Both Sides of Congress to Introduce Legislation Blocking Enforcement of New EPA Climate Regulations

Despite Congress not being able to pass any environmental legislation over the past two years and public opinion being heavily against it, the EPA is attempting to accomplish through regulation what the Democrats couldn’t accomplish thru legislation. Last Sunday, the new EPA rules have started to go into effect, and some in Congress intend to stop them in their tracks:

Dozens of Republicans used the opening day of the new Congress on Wednesday to introduce legislation that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions.


Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, sponsored the bill. The measure’s 46 co-sponsors are all Republicans except for Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.)….

The bill would amend the Clean Air Act to declare that greenhouse gases are not subject to the law, according to a brief description in the Congressional Record.

Boren, probably, won’t be the last to sign onto the bill, either. Heath Shuler will likely support it, and I fully expect many of the Democrats from Appalachia to join in, as well, because coal is such a huge part of their districts’ economies.

The House isn’t the only part of Congress that is looking into this. Democratic Senator Jay Rockafeller of West Virginia, a coal heavy state, is looking to re-introduce a similar bill in the Senate:

Firing the first salvo in what is expected to be a top energy issue in the new Congress, Sen. John Rockefeller said Wednesday that he’s raring to go in his controversial bid to handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate regulations for two years.
The West Virginia Democrat told POLITICO that he’ll soon introduce the same piece of legislation he tried unsuccessfully to get a vote on throughout 2010. Rockefeller said he’d wanted to drop the bill at the start of the 112th Congress but was stymied by plans to spend the day debating changes to the Senate rules.

Rockefeller has been threatening this, for a while. He tried to pass a this in the last Congress, but, of course, it failed. However, times are different, now.

Since the House is heavily Republican, it should pass there rather easily. The Senate may be a bit harder, but it shouldn’t be a problem there, either. The Democrats do have a slim majority, but many of them are up for re-election in 2012, many of those are from red-states. So, they are vulnerable Democrats and will likely follow along with barring the EPA from enforcing the very unpopular regulations, in order to not to be labeled as an extremist by the voters in their respective districts.

The real question will be President Obama. Will he veto it, if it passes Congress? He has been receiving a lot of grief from the left for extending the higher-end Bush tax cuts. So, he may feel the need to veto it, so not to further alienate himself with his base. On the other hand, he doesn’t want to alienate the majority of the American people that don’t want it. He may huff and puff about it, but I think that he will sign it, in the end. He needs the middle more than he needs his base, at this point.

Government Inefficiency At Its Finest: Women Finally Get Restroom in Congress

emale representatives in Congress a bathroom that they don't have to walk a mile (not literally) to go potty:

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner is tearing down the Parliamentarian's office to build female members of Congress a restroom.

Currently, only male lawmakers are afforded the ability to walk steps from the House floor to use the restroom. Women must walk across Statuary Hall to the Lindy Claiborne Boggs room, but the 71 women who will serve in the 112th Congress will be able to walk out the Democratic side of the chamber straight to the bathroom.

Why didn't Pelosi do this? It took her over three years just to pass the Potty Parity Act, which was supposed to ensure that this was done back in March. Now, it is getting close to a year since then, and it still she still hadn't done anything to get it built. This type of inefficiency is exactly why the people don't want to see DC in charge of anything.

Obama, Congress Throw DC Underprivileged Children Under the School Bus

It has been a fear of many poor children and their parents that live in Washington DC that a Democratic-led government would cut funding to a successful program that would give scholarships to children, so they can go to private schools, instead of the abysmal DC public schools. Unfortunately, their fears have recently been realized:

Black leaders say that President Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Congress have put politics ahead of helping low-income children in the District of Columbia by refusing to support a program that allows 1,700 children to go to a private school, including the school Obama’s two daughters attend.
 
Congress did not reauthorize funding for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) in the 2010-11 federal budget, ending a program that has helped thousands of disadvantaged children attend some of the best schools in the nation’s capitol since its inception in 2004.
 
And while Obama backed Congress’ move to continue funding scholarships for children already in the program until they graduate from high school, no new children will receive the $7,500 annual tuition scholarship.

 
Juan Williams, a Democratic pundit from Fox News, took a huge exception to this turn of events:

“The cancellation of the program, in my view, has been an unprecedented move by the federal government, because this is a historic moment, historic government spending in our nation’s history – a time when the U.S. Treasury is giving hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street bailouts,” Juan Williams, political commentator, said at a press conference held last week at the National Press Club in Washington.
 
“Congress chose, in the midst of all this spending, to end a very small, $13 million dollar program that, according to the Department of Education (DOE), has increased and improved the reading scores of low-income children here in the District of Columbia,” he said.
 
