Congressional Shenanigans: January 2010 Archives

I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.

He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.

On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)

As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.

I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.

And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.

After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)

I. GOT. BORED.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........

UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

December auto sales showed that while GM and Chrysler sales fell, Ford sale increased 33%.

The difference between GM/Chrysler and Ford? That's easy: Ford didn't require any bailout money and therefore, is still a publicly owned and traded company with little debt and independent of the Feds. GM and Chrysler, on the other hand, are partially owned by the Feds, having received billions in bailout funds, stiffing the bond holders in the process, and handing a portion of GM over to the UAW.

I've been a Mopar man all my life, having owned a number of great Chrysler Corporation cars and trucks, including my present 2000 Dodge Intrepid. But sadly, that love affair has ended. I have a feeling my next car will likely be a Ford, or maybe a Toyota if I can't find a Ford I like (which is unlikely).

It doesn't help either GM or Chrysler that a number of their better performing dealerships were closed at government insistence. If the allegations are true, most of the closed dealership were owned by Republicans (a little payback from the Obama Administration, perhaps?), and some of the surviving dealerships weren't all that good - not having the sales or the good reputation the closed dealerships enjoyed - or in locations that weren't convenient for potential customers.

A comment to a related post over at the Volokh Conspiracy says it all:

I was in a Ford dealership last week, and saw a car on display with a big "NO BAILOUT NEEDED" sign in the windshield. Sounds like they realize it resonates well with customers.

(H/T Instapundit)

First, it was the now-heating-up race for Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat. Then Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) announces he wouldn't be seeking re-election (no doubt because he knew he was going to get his head handed to him in the general election). And now it's Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) pulling the plug as well.

Dems must know it's getting bad when even the Boston Globe is dissing Democrat Senate contender Martha Coakley. GOP candidate Scott Brown's campaign is picking up steam and momentum, closing the gap while Coakley seems content to keep her campaign "in the station". If Brown wins the January 19th special election in Massachusetts, Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will have lost his filibuster proof majority and gained yet another senator hostile to ObamaCare. Seeing as Brown has first hand knowledge of the abomination that is MassCare (call it ObamaCare Lite), there's no way he would support a national version of that program.

Even in state government Dems are seeing a fall off. The latest? Colorado governor Bill Ritter (D) is ending his re-election campaign. Like Senator Dodd, it appears he realized he would get clobbered in the general election this coming November.

How many others Democrats will decide not to run for re-election by November, knowing they're likely to take a drubbing in the polls?

Only time will tell.