest of the Republicans voted no.

Ryan made his plea Wednesday directly to Blue Dogs Co-Chairman Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., during the budget markup hearing calling on the group of centrists to "join us to stop this fiscal train wreck." 

"We're asking our friends on the other side of the aisle ... to help us defeat this unprecedented taxing, borrowing and spending spree, and let's get back together and fix these fiscal problems in this country, which this budget exacerbates and makes much, much worse," Ryan added. 

GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., also told reporters recently that he was hearing some "very interesting rumblings" coming from Blue Dogs on spending and envisioned a coalition with like-minded Democrats.

For their part, Blue Dog leaders said Boehner should look in the mirror before accusing another caucus of being "lap dogs."

"These statements come from the same individuals who wrote the president a blank check for eight years, driving spending to the highest levels in our country's history," Melancon said.

"Rather than just saying 'no,' the Blue Dogs will continue working in a productive manner to moderate legislation and offer commonsense policy alternatives. We do not subscribe to the extreme philosophies of the far right or the far left, and we certainly do not take serious issues and use them for political gain," he added.

A Blue Dog aide said that members of the caucus are still willing to work with GOP legislators but that Republicans have so far failed to make any effort to reach out to the group.

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/26/gop-split-reach-moderate-democrats-budget-battle/
---------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

I am going to agree with Paul Ryan on this one. We need to get moderate Democrats to join us to stop Obama, Pelosi, and Reid from bankrupting this country. The GOP is at a distinct disadvantage by being outnumbered. In the Senate is extremely important for us to pull a couple of "blue dogs" to our side.

Republicans barely hold filibuster capability in the Senate, and that is by a thin thread because of the Turncoat RINO Caucus' tendency to vote with the Democrats.

Boehner's approach of flipping the blue dogs the bird isn't going to help. It is too partisan, and the people are tired of hearing of partisan bickering just for the sake of partisan bickering.

Why wouldn't we want their support? We shouldn't compromise our principles for it, but we should try to convince them that our proposals are better than Pelosi's.

Perhaps Boehner's right in his criticism of the blue dogs not standing up to Pelosi, Reid, and Obama so far, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop from working to join us in the opposition to the Democrats' spending orgy.

Orlando: Tea Party Draws Over 4,000, MSM & AP Ignores

Orlando 'Tea Party' rally draws more than 4,000

Sun 22 Mar 2009 04:45
By Helen Eckinger
Sentinel Staff Writer

Valerie Rike, 52, (left) with sister Christy Bishop, 59, attend the 'Orlando Tea Party,' a conservative rally Saturday at Lake Eola, downtown Orlando.

Singer Lloyd Marcus told the crowd assembled in Lake Eola Park on Saturday that he was going to give them his take on the first days of the Obama administration.

Then he shrieked.

That pretty much summed up the mood in the park Saturday afternoon, when more than 4,000 people attended the Orlando Tea Party, a conservative rally aimed at expressing discontent with Washington.

"This is maybe the greatest single gathering of God-fearing patriots in the history of Orlando, Florida," local conservative radio host Bud Hedinger, who emceed the event, told the crowd.

The attendees, many of whom said they'd heard about the rally on Hedinger's radio show, brandished flags and homemade signs bearing slogans such as "Repeal the pork or our bacon is cooked" and "Obama lied, liberty died."

"We're really scared about what's happening in our country," said Debby Whisenand, 71, of Largo in Pinellas County. She waved a sign that read "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" on one side, and "You can't blame Bush anymore" on the other.

Her feelings were shared by Lisa Feroli, one of the event's organizers, who said that a similar fear motivated her to e-mail Hedinger with the idea for the Orlando Tea Party.

"The goal was to get people united, to let people know that they aren't alone in their feelings on despair," Feroli said. "We want to speak out against the push toward socialization that we feel is taking place in our country."

Several speakers addressed the crowd, estimated by Orlando police and event organizers at 4,200, on a variety of topics, including gun rights, freedom of speech, the dangers of communism and, most prevalently, the economy, especially the Obama administration's bailout plan.

"We have had enough of massive government-driven bailout using our money," Hedinger said, prompting the crowd to start chanting "U.S.A." over and over.

The country's economic woes weighed heavily on attendees, such as Ed Squire, 52, of Winter Springs. Holding a sign that read "Obama — he's robbin U.S. not Robin Hood," he said that he was worried about the current rate of government spending.

"There's absolutely no way as a nation that we can sustain that kind of spending," Squire said.

Several members of the crowd said they'd recently been laid off, including Ross Iannarelli, 66, of Port Orange, who said he'd just lost his job at an electrical-equipment company.

"They need to shove that bum out," he said, referring to President Obama. "I hate seeing them spend my grandchildren's money."