“The move is a matter of politics, in my opinion, plain and simple,” Williams said. “Powerful special interest groups like the National Education Association are clearly committed to destroying and denying these programs as they benefit low-income families and denying them the same opportunities that powerful Washington politicians and privileged people take for granted – the power to choose a safe and effective school for their children.”
 
Williams, a Democrat and regular commentator for National Public Radio, said his own personal story – growing up in poverty with a single mom devoted to seeing that her children got an education – makes helping disadvantaged children a moral imperative. He also said Obama, who attended a private school on scholarships while growing up in Hawaii, should share his passion for school choice.

Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, showed little reluctance to pulling the plug on the successful program, while giving a lame excuse:

As CNSNews.com reported, when asked why the Obama administration did not support the reauthorization of OSP, Duncan said in a statement that school vouchers would not fix D.C.’s failing schools.
 
“I appreciate the desire of every family to have the best possible education for their child,” Duncan said. “I also understand that our role is to support children, parents and educators. That is why this Administration is devoting more resources and supports more ambitious reform of our public school systems than any administration in history.”

Let me translate more "resources" means more money. Just like the Democrats always do, they want to throw money at the broken system hoping that the money will magically cure all of the system's ills.

Instead they should change the system and give more money to the students so that they can attend the school's that are doing it better, until the public system improves.

Why won't they do it that way? Two words: teachers' union.

Congress Celebrated Obama's 100th Day With Spending Spree, Pelosi Uses New Fuzzy Math

Both the House and Senate passed this boondoggle of a spending bill to pave the way for universal healthcare:

Congress has wrapped up work on a compromise $3.4 trillion budget outline aimed at helping advance President Barack Obama's ambitious agenda despite staggering government deficits.

The Senate's 53-43 vote to pass the measure followed House action earlier Wednesday.

The votes to adopt the nonbinding budget blueprint are only a first step toward Obama's goal of providing health care coverage for all Americans.

Nancy Pelosi had a very confusing comment on the passage of this enormous spending frenzy:

"It's a budget that reduces taxes, lowers the deficit and creates jobs."

Um..Whatever Pelosi is on, give me some.

If the government spends more money than any other administration in history, the money has to come from somewhere. They will have to raise taxes in order to pay for their agenda. There no way around that unless they want to borrow more from China. If they borrow money from China, the deficit will increase not decrease. More than like they will have to raise taxes and create a higher deficit.

The spending might create a few jobs, but a significant enough amount to make a difference in the economy.

Democrats Determined to Shove Obama's Health Care Plan Down Our Throats, Whether We Like It or Not

Democrats are not going to take "no" for an answer. They are tenacious in their devotion to taking over healthcare for millions of Americans.

By a 227-196 vote, the House affirmed Democrats' plans to move health care legislation under rules that block Republicans in the Senate from being able to slow progress of the legislation -- or even stop it, through a filibuster.

The vote came as senior House and Senate Democrats negotiated the issue in private talks on the 2010 budget. Republicans are passionately against the idea of putting health care on a "fast track," saying it is too important and too complicated to be rushed through Congress under rules permitting just 20 hours of Senate debate.

What is the rush to change healthcare in this country dramatically? They rushed the porkulus and TARP through with little debate. The porkulus bill was 1434 pages. We all know how well that worked out.

As a practical matter, passing health care measures under fast-track procedures would give Democrats far more control over the details of the legislation. It would reduce the influence of not only Republicans but also conservative Senate Democrats.

The ability to "fast track" legislation was meant for bills that were imperative to the immediate survival of our country. It wasn't for a extremely complex bill that would dramatically change the country.

They need to allow as much debate as possible. If they do not, they will not have all the facts and will likely pass a severely flawed bill.

Congress Plans Global Warming Bills While Antartic Ice Grows, Snows Oustside Vegas, Denver (24in.) in April

Congress is contemplating putting new greenhouse gas regulations that will cripple the energy industry among others.

After President George W. Bush did little about global warming in his two terms, there is "a lot pent up demand" for action on climate, said William Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Both the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Barack Obama agree that legislation is needed to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and radically alter the nation's energy sources. They want to pass a bill by the end of the year.

So, it begins. The O-Team will try to turn our economy green. Consequences be damned!

This coming week, lawmakers begin hearings on an energy and global warming bill that could revolutionize how the country produces and uses energy. It also could reduce, for the first time, the pollution responsible for heating up the planet.

Both sides of the debate on global warming are poised to clash over the legislation after the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday said rising sea levels, increased flooding and more intense heat waves and storms that come with climate change are a threat to public health and safety. The agency predicted that warming will worsen other pollution problems such as smog.

They followed this unproven theory with outright misrepresentation.

Every year since 2001 has been among the 10 warmest years on record. Sea ice in the Arctic and glaciers worldwide are melting.

