Internet Scofflaw

Joe Biden is not the one who invented the Internet:

During an interview on CBS’ “Early Show” on Wednesday, Biden told viewers to check out a government-run Web site tracking stimulus spending, but admitted he was embarrassed because he couldn’t remember the site’s “number.”

“You know, I’m embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number?” he asked an aide standing out of view. “I should have it in front of me and I don’t. I’m actually embarrassed.”

Biden, who seemed to indicate that he thought the Internet worked like a giant telephone, sounded an unusually Luddite note inside an administration often heralded for its mastery of the Web.

No doubt someone will try to explain that he was referring to the IP address. . .

President Obama, on Inauguration Day:

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.

We will restore science to its rightful place.

Now:

President Barack Obama is taking the first step toward blocking a nuclear waste dump at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain by slashing money for the program in his first budget, according to congressional sources.

(Via the Corner.)

Nuclear power is safe, clean, cost-effective, and (not to put too fine a point on it) actually exists.  If the President were serious about green energy, he would be supporting nuclear power.  Instead we’re getting a cynical political payoff to blatant NIMBYism.

The good news is that Yucca is a long-term project.  It’s not due to open until 2017 as it is, so there’s time for a responsible administration to reverse this decision.

(UPDATE APPENDED.) It never ends.  The latest White House tax problem is with the White House Counsel, Gregory Craig.  Ironically, Craig is the one who was put in charge of vetting nominees after the last round of tax cheats were revealed.  (Via Instapundit.)

We’re starting to need a scorecard now:

• Geithner, Treasury Secretary (confirmed)
• Daschle, HHS Secretary (withdrawn)
• Killefer, “Chief Performance Officer” (withdrawn)
• Solis, Labor Secretary (still nominated)
• Emanuel, Chief of Staff (no confirmation required)
• Craig, White House Counsel (no confirmation required)

UPDATE: Craig’s wife contradicts the story, and Gawker being Gawker, it’s easy to imagine they have this one wrong.  At least until someone else picks up the story, I’ll assume it’s not true.

Nancy Pelosi thinks that responsible people should subsidize deadbeats:

The leader of the U.S. House of Representatives said on Monday lawmakers expect to begin debating legislation this week that would let judges erase some mortgage debt for borrowers who file for bankruptcy.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders hope to bring mortgage bankruptcy legislation known as the “cramdown” bill to the House floor on Thursday.

(Via the Corner.)

Interest rates are lower on secured debt (such as mortgages) than unsecured debt (such as credit cards) because secured debt can be recovered by foreclosure even in bankruptcy.  Once mortgage cramdown becomes a reality, the advantage of secured debt goes away.  Consequently, mortgage rates will go up.  The net effect is people who pay their mortgages will subsidize cramdowns for those who don’t.

The idea is even worse for existing mortgages, if that’s possible.  For existing mortgages, the effect is to depress the values of those mortgages.  The financial sector is still reeling from a financial crisis that came about because of a crash in the value of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.  Damaging those assets further is just about the stupidest possible thing to do.

UPDATE: Mortgage cramdowns could also hurt some of the people they are intended to help (in addition to responsible borrowers, banks, and investors).  The possibility of a cramdown gives banks an incentive to foreclose whenever it suspects a bankruptcy might be coming, even when the banks might otherwise have preferred to be lenient.  It’s a terrible idea all around.

The Telegraph reports:

Members of the European Parliament are earning up to £1 million in profit in just one five-year term in office through expenses and allowances, a leaked report has revealed. . . The internal report into the system of allowances – conducted by Robert Galvin, a European Union internal audit official – was kept secret when it was carried out last year.

But a leaked copy of the 92-page document details the full extent of “corruption, dodgy dealing and poor financial controls” in the European Parliament, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance. It revealed that some MEPs claimed money for assistants that were neither accredited nor registered with the parliament. . .

Mr Elliott said each MEP could save more than £1 million from their expenses and pension benefits over a five-year term at the European Parliament.