Glenn Austin, 52, and his wife, Frankie, 43, of Oviedo, also said they were anxious about the economy. They chose to express their worries, however, in a rather novel way: They wrapped banners calling for the end of the Federal Reserve around the tiny waists of their Chihuahua, Pepper, and miniature pinscher-Chihuahua mix, Peanut.

"Everything's gone to the dogs," Frankie Austin said.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://mobile.orlandosentinel.com/inf/infomo;JSESSIONID=19BDFD88C0C2E3943898.1451?view=top_stories_item&feed:a=sentinel_1min&feed:c=topstories&feed:i=45717776&nopaging=1
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

The MSM covered anti-war protests on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and the anti-AIG protest in front of the homes of AIG employees that had more reporters in attendance than actual protesters, but there hasn't been one peep out of the AP and very little out of any one else in the MSM about the anti-porkulus "tea parties" that have drawn thousands of protesters. With all of this bias by the press being obvious to everyone, why are they so clueless as to why papers are going out of business at an increasingly rapid pace.

Another "Imperfect", Pork-Filled Bill Will Get by Obama

Mar 11, 12:11 PM EDT
Obama says he accepts 'imperfect' spending bill
By PHILIP ELLIOTT Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Acknowledging it's an "imperfect" bill, President Barack Obama said he will accept a $410 billion spending package but insisted it must signal an "end to the old way of doing business." The massive measure funding federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, known as "earmarks" and denounced by critics as pork.

Obama defended earmarks when they're "done right," allowing lawmakers to direct money to worthy projects in their districts - but added they've been abused, and he'll work with Congress to curb them.

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."

Running for president, Obama denounced the pet projects as wasteful and open to abuse - and vowed to rein them in.

Explaining his decision, Obama said that future earmarks must have a "legitimate and worthy public purpose", and the any earmark for a private company should be subject to competitive bidding rules. Plus he said he'll "work with Congress" to eliminate any the administration objects to.

But he acknowledged that earmarks have bred "cynicism", and he declared, "This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business."

White House officials in recent weeks have dismissed criticism of the earmarks in the bill, saying the legislation was a remnant of last year and that the president planned to turn his attention to future spending instead of looking backward.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama wouldn't be the first president to sign legislation that he viewed as less than ideal. Asked whether Obama had second thoughts about signing the bill, Gibbs' reply was curt: "No."

Obama's modest set of reforms builds upon changes initiated by Republicans in 2006 and strengthened by Democrats two years ago. Most importantly, every earmark and its sponsor must be made public.

In new steps - outlined in concert with House Democratic leaders Wednesday morning - the House Appropriations Committee will submit every earmark to the appropriate executive branch agency for a review. And any earmark designed to go to for-profit companies would have to be awarded through a competitive bidding process.

But perhaps the most tangible change may be Obama's promise to resurrect the long-defunct process by which the president proposes to cut spending from bills that he has signed into law.

Under this so-called rescissions process, the White House sends Congress a roster of cuts for its consideration. Congress is free to ignore the cuts, but both Obama and senior members like Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., say they want to use it to clean out bad earmarks that make it through the process.

But Obama declined to endorse a stronger process advocated by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others, that would have required Congress to vote on a presidential recission earmark package. Senior Democrats dislike the idea even though many of them backed it in the early-to-mid 1990s.

During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel-spending ways. Yet the bill sent from the Democratic-controlled Congress to the White House on Tuesday contained 7,991 earmarks totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the Republican staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision.

Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would force Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on come Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government. That is an unlikely possibility for a president who has spent just seven weeks in office.

The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_SPENDING?SITE=NEYOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
---------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

"This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business." I thought the election was supposed to be the end. I guess the Democrats had to make sure the taxpayers were going to properly fund all of their pet projects and left wing organizations like ACORN.

"It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush." Why was this buried at the very end of the article especially after implying that this bill was Bush's not Obama's?


Obama should stick to his earmark rhetoric and veto it. He should make them go back to the drawing board.

Obama Administraton Official: Earmarks Will Stay Until Next Year

Mar 8, 9:37 AM EDT
On earmarks, budget chief says wait till next year

WASHINGTON (AP) -- When it comes to dealing with all those pet projects in the big spending bill before Congress, President Barack Obama's budget chief says wait till next year.

White House budget director Peter Orszag says the Obama administration isn't happy with the billions of dollars aimed at lawmakers' pet projects - also known as earmarks. Obama had campaigned on changing the way such money is appropriated by Congress.

Yet Orszag says Obama doesn't want to revisit the spending bill Congress put together before he was elected and wants to move on. Next year, according to Orszag, when Obama is fully involved in the next budget from the start, earmarks will be handled differently.