From 2001 to 2006 may have been warmer, but the last two years have been getting progressively cooler not warmer. Research shows that while ice is melting in some parts of the Artic it is growing in others.

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

They go on to explain that while the west coast is melting the east is growing.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

So, basically they gained in the east what they've lost in the west. Let me check the math:

-2+2=0

Yep, it's basically a wash.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual. "Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

In addition, reports from a few months ago say that the ice level is about the same as it was in 1979. (See link below.)

Back to the upcoming debate in Washington over the new economy-strangling regulations on emissions:

Then there is the question whether the public will have the appetite to accept higher energy prices for a benefit that will not be seen for many years. Climate change ranks low on many voters' priority lists.

I have that answer for you.

No, we can't take a repeat of $4-5 p/ gallon gas. That was one thing that started this crisis last year. It caused a huge consumer backlash. Why would the Democrats force the price of energy up intentionally?

These regulations are too damaging to the economy to enact all at once especially to prevent something that many scientist don't believe is really happening. There is as much evidence disproving the theory as there is supporting it.

We do need to get off fossil fuels so that we won't be so dependent on countries that hate us, but it should be more of a gradual shift.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://realtrueamerican.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-ice-ice-baby.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/18/congress-considers-far-reaching-global-warming/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsflash: Democrat-Dominated Congress Contemplating Raising Everyone's Taxes Not Just Top 5%

If a little-known but influential alliance of state politicians, large retailers, and tax collectors have their way, the days of tax-free Internet shopping may be nearly over.

A bill expected to be introduced in the U.S. Congress as early as Monday would rewrite the ground rules for mail order and Internet sales by eliminating what its supporters view as a "loophole" that, in many cases, allows Americans to shop over the Internet without paying sales taxes.

The final legislation is expected to be introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, who have championed similar proposals in the past.

What happened to my taxes not being raised?

I guess that promise went out the window whenever Obama took the oath of office.

Is this really the best time to be raising any kind of sales taxes?

No!

Should this "loophole" be filled? Perhaps, but this is not the time. Our economy is down, and we don't need to do anything that might throw a monkeywrench into its recovery. They should get back to this when the economy is back on the right track.

Of course, they will probably try to fast track it through underneath the radar while the Democrats have a heavy advantage.

In addition, the article points out how complicated and confusing this new sales tax code would probably be. That'll dampen consumer internet spending.

People use the internet to shop for it's easy and convenient. If the new sales tax will be as confusing and complicating as they think it will be, it'll cause a sharp decline in internet sales. Many small businesses rely on the internet for much of their business. This could severly hurt them and possibly bankrupt them especially in the middle of a recession. That would lead to more layoffs and higher unemployment.

Sen. Enzi is usually a conservative guy for the most part. I'm not sure what he's thinking.
We need to all give Sen. Enzi and Rep. Delahunt a call or an email to let them know that they should wait on this until we get the country's wheels back on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10220649-38.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislation That We've Been Waiting For: Congress Goes After BCS

Senate reviewing how college football picks No. 1
Mar 25 03:47 PM US/Eastern
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Everyone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series.

The current system "leaves nearly half of all the teams in college football at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for the millions of dollars paid out every year," the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights said in a statement Wednesday announcing the hearings.

Under the BCS, some conferences get automatic bids to participate in series, while others do not.

Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.

Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season.

The title game pitted No. 1 Florida (12-1) against No. 2 Oklahoma (12-1); Florida won 24-14 and claimed the title.

The subcommittee's statement said Hatch would introduce legislation "to rectify this situation." No details were offered and Hatch's office declined to provide any.

Hatch said in a statement that the BCS system "has proven itself to be inadequate, not only for those of us who are fans of college football, but for anyone who believes that competition and fair play should have a role in collegiate sports."

In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9759GG00&show_article=1
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

With all of the economic turmoil going on in this country right now, how is this the most important issue of the day?

Failing Newspapers Next to Receive Bailouts?

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers
03:05 PM EDT By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible.

Because newspaper profits have been falling in recent years, "no substantial loss of federal revenue" was expected under the legislation, Cardin's office said in a statement.

Cardin's office said his bill was aimed at preserving local and community newspapers, not conglomerates which may also own radio and TV stations. His bill would also let a non-profit buy newspapers owned by a conglomerate.

"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.

Newspaper subscriptions and advertising have shrunk dramatically in the past few years as Americans have turned more and more to the Internet or television for information.

In recent months, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Rocky Mountain News, the Baltimore Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle have ceased daily publication or announced that they may have to stop publishing.

In December the Tribune Company, which owns a number of newspapers including The Baltimore Sun, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times filed for bankruptcy protection.

Two newspaper chains, Gannett Co Inc and Advance Publications, on Monday announced employee furloughs. It will be the second furlough this year at Gannett.