Over five years, each MEP can claim this includes a subsistence allowance of 117,000 Euros, staff allowance of 489,840 Euros, office expenses of 243,120 Euros, travel expenses of 60,000 Euros and an accrued pension of £350,000.

This does not include the MEP salary of £63,291, which is set to increase to £73,584 after the European Parliament elections in June 2009.

There was also widespread failure to comply with tax, company and social security laws. Nearly 80 per cent of transactions that should have been subject to VAT displayed no evidence of either VAT payment or exemption.

(Via Power Line.)

ACORN’s criminal activities are branching out from election fraud to breaking and entering.  With a Baltimore TV news crew in attendance, they “reclaimed” a foreclosed home, which is to say that they broke into the home and put a new lock on it.  That home, as it turns out, had already been resold to someone else, who will be contacting the police.

(Via Hot Air.)

UPDATE: Arrested.

People often talk about closing the barn door after the cows have escaped.  This is more like issuing the cows a stern admonishment to stay inside, and it will do about as much good:

Invoking his own name-and-shame policy, President Barack Obama warned the nation’s mayors Friday that he will “call them out” if they waste the money from his massive economic stimulus plan. . .

“If a federal agency proposes a project that will waste that money, I will not hesitate to call them out on it, and put a stop to it,” Obama said. 

“But I want everyone here to be on notice that if a local government does the same — I will call them out on it as well, and use the full power of my office and our administration to stop it,” he said.

The government(s) will be wasting the money, you can be sure of that. We’ll see how many times President Obama calls anyone out.  He might find a Republican governor or mayor to scapegoat, but apart from that, I’m guessing zero.

Fox News reports:

President Obama’s transportation department slapped down a suggestion by its own secretary Friday that the government tax motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn. 

Secretary Ray LaHood floated the idea in an interview with The Associated Press. . .

Asked about the claim, transportation department spokeswoman Lori Irving immediately shot it down. 

“The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be Obama administration policy,” she said. . .

A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it’s an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens.

This part is amusing, by the way:

Among the reasons for the gap [between tax revenues and highway maintenance costs] is a switch to more fuel-efficient cars and a decrease in driving that many transportation experts believe is related to the economic downturn. Electric cars and alternative-fuel vehicles that don’t use gasoline are expected to start penetrating the market in greater numbers. 

The idea that gas taxes encourage conservation is supposedly one of the main justifications for gas taxes.  Was it never expected to work?

AP reports.  With the endorsement of Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas, this was pretty much a forgone conclusion.  A Likud-Kadima unity government looks unlikely, but we’ll see.  Labor says it is definitely going into opposition.

President Obama’s mortgage relief plan has, once again, the responsible subsidizing the irresponsible:

President Obama yesterday announced his plan to prevent home foreclosures, saying he wanted to be “very clear about what this plan will not do: It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans . . . And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford.” We really do wish he were right. In fact, the details released yesterday suggest the President’s plan will do all of the above.

Anyone with mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be able to refinance to lower rates if his mortgage is between 80% and 105% of the value of the home. This is a sweet deal that is not available, for example, to many renters looking to buy homes now. Sadly for those who deferred the gratification of homeownership, the 20% down payment has now become industry standard. But at least their taxes will allow other people to stay in homes they can’t afford.

Existing borrowers who may not qualify for Fan/Fred refinancing can still receive loan modifications that move their mortgage payments down to 31% of monthly income. In either case, no effort will be made to verify that recipients of aid were truthful on their original mortgage applications. Given that mortgage fraud skyrocketed during the housing boom, and that the Obama Administration intends to assist up to nine million troubled borrowers, we can say with certainty that the unscrupulous will be among those rescued.

Plus there’s this thought:

“Now that those of us who have been making steady, on-time payments on our mortgages for years will be paying off others’ mortgages through our taxes, can we claim a tax-deduction for our neighbors’ mortgage interest too?”
— Edward G. Stafford, responding to “Dukes of Moral Hazard.”

Encouraging responsible behavior?  Why would the government do that?

(Via Instapundit.)