Obama's budget chief appeared Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." © 2009 The Associated Press.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WHITE_HOUSE_PET_PROJECTS?SITE=COBOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

I guess they will have to wait until the Democrats pay off their base with all of the earmarks in the stimulus and 2009 spending bill. That is probably why they're sticking in so many the last two spending bills. They want to make sure they get enough money to last them the next few years. The Obama administration couldn't very well do it immediately right after he was inaugurated because they had to have time to pay off those that helped him get elected, and they have to be able get enough to pay for other Democrats campaigns for office.

CNN's Heidi Collins: Today's Overspending Still Bush's Fault

CNN's Heidi Collins: Monstrous Spending Bill 'Is a Hold-Over From the Last Administration'
By Michael M. Bates
March 6, 2009 - 14:58 ET

On this morning's CNN Newsroom, anchor Heidi Collins gave Barack Obama some cover by characterizing the omnibus spending bill, larded with thousands of earmarks, as left over from the Bush administration:

A controversial $410 billion spending bill hits a snag in the Senate. This is the bill we've been talking about with about $8 billion in earmarks. Republicans and a few Democrats are mad about all that pork barrel spending. That led members from both parties to push President Obama to veto the bill.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid says the measure will be opened up for changes next week in an effort to gain more support. The bill is a hold-over from the last administration.

Collin's reporting comes straight from the Obama playbook.  Last Sunday on "This Week," Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag defended his boss's support for the measure:

"This is last year's business.  We want to just move on.  Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."

It was originally drafted last year, but congressional Democrats didn't want to send it to President Bush, so it will only fund the government from April through September.

Paul Kane at The Washington Post points out that the bill is "leftover from last year's congressional agenda."

And the Associated Press reported yesterday on Senator John McCain's attempts to defeat the spending bill:

McCain took aim at the $410 billion spending bill to keep the government running, specifically Obama's willingness to accept thousands of pet projects that it would fund. Orszag, McCain noted, called the so-called earmarks "last year's business."

"Last year's business? Does that mean last year's president will sign this pork barrel bill?" McCain railed from the Senate floor. "It is the president's business. It is the business of the president of the United States."

No, Heidi, the omnibus bill working its way through Congress isn't a hold-over from the Bush administration.  Your saying so is evidence of what's become increasingly apparent: When it comes to covering up for Obama, the news readers at CNN are shovel ready.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/michael-m-bates/2009/03/06/cnns-heidi-collins-monstrous-spending-bill-hold-over-last-administr
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Michael pretty well said it all. The left can't keep blaming everything on Bush. The American people aren't stupid. They'll see it for what it is, subterfuge.

How can they blame today's spending bill on Bush? Obama is president not Bush. It is true they wrote the bill last year, but they didn't dare try and pass it. Why? The Democrats knew damn well that Pres. Bush would have vetoed it in a Gotham second. It was always written with Pres. Obama in mind not Bush.

Unless Obama wants to resign and appoint W. the president again, it isn't Bush's bill. It never really was. The Obama administration and the Democrats better start acknowledging their own culpability for the beginning of the recession and the continuous downward slide of the economy. They are not going to be able to hide behind W. for much longer.

Obama Tingling Leg Syndrome Cure Found?

Meltdown on MSNBC: The Leg Tingle Is Gone?

I can hardly believe what I'm watching on MSNBC right now. Chris Matthews is almost critical — no, not even almost, he's flat-out critical of President Obama on the economic front. He mentions an earlier conversation with CNBC's manic stock analyst Jim Cramer and a University of Maryland professor (Peter Morici?) knocking Obama for several economic decisions — that the stimulus bill needed more real infrastructure and less pork, that the housing bill isn't inspiring confidence and doesn't look like it will work, and that no one has faith in Tim Geithner's solution for the banks.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek says Obama has been "grim and a little distant at the same time . . . Tim Geithner hasn't inspired any confidence anywhere, as far as I can tell."

Matthews: "He seems like Barney Fife to me."

Eugene Robinson: "I actually referred to him as Doogie Howser, Treasury Secretary, and I think it's a little unfair." Much laughter ensues.

More Fineman: "Despite his high approval rating and obvious intellect and goodwill, he hasn't quite yet seemed to convey the sense that he knows the way forward and that he can get us there . . . I thought the first fifteen minutes of this show were devastating. Not that Jim Cramer is the only person they have to convince, but they have to convince people that they know what they're doing, that they're not just feeling their way forward." Robinson points out that they are feeling their way forward.

Matthews: "I thought 8,000 was the floor, and it looks like 6,000 is the floor. People are angry, I'm getting angry."

02/23 05:54 PM


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTAyYTk1NWVlOThhZDUyMGU1YTJhYTNjOTNlYzU2MTU=

-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

If he starts losing people like Chris Mathews, he is going to start having a exceedingly tough time. How liberal must you be to lose an already overly liberal mainstream media? He has got to reign the Spendapalooza in or suffer the consequences in approval ratings and support.