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52N67F20090324
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Now, we're supposed to pay to be propagandized by the liberals in the old print media. If they're classified as non-profit organizations, some our tax dollars will go to the liberally biased print media that have been declared unwanted by the American consumers. People would've bought subscriptions, if they wanted the papers to survive. It has been known for a while that newspapers were in trouble, and they had plenty of warning before the papers started to go under.

Why do we have to keep bailing out these companies that has already been deemed unworthy by the masses? There is a reason that they are failing. We have become tired of being talked down to by elitist snobs that think that they know what is good for us and don't care whether we like it or not.

Economically Damaging Global Warming Congress Agenda Won’t Be Fast-Tracked Through Congress

Lawmaker: Global warming plan won't be in budget
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats won't advance President Obama's controversial global warming initiative under fast-track rules that could effectively cut Senate Republicans out of the debate, a top Democratic lawmaker said Tuesday.

The House will try to use special budget procedures to remake the health care system, Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt Jr., D-S.C., said Tuesday.

Such procedures are the only way to pass bills with a simple majority in the Senate. If they are used, Republicans would have a limited ability to influence the landmark legislation. The idea is continuing to meet resistance from Senate Democrats such as Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

The developments come on the eve of debate in the House and Senate budget committees as they take the first steps to pass Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan for the fiscal year starting in October.

Under Congress' arcane procedures, the annual congressional budget resolution is a nonbinding measure that sets the terms for follow-up legislation, sometimes including a filibuster-proof measure called a reconciliation bill.

The congressional budget plan also determines how much money to use for defense programs and domestic programs whose budgets are set each year by Congress, and it sets out the fiscal priorities of the governing party in Congress.

The panels are proposing cuts in Obama's 11 percent increase for non-defense agency budgets and will not fully reflect his proposal to permanently curb the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system that threatens some 24 million tax filers with higher taxes. Without such steps, they would be unable to cut the deficit to manageable levels.

Obama's plan to combat global warming would impose higher energy costs on consumers and businesses through a so-called "cap-and-trade" system for auctioning permits to emit greenhouse gases

Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California had advocated passing the controversial cap-and-trade plan under a special bill that can speed through the Senate on a simple majority vote, instead of the 60 votes needed to move most other legislation. Democrats and their allies control 58 seats at present.

But many Democrats, even party loyalists such as Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, oppose the idea, as do many House moderates. Pelosi is being forced to abandon the idea in the face of so much opposition.

At issue is whether to advance controversial Obama initiatives under filibuster-proof rules in the Senate. Republicans say the maneuver would freeze them out of deliberations on such important topics, and Democrats like Conrad say it shouldn't be used for such complicated legislation. But the Democratic-dominated House wants to make sure Republicans don't hijack the legislation.

"Reconciliation is pretty well settled," Spratt said. "I think we'll have reconciliation (for) health care."

Also, neither budget assumes Obama's $250 billion set-aside for more bailouts of banks and other firms.

In the Senate, Conrad is proposing to cut Obama's $51 billion, 11 percent increase
for non-defense agency budgets to about 7 percent. That's a slightly smaller cut than he had earlier proposed.

But members of the appropriations panel say the cut is deceptively large since programs such as the decennial Census and the Federal Housing Administration need about $4 billion more each to stay on track. And emergency aid for Iraq and Afghanistan, which is proposed to cost $11 billion this year as an emergency expense, will be covered within next year's regular budget, further reducing what's available for non-defense programs like education.

On the alternative minimum tax, Spratt said the budget will not in later years incorporate Obama's assumption that the $30 billion-plus cost of fixing the AMT and instead assumes other revenues are raised to limit its reach. The AMT was enacted in 1969 to make sure wealthy people pay at least some tax but now threatens to cost 24 million tax filers with increases averaging $2,000 or so a year.

Republicans continued their assault on the budget for its unprecedented levels of spending and for its dramatic increases in the national debt.

"We believe genuinely that it puts us on the path over 10 years for a very different kind of country, one with less freedom, one with more government, one with this extraordinary debt, and one which our children will have a very difficult time affording," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

© 2009 The Associated Press.

--------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_BUDGET?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
--------------------------------------------

My Thoughts
The Democrats must be feeling the heat. They are starting to buck some in their own constituency because of they are unpopular with most of America. They know that fast tracking something that is a huge change to the national agenda would be borderline unconstitutional and a big power play that would make the Democrats look like bullies.

AIG Shakespearean Drama Builds As Sen. Kyl Slams Brakes on "Witch Hunt"

Bill to Tax Away AIG Bonuses Sprints Through House, Slows in Senate

A House measure to tax away most of the $165 million in controversial bonuses awarded to AIG employees passed quickly Thursday, but Republicans are pushing a go-slow approach in the Senate as concerns remain about the proposal

AP Friday, March 20, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans are drawing out a flap that has made the Obama administration squirm, applying the brakes to Democratic attempts to quickly tax away most of the bonuses at troubled insurance giant AIG and other bailed-out companies.

Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republicans' vote counter, blocked Democratic efforts Thursday evening to bring up the Senate version of the tax bill to recoup most of the $165 million paid out by AIG last weekend and other bonuses in 2009. The House had swiftly approved its version of the bill earlier in the day.

By rushing, Kyl said, Democrats were letting populist outrage trump informed decision making in the Senate, which is supposed to be insulated from the pressures of public passion.

"I don't believe that Congress should rush to pass yet another piece of hastily crafted legislation in this very toxic atmosphere, at least without understanding the facts and the potential unintended consequences," Kyl said on the Senate floor. "Frankly, I think that's how we got into the current mess."

Senate Democrats said they will try again next week to take up the tax bill and hope to complete it before April 4, when Congress leaves for a two-week spring break. Combining the disparate House and Senate versions of the bill might have to wait until after the recess.

The Senate voted last month to block the AIG and other bonuses as part of the $787 billion stimulus bill, but Democrats then watered down the measure allowing them after Treasury Department officials warned that the move could trigger lawsuits against the government.

Last week, when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner couldn't talk AIG out of paying the bonuses, Republicans were quick to blame Democrats, pointing out that they were in charge of Congress and the department when the decision was made about bonuses and the stimulus bill. Democrats sought to regain the offensive -- and stem the political damage -- with promises to tax the bonuses away.

How to impose those taxes without running afoul of the Constitution or the law is a dispute that has Republicans urging a go-slow approach. Doing so, of course, would drag out the Democratic discomfort over administration missteps and provide plenty of time for the GOP and others to question Geithner's performance.

Republican reluctance also appeals largely to a key constituency that traditionally finds regulation anathema: Wall Street.

Robert Willens, a corporate tax lawyer in New York, said the Senate bonus tax bill would still allow bailout beneficiaries to negotiate higher salaries with employees to compensate for lost bonuses. The Senate bill authorizes the Treasury to issue regulations preventing firms from masking bonus payments as salaries, but it does not prevent firms from handing out raises.

"If the vast majority of bonuses become fixed salaries that would harm the institutions because they would have higher fixed costs," Willens said. "What happens if the bank suffers through a poor year? It has all these fixed obligations they have to meet. That's the beauty of the bonuses.

"The House bill, which passed 328-93 and split Republicans almost evenly, would impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid after Dec. 31, 2008, by companies that have received more than $5 billion in government bailout money. The tax would not affect workers with adjusted gross incomes below $250,000.

The Senate bill is much broader, affecting bonuses paid after Jan. 1, 2009, by firms receiving more than $100 million in government bailout money. The Senate bill would impose a 35 percent excise tax on the companies that pay the bonuses, and a 35 percent excise tax on the employees who receive them. Those taxes would be in addition to the 25 percent now withheld by the IRS on bonuses up to $1 million, and 35 percent withholding on bonuses above that.

Retention bonuses, like the ones paid to AIG employees, would be fully taxable. The first $50,000 of other bonuses, such as performance bonuses, would be exempt. The Senate bill would also cap deferred compensation for top executives at $1 million a year. Deferred compensation above that amount would come with steep penalties.

More bills are on the way.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., is holding a hearing next week on legislation that would apply to bailout recipients such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prohibit them from paying "any bonus to any employee, regardless of when any agreement to pay a bonus was entered into."

Republicans say there are enough problems or unknowns about the bonus-limiting bills to merit a closer look. Imposing too high a tax rate, doing it retroactively and targeting a narrow group of people could violate several of the Constitution's prohibitions against government takings without due process, Republicans say.

Even House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., warned against using the tax code as a political weapon, but later backed off and supported the bill because, he said, that was the consensus and he saw no other way.

In practical terms, too, Senate Republican leaders do not yet know where members of their caucus stand on the measures, particularly the Senate bonus limits bill co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, GOP officials said Friday.

"I think the outrage is so obvious that we need to pass the legislation to send a clear message to corporate America that when your sucking the taxpayers, you don't do these outrageous things," Grassley said. "When you're under water, you don't suck in more water because then you die."

Then there's the question of the sanctity of contracts.

If the government goes around canceling contracts like those calling for AIG bonuses, people might stop entering into contracts that call for using government bailout money designed to get credit flowing again to help spend the nation out of recession.

Some firms could be scared away from the bailout program, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable.