The “stimulus” bill reveals Hurricane Katrina outrage as mere political theater that has finally outlived its usefulness:

The economic stimulus signed by President Barack Obama will spread billions of dollars across the country to spruce up aging roads and bridges. But there’s not a dime specifically dedicated to fixing leftover damage from Hurricane Katrina.

And there’s no outrage about it.

Democrats who routinely criticized President George W. Bush for not sending more money to the Gulf Coast appear to be giving Obama the benefit of the doubt in his first major spending initiative. Even the Gulf’s fiercest advocates say they’re happy with the stimulus package, and their states have enough money for now to address their needs.

“I’m not saying there won’t be a need in the future, but right now the focus is not on more money, it’s on using what we have,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who has criticized Democrats and Republicans alike over Katrina funding.

It’s a significant change in tone from the Bush years, when any perceived slight of Katrina victims was met with charges that the Republican president who bungled the initial response to the disaster continued to callously ignore the Gulf’s needs years later.

Just last summer, Democrats accused Bush of putting Iraq before New Orleans when he sought to block Gulf Coast reconstruction money from a $162 billion war spending bill. . .

[Rep. Bennie] Thompson [D-MS] and others say new funding wasn’t necessary in the stimulus largely because billions of federal dollars remain bogged down in bureaucracy or tied up in planning. As a result, they said, Katrina funding doesn’t fit with the quick-spending purpose of the stimulus bill, which is aimed at kick-starting the economy.

Ironically, Bush made similar arguments in recent years as Gulf advocates latched onto nearly any legislation they could find to pursue reconstruction money. For example, he routinely argued that Katrina funding didn’t belong in war spending bills and that new funding wasn’t urgent because unspent billions were already in the pipeline.

(Via Instapundit.)

The NY Times reports:

As a candidate, Barack Obama courted votes in the Rust Belt by suggesting he might renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pact he criticized as not “good for America.”

Now Mr. Obama is about to make his first foreign trip as president to Canada, the United States’ largest trading partner — and he is sounding a strikingly different message.

With Canadians up in arms over “Buy America” provisions in President Obama’s economic recovery package, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper warning the United States not to back away from its international treaty obligations, Mr. Obama, who will make a day trip to Ottawa on Thursday, is no longer emphasizing the idea of reopening Nafta.

Since Obama told a different story to each audience (and on one occasion, dishonestly denied doing so), it was never clear what his policy would be once he actually took office.  I’m glad he’s doing the right thing.

The “stimulus” bill isn’t just about the waste, it’s also about blocking investigations of government wrongdoing:

You’ve heard a lot about the astonishing spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama. But you probably haven’t heard about a provision in the bill that threatens to politicize the way allegations of fraud and corruption are investigated — or not investigated — throughout the federal government.

The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” . . .

When Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a longtime champion of inspectors general, read the words “conduct or refrain from conducting,” alarm bells went off. The language means that the board — whose chairman will be appointed by the president — can reach deep inside a federal agency and tell an inspector general to lay off some particularly sensitive subject. Or, conversely, it can tell the inspector general to go after a tempting political target.

(Via Riehl World View, via Instapundit.)

Sen. Grassley goes on to say that he’s looking into how the provision found its way into the bill; no one will admit to putting it there.

AP:

The Obama administration and the new Congress are quickly handing over to Republicans the same “culture of corruption” issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power.

Freshman Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., is only the latest embarrassment.

Senate Democrats accepted Burris because they believed what he told them: He was clean. Burris now admits he tried to raise money for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who authorities say sought to sell President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat. . .

The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn’t Burris’ conduct alone; it’s the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months.

_The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is the subject of a House ethics investigation. It’s partly focused on his fundraising practices for a college center in his name, his ownership financing of a resort property in the Dominican Republic and his financial disclosure reports.

_Federal agents raided two Pennsylvania defense contractors that were provided millions of dollars in federal funding by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

_Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges, including allegations he schemed to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder.

_Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, abandoned his bid to become health and human services secretary and the administration’s point man on reforming health care; and Nancy Killefer stepped down from a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs. Both Daschle and Killefer had tax problems, and Daschle also faced potential conflicts of interest related to working with health care interests.

_Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed after revealing he had tax troubles.

