Do we need to waste any more money?

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has just announced that he is extending the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) till October of 2010. This is the 700 billion dollar program that was set up to bail-out banks from their toxic assets. The program was set to expire on 12/31/09 unless the administration decided to extend it.

Some banks have been paying back the TARP funds (with interest) and other institutions are in the process of doing the same. Seems that we currently have about $200 billion dollars currently in the TARP fund. Instead of using it to pay down our massive debt, the President wants to use it to stimulate job creation.

I suspect a more sinister use of the TARP money. I don't think it's coincidental that the extension of the program ends right before the 2010 November elections.

$200 billion makes for quite a nice political slush fund. By targeting these "job stimulus dollars", to congressional districts that may be at risk, the Obama Administration can help Democrats get re-elected. This is an especially nice carrot to wave in front of "Blue Dogs" that may take a lot of heat for voting for the health-care and cap and trade bills.

The $200 billion will take "Chicago-Style" politics to the National level.

Then again, I may just be a cynic.

Sphere: Related Content

Don't Give A Terrorist A Fat Lip

Back in 2004, 4 Blackwater Security guards were found murdered, mutilated and charred, hanging from a bridge over the Euprhrates river in Fallujah Iraq. The murderer behind this, Ahmed Hashem Abed, has been captured by the Navy Seals. However, 3 of our heroic Seals that helped in the capture are now awaiting a court-martial. It seems that Abed told investigators that he had been punched and had the bloody lip to prove it.

So I guess we will take the word of a terrorist against our brave troops now? No wonder morale in the military keeps going down.

I would hate to see a bunch of "killed while attempting to escape" incidents happening now ... Lest we give Bin Laden a fat lip when we capture him.

Sphere: Related Content

Will Someone Please Tell The Speaker To Shut Up

Nancy Pelosi decided to once again open her big mouth in an interview aired today on NPR. Pelosi, once again over-stepping her position as Speaker of the House, took a turn at being Secretary of State. She denounced Afghan President Hamid Karzai as an "unworthy partner", undeserving of a big ramp-up of troops or civilian aid.

Madame Speaker, since when is foreign policy made in the House? I think you need a refresher course in the Constitution! Policy is made at the Executive Branch ... the Legislative Branch decides the funding.

Now I have no doubt that the Speaker is well aware of what she is doing, and have a strong suspicion that her stupid comments were cleared by the White House. As our Ditherer-N-Chief is still several weeks away from a decision on troop levels in Afghanistan, perhaps San Fran Nan is setting a base from which a "No New Troops" movement can grow.

As for the President, the excuse of it will take 3 or 4 months to get the troops to Afghanistan, so there is no need to hurry is getting a little thin. If you had made your decision when the troop request was made ... the troops would already be starting to arrive and our young men and women in the combat zone would already be a little safer ... or do you even care?

Sphere: Related Content

All Politics Are Local ... Except When They're Not

The Governorships of Virginia and New Jersey have passed on to the Republican Party, and already the spin-meisters on the left are trying to downplay the election results.

Very interesting that even though all the President's men, as well as our CEO and Chief campaigned for the Democratic losers in these states, the WH and media are proclaiming that this was not a referendum on President Obama's policies. They claim that Tip O'Neill was correct when he stated that "all politics is local".

Actually, except for the grammar, the former speaker was correct in his assumption. The problem for the Democrats is that the policies of the sitting President effect the ENTIRE NATION. So we now have 50 local states that are hurting. This does not bode well for the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections. This also does not bode well for the President's Health Care over-haul. Democrats in conservative districts will be running as far away from any new administration policy in the hope of saving their jobs next November (remember ... every seat in the House is up for re-election next year).

Republicans, don't start feeling too happy with yourselves just yet. The policies of the previous administration, along with the spend-thrift ways of the GOP-led Congress helped get us into this predicament. Republicans can't be seen as just politicians that oppose everything that the Democrats try to do. They must have their own plans for bringing this Nation back to prosperity, based upon Conservative economic principles. Right now the GOP has a chance to win back the support of the Nation ... but I fear that they will just waste it as usual. We need a new "Contract with America". Where is the next Newt Gingrich?

Sphere: Related Content

Where's The Transparency?

When our fearless leader was running for President last year, he made a promise that most of America hoped that he would keep. He swore to run, "the most open and transparent government in history". Now that the public-option is in trouble, the debate has become as transparent as .... hmmm .... a large cherry wood door.

Previously, we have had the back-room deals struck with the hospitals, big pharmaceuticals, the AMA and AARP. But now we can't seem to get any information about what is going on while the various bills are being hammered out in the House and Senate.

Anyone else think that the next time we see these bills will be one or two days before they vote on them?

I envision a 2500 page bill being introduced to the Senate as a fait-accomplis. No one will have time to read it before voting, and the public won't get a chance to even look at it.

Possibly enough Senators will block the vote till everyone has enough time to read and debate it (no chance to get enough Representatives in the House to act sane). Is it too much to ask our Congress to at least read an important Bill before voting on it?

Hopefully I'm wrong and our elected officials will do the right thing. But I'm afraid this will just be an example of "Business As Usual" on the Beltway.

Sphere: Related Content

Arianna Huffington Is Right! ... Sort Of

Recently on her hate-filled web-site, Arianna Huffington wrote that Vice-President Biden should resign if we give General McChrystal any more troops for Afghanistan.

Ms. Huffington did not go far enough. I think that Secretary Clinton should resign if General McChrystal does not get the troops he needs.

And while we are at it, can we get resignations from Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid and the President too? By now they should have realized that they have gotten in too far over their heads and resign before they do serious damage.

Sphere: Related Content

WHY DO WE EVEN BOTHER ASKING OUR GENERALS?

On June 10th 2009, General Stanley A McChrystal was made Comander of our forces in Afghanistan. He had the full backing of the President and the approval of the Senate. His job was to evaluate the situation on the ground and report back on what would be needed to complete the job.

Now the interpretation of what completing the job meant may mean different things to different folks, but what it means to me is that we WIN. The meaning of win is of course open to debate (we are talking about Washington DC ... where countless hours were devoted to figuring out what the meaning of "is" was). So to define it further, winning means 1) eliminating the ability of the Taliban and al-Qaeda to effectively mount any further insurgencies (or in lay-man's terms ... kill them) and 2) Install a sustainable Afghan government that is supported by the citizenry and will not harbor terrorists that wish to harm us.

General McChrystal has given a 66-page report describing what needs to be done to "Win" this war. It calls for an additional 40,000 troops to deal with the insurgency and accelerate the training of the Afghan police and military. This plan of action has been endorsed by General David Petraeus (the guy who brought us the "Surge" in Iraq, grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat).

However, there are a bunch of "Generals" in Washington DC that don't like McChyrstal's plan. General Joe (let's divide Iraq into 3 different countries and leave) Biden, thinks that we should stop fighting the insurgents and just train the Afghans, while occasionally firing missiles into Pakistan to kill al-Qaeda targets.

Generals Pelosi and Kerry of course just want to cut and run ... what a surprise!

Hey General Joe ... we tried fighting a war from DC twice before. During the end of the Korean War and during the Viet Nam war, and guess what?

Politicians make lousy Generals!!!

Sphere: Related Content