"Ultimately it will undermine the recovery efforts," Talbott said. "It will have a chilling effect on ability to attract and retain employees," Talbott said.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/20/tax-away-aig-bonuses-sprints-house-slows-senate/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

One thing I don't understand about this whole issue is Dodd and company put the amendment in the bill to prevent possible lawsuits from employees because the government prevented them from getting bonuses they were guaranteed by legally-binding contracts of employment they signed with AIG and like companies. Now, they want to tax away those same bonuses in a possibly unconstitutional tax hike bill that could open the floodgates to litigaion in a much more public way, if they chose to go that route. It doesn't make sense.

However, there is so much outrage and death threats leveled at the AIG employees that I doubt any lawsuits will actually be filed at least in the near future. Fear of lawsuits may have been why Congress has blown their outrage out of proportion. It has intimidated AIG employees into not pursuing legal action against the government.

I'm glad Kyl was able to throw a monkey wrench into the Democratic "social justice" machine. I'm personally tired of this Congress shoving bills down our collective throats without the pulic being able to take it in and weigh in our opinions to our representatives. A little restraint and prudence is just what is needed. What is the rush? What's wrong with taking a little more time to collect our thoughts and letting cooler heads prevail? Rushing into decisions increases the chances of making a wrong decision and making the situation even worse than it already is.

AIG Drama Continues; House Approves Stealing Bonuses

House Approves Bill To Tax AIG Bonuses At 90%

Thursday, March 19, 2009
Rex Nutting MarketWatch Pulse  

WASHINGTON -- Responding to the anger about bonuses paid to AIG traders, the House approved a bill Thursday that would impose a punitive 90% tax on bonuses paid by American International Group Inc. and other financial companies that receive federal help. The vote was 328-93. The bill would apply to bonuses of people making more than $250,000 a year, and would apply only to payments from companies getting more than $5 billion from the federal government.

Copyright © 2009 MarketWatch, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/house-approves-bill-tax-aig-bonuses/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This was not a suprise. All this fake shock and outrage had to result in this type of extreme retribution for all of anger people feel over the economic crisis. Even fake outrage has casualties. I'm still waiting for the 90% taxes on the raises Congress gets and Fannie & Freddie's bonuses.

Washington Shakespearean AIG Drama Continues: Congress Debates Taxing Bonuses Away

House to Vote on Taxing AIG Bonus Bonanza
Lawmakers are preparing to slap heavy taxes on employee bonuses at insurance giant AIG and at other companies that have received large bailout packages from the government.

AP Thursday, March 19, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Venting their outrage, lawmakers are preparing to slap heavy taxes on employee bonuses at insurance giant AIG and at other companies that have received large bailout packages from the government.

The House was scheduled to vote Thursday on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.

"We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent," said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel said the bill would apply to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others, while excluding community banks and other smaller companies that have received less bailout money.

House Democratic leaders unveiled the bill as the head of embattled American International Group Inc., which has received $182 billion in bailout money, testified about $165 million in bonuses paid out in the past week to about 400 employees in its Financial Products unit.

Edward Liddy, who was brought in last year by the government to run AIG, told a House subcommittee Wednesday that the company was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses but that some of the recipients have begun returning all or part of them.

Liddy said that on Tuesday, he had "asked those who have received retention payments in excess of $100,000 or more to return at least half of those payments." Some have "already stepped forward and returned 100 percent," he added.

Lawmakers rushed to the microphones after word of the bonuses was leaked out by the government over the weekend. Bills were quickly drawn up in both the House and Senate to impose heavy new taxes on them.

The top two members of the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday announced a bill that would impose a 35 percent excise tax on the companies paying the bonuses and a 35 percent excise tax on the employees receiving them. The taxes would apply to all companies receiving government bailout money, but they are clearly geared toward AIG.

President Barack Obama, who took office just under two months ago, told reporters Wednesday that his administration was not responsible for a lack of federal supervision of AIG that preceded the company's demise.

But Obama added, "The buck stops with me."

Obama said his administration was consulting with Congress on creating a new "resolution authority" to seize giant institutions like AIG -- including all their toxic assets -- whose collapse in normal bankruptcy could cause calamity in the financial markets.

Republicans have pointed their criticism at Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, questioning how much he know about the bonuses in advance and efforts by the administration to stop them. And they complained anew about being locked out of discussions earlier this year when Democrats decided to jettison a provision in the economic stimulus bill that would have revoked the payments.

"The fact is that the bill the president signed, which protected the AIG bonuses and others, was written behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate. There was no transparency," said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/house-vote-taxing-aig-bonus-bonanza/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

If they're so upset about failure not being rewarded, they need to tax 90% the automatic raises that Congress has received over the past few years, too.

Sen. David Vitter Goes After Canceling Automatic Raises For Congress, Amendment Fails-100th Post

Pressuring Democrats over automatic pay raises; 6:10pm Eastern: Reid tries to beat back pay raise issue; Vitter effort defeated, 52-45

By Michelle Malkin  
March 10, 2009 11:34 AM

Scroll for updates…6:10pm Eastern…Reid introduces gimmick to beat back automatic pay raise repeal…refuses to say that he has commitment to bring his gimmick to the House floor…Vitter amendment goes down, tabled…52-45
.

GOP Sen. David Vitter is causing Senate Democrats heartburn. Good.

He’s been pushing an amendment to the $410 billion omni-pork bill that would repeal the current law allowing automatic pay raises for Congress.

Doesn’t look so good for lawmakers to be enjoying the automatic perk during an economic downturn. Vitter’s proposal: How about a little shared sacrifice, fellas?

From Vitter’s office:

“Congress has been receiving pay increases most years under a formula set into law 20 years ago,” said Vitter. “At a time when so many Americans are losing their jobs and struggling to pay their mortgages, these raises just aren’t right. Most Americans don’t have a formula at their job that gives them automatic pay raises, and Congress shouldn’t either.”

The amendment would repeal the provision of law that set in place automatic raises for Members of Congress. The increase that went into effect for this year amounts to an additional $4,700 per year.

“Last year in Louisiana, the state legislature proposed a raise for its members, and Louisianans were rightfully outraged. I’ve heard from many constituents who have called to express their anger over automatic raises for Congress as well,” Vitter said. “With our economy in such a state of distress, it’s just not appropriate for Congress to continue to receive theses automatic pay raises. My amendment would require Congress to vote to approve any future pay increases.”

Vitter’s amendment is similar to a stand-alone bill he introduced at the beginning of the 111th Congress that also seeks to achieve the same goal – ending automatic pay raises.

The quandary via CQ:

The upcoming vote on Vitter’s amendment is problematic for supporters of the underlying spending measure. A vote against the amendment could put a senator in the politically perilous position of defending automatic pay increases for lawmakers at a difficult economic time for nearly all Americans. If the amendment is adopted, it could prove to be a poison pill, eroding support in both chambers for the yearlong spending measure, and forcing a House-Senate conference.

Harry Reid’s ploy is to offer a separate, stand-alone bill to repeal the robo-pay raises — to give Senate Dems cover. You can count on that separate bill never making it onto the Senate floor.

Stay tuned…

Update 6:10pm Eastern…Dingy Harry Reid pleading with Senate to pass his stand-along automatic pay raise repeal separately. “This is a serious effort.”

He’s almost choking on his own words as he says it.

6:36pm Eastern…Vitter amendment goes down…tabled 52-45.

Reid whining about how “difficult” the process has been.

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/10/pressuring-democrats-over-automatic-pay-raises/
---------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Since they are so concerned about capping CEO's pay and bonuses for running into the ground, shouldn't we be doing the same for those in the government that have run the economy down largely because of their policies?

Although, I will give them credit for at least getting rid of the raises for this next year.

So Much For No More Earmarks, 9,000 of Them Found In Next Spending Bill

Earmark reform? 2009 spending bill contains 9,000 of them
By WILLIAM DOUGLAS AND DAVID LIGHTMAN McClatchy Newspapers
February 22, 2009 01:00:04 PM

WASHINGTON — During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain fought vigorously over who would be toughest on congressional earmarks.

"We need earmark reform," Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. "And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

President Obama should prepare to carve out a lot of free time and keep the coffee hot next week as Congress prepares to unveil a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that's riddled with thousands of earmarks, despite his calls for restraint and efforts on Capitol Hill to curtail the practice.

The bill will contain about 9,000 earmarks totaling $5 billion, congressional officials say. Many of the earmarks - loosely defined as local projects inserted by members of Congress - were inserted last year as the spending bills worked their way through various committees.

So while Obama and McCain were slamming earmarks on the campaign trail, House and Senate members - Democrats and Republicans - were slapping them into spending bills.

"It will be a little embarrassing for the president if he signs a bill with that many earmarks on it," said Stan Collender, a veteran Washington budget analyst. "He'll say they're left over from the Bush years, and he as to say that next year the bill will be clean."

Experts agree most earmarks are legitimate. Cary Leahey, senior economist with Decision Economics in New York, said the nation's economic crisis is a contributing factor to the plethora of earmarks. Lawmakers can argue that for a relatively small price they've helped boost the economy.

"One congressman's earmark is another legislative way to fix a serious problem in his district," Leahey said.

Kenneth Thomas, a lecturer in finance at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of business, agrees.

"I generally believe that the priority is getting money into the system sooner rather than later, especially if it's for projects that will use local contractors and create jobs," he said.

Still, it wasn't supposed to be this way. Earmarks have come under fire because of those that seem to provide what Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, calls "laugh lines," such as Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" or North Dakota's Lawrence Welk Museum.

Obama pledged to take a hard hand on earmarks and warned lawmakers in a Feb. 3 letter from Budget Director Peter Orszag not to decorate the recently signed $787.2 billion stimulus bill with them.