_Obama’s initial choice for commerce secretary, Bill Richardson, stepped aside due to a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.

_While the Senate voted overwhelmingly to confirm William Lynn as deputy defense secretary, Obama had to waive his ethics regulations to place the former defense lobbyist in charge of day-to-day operations at the Pentagon. . .

Democrats, who’ve been in control of both Congress and the White House less than two months now, are lucky on one point. The next congressional election is nearly two years away.

(Via Instapundit.)

I’m not sure why Dodd didn’t make the list, but nevertheless, the list does seem to be growing each day.

President Obama has come out against reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine:

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday. 

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine — a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. 

“As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com. 

After his staff recently flirted with the idea, this is welcome news.  Good for him.  However, this isn’t the end of the battle for free speech on the radio, as President Obama has endorsed other, subtler ways to attack talk radio.

The Chicago Tribune:

Let’s see if we have it right: Burris had zero contact with any of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s cronies about his interest in the Senate seat being vacated by President Barack Obama— unless you count that conversation with former chief of staff Lon Monk, and, on further reflection, the ones with insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma and, oh yeah, the governor’s brother and fund-raising chief, Robert Blagojevich. But Burris didn’t raise a single dollar for the now ex-governor as a result of those contacts because that could be construed as a quid pro quo and besides, everyone he asked refused to donate.

The story gets worse with every telling.

Enough. Roland Burris must resign.

The Washington Post:

From the moment that Mr. Burris was selected, he strove to portray himself as a blameless public servant. The sad pictures of Mr. Burris being cast out into the rain by the Democratic leadership of the Senate, which initially refused to seat him, turned public opinion in his favor. Mr. Burris got his seat. But this latest revelation makes a mockery of his professions of no quid pro quo. It is a violation of the public trust. The people of Illinois have suffered enough. Mr. Burris should resign.

(Previous post.)

According to the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Agency, if this New York Post column is accurate:

Emanuel served on the Freddie Mac board of directors during the time that the government-backed lender lied about its earnings, a leading contributor to the current economic meltdown.

The Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Agency later singled out the Freddie Mac board as contributing to the fraud in 2000 and 2001 for “failing in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention.” In other words, board members ignored the red flags waving in their faces.

The SEC later fined Freddie $50 million for its deliberate fraud in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Meanwhile, Emanuel was paid more than $260,000 for his Freddie “service.” Plus, after he resigned from the board to run for Congress in 2002, the troubled agency’s PAC gave his campaign $25,000 – its largest single gift to a House candidate.

(Emphasis mine.) (Via Moe Lane, via Instapundit.)

You knew this was coming.  (Via Hot Air.)

Drip, drip, drip.  In the latest Burris-Blago revelation, it turns out that Burris actually tried to raise money for Blagojevich.  (For those just joining us, that’s exactly what Blagojevich’s brother requested in the conversation that Burris tried to hide from investigators.)

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris now acknowledges attempting to raise money for ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich _ an explosive twist in his ever-changing story on how he landed a coveted Senate appointment from the man accused of trying to sell the seat.

Burris made the admission to reporters on Monday, after releasing an affidavit over the weekend saying he had more contact with Blagojevich aides about the Senate seat than he had described under oath to the state House panel that recommended Blagojevich’s impeachment. The Democrat also said in the affidavit, but not before the panel, that the governor’s brother asked him for fundraising help.

Though Burris insists he never raised money for Blagojevich while the governor was considering whom to appoint to the seat President Barack Obama vacated, the revelation that he had attempted to do so is likely to increase calls for Burris’ resignation and an investigation into whether he committed perjury before the panel. Illinois Democrats have forwarded documents related to Burris’ testimony to a county prosecutor for review.

It wasn’t until after he had already failed to organize a Blagojevich fundraiser that he made the “principled” decision not to raise money for Blagojevich.  I think we can declare Burris corrupt now.

(Previous post.)

When President Obama signs the “stimulus” boondoggle today, he will be breaking his “Daylight before signing” pledge again.  As a candidate, Obama promised to put bills on the White House web site for comment at least five days before signing them.  When he signs the “stimulus” bill today, it will be fewer than four days after it was passed by Congress.  Furthermore, so far as I can tell, the bill still doesn’t appear anywhere on the White House website.

President Obama will not be demeaning his “stimulus” bill with a mere White House signing ceremony.  That’s for mundane things, like Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, or the Camp David Accords.  No, he is flying to the Denver Museum of Science and Nature for the signing.

For a bill that’s all about government waste, I suppose it seems appropriate.

Roland Burris says it’s not his fault that he withheld information from an Illinois House panel:

Mr. Burris said that when he testified on Jan. 8, he said he was not provided with an opportunity to fully answer the panel’s questions. When he was asked if had talked with anyone, including six friends and aides close to the governor, about the appointment, he answered: “I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.”

Mr. Burris later mentioned Mr. Monk’s name but no one else’s.

On Sunday Mr. Burris said when he answered “yes” he meant he had spoken with most of those named. The Feb. 5 affidavit was his attempt to be thorough and transparent, he said. If Mr. Durkin had followed up during the hearing he would have offered more specifics, he said. But he did not, instead the line of questioning moved on and he followed it.

Burris’s justification does not stand up to scrutiny.  Chicago Sun-Time columnist Mark Brown looks through the transcript, and finds not just that one occasion but seven in which Burris was asked clearly but evaded the question:

• Did you talk to any members of the governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including, let me throw out some names — John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anybody . . . associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor’s arrest?
• Did you speak to anybody who was on the governor’s staff prior to the governor’s arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is closely related to the governor?
• You said that you had visited friends perhaps in September of ’08 or July of ’08 concerning a desire to perhaps be appointed as a senator if our president-elect was elected. And could you give me the names of those friends?
• And I just was wondering who those friends were.
• Was it Lon Monk, was that the extent of it was Lon Monk?
• So you don’t recall that there was anybody else besides Lon Monk that you expressed an interest to at that point?
• Is there anybody that comes to mind in that light that you can –

Burris says that he was not given the opportunity to answer fully.  That’s horseshit.  Seven times he was asked, and each time he found a way to respond that withheld the extent of his contacts, or was simply unresponsive (“I can’t recall,” disputing minutia, or changing the subject).

It appears that he never explicitly denies speaking to anyone other than Monk, but he does imply it, and he deliberately evades questions that explicitly probe that very question.  Not being a lawyer, I can’t say whether or not his deliberate evasion rises to the level of criminal perjury, but there’s no way to pretend he didn’t lie.

(Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: Yes, it’s perjury, if the Chicago Sun-Times has this right:

In a sworn statement filed with the House panel Jan. 5, before he testified, Burris said he had no contact with Blagojevich’s camp about the Senate seat aside from his appointment in late December.

(Via Best of the Web.)

There’s no way he can blame the House questioners for the sworn statement he supplied before his testimony.

(Previous post.)

Power Line is still tracking the story.  On Friday, the court issued a ruling that keeps Coleman’s hopes alive.

As the government’s deadline approaches, GM is putting the finishing touches on its plan for profitability.  The plan is for the government to keep giving GM money:

General Motors Corp., nearing a federally imposed deadline to present a restructuring plan, will offer the government two costly alternatives: commit billions more in bailout money to fund the company’s operations, or provide financial backing as part of a bankruptcy filing, said people familiar with GM’s thinking.

This is a good plan, from GM’s perspective.  For the rest of us, I think it’s time to post this again:

(Via Boing Boing.)

President Obama’s chief science adviser turns out to have quite a checkered past.  George Will’s recent column on environmental doomsaying makes an interesting observation in passing:

Speaking of experts, in 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a “basket” of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.

An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama’s science adviser.

(Via Power Line.)

One could hardly have been more entirely wrong than Paul Ehrlich.  I had not known of Holdren’s involvement with Ehrlich and the neo-Malthusian gang, but I should have.  Holdren, it turns out, was central to the gang, and he never abandoned that line of thought.

In 1995, he published a paper with Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily under the auspices of the United Nations.  That paper, now using the buzzword “sustainability”, refrained