Democrats declared the bill earmark-free. Republicans disagreed.

"While this bill does not include traditional earmarks, we should all understand that there are earmarks in this bill," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. "There is $850 million ... to bail out Amtrak, a $75 million earmark for the Smithsonian, a $1 billion earmark for the 2010 census."

Democrats have been trying to revamp the earmark process for about two years. In 2007, they instituted a system that required members to explain the contents of each earmark, as well as a justification for why it was included in the legislation that way. They claimed this led to a reduction in earmarks by as much as 43 percent.

But critics contended the system still had problems. Simply making information more available, they said, didn't address the major criticism: That such projects should go through the regular legislative process, subject to detailed hearings and bipartisan votes.

But critics contended the system still had problems. Simply making information more available, they said, didn't address the major criticism: That such projects should go through the regular legislative process, subject to detailed hearings and bipartisan votes.

Not only does this mean the public has no chance to challenge questionable spending, but too often powerful interests who know how to work the system get favorite measures inserted.

For instance, Congressional Quarterly reported recently that more than 100 House members got earmarks for clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm with close ties to Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who heads the powerful defense spending subcommittee. The CQ Politics analysis said in the 2009 defense spending bill, which Congress approved last year, PMA clients got about $300 million.

The CQ study came after reports the FBI is investigating the possibility of illegal campaign contributions by PMA to Murtha and other lawmakers. A Murtha spokesman said earlier this month the FBI probe has nothing to do with Murtha. A PMA spokesman declined to comment on the probe.

Appropriations committee chairmen say they are on track to reform the earmark process beginning in fiscal 2010 by requiring members to make public their requests early, so the public can scrutinize them and presumably contact lawmakers.

The change, though, doesn't apply to the 2009 funding Congress will consider next week.

Several experts believe that dramatically reducing the number of earmarks, while a laudable goal, is almost impossible. But others contend earmarks aren't that big of a problem.

"Earmarks get more attention than they deserve," said MacGuineas. "The problem is that they cause a loss of confidence in the whole budget process."

© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.modbee.com/breakingnews/story/608074.html
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Obama's going to need an army to help him to go "line-by-line" taking the earmarks out this next spending bill.

Update on the Tax Hike on the Poor to Help the Poor

Obama gets his S-CHIP Trojan Horse, first tax hike of 2009: “The first step”
By Michelle Malkin  •  February 4, 2009 04:56 PM

As expected, the House today gave final approval to the S-CHIP government health care expansion funded with a massive tax hike on smokers. President Obama is set to sign the bill amid great “progressive” fanfare. The kiddie human shield strategy strikes again.

The vote was 290-135.
Yeas Democratic 250 Republican 40.
Nays Democratic 2 Republican 133.

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/04/obama-gets-his-s-chip-trojan-horse-first-tax-hike-of-2009/
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2009&rollnumber=50
---------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts
Hold your wallet tight. The tax hikes on everyone is starting.

Bailouts Gone Wild

Porn kings Larry Flint and Joe Francis go begging for a bailout
BY CATEY HILL DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Wednesday, January 7th 2009, 5:18 PM

Is the porn industry up next for a bailout?  If porn titans Joe Francis and Larry Flynt have anything to do with it, it will.

Yes, ladies and gentleman, the titans of pornography are begging for a bailout.

Joe Francis, creator of the "Girl's Gone Wild" video series, and Larry Flynt, founder of Hustler, will ask Congress for a $5 billion bailout, according to TMZ.

Why does the porn industry need a bailout?  Because apparently even porn is getting smacked by the recession. 

XXX DVD sales have taken a hit - about a 22% hit, according to TMZ.

"With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind," Flynt is quoted as saying on TMZ. "It's time for Congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America."

Is the porn industry really experiencing a severe downturn?  It depends on who you ask.

Francis Koenig's fund AdultVest, which invests in porn-related assets, was up 50% in 2008, according to Tom Johansmeyer's article in next month's Atlantic (as reported by The Huffington Post).  But video sales are down.

"The industry's not going anywhere," Koenig says. "You've got 6 billion people on the planet," he laughs, "and they're all horny."

The porn industry generated about $12 billion in 2007, according to the Atlantic article.

--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/01/07/2009-01-07_porn_kings_larry_flint_and_joe_francis_g.html
--------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Well, apparently this culture of expecting a bailout that was started by Bush and expanded by the Democrats has finally gone too far. Whether or not this is a real expectaion or a joke by Francis and Flint, it is a perfect example of what is happening because of the Congress' lack of a backbone to turn down anyone with their hand out. Sure, they'll put on a show that will make it look like they're going to be tough, but when it comes to it they'll use the taxpayer's money to bailout those that made bad decisions and ruined their companies that they were hired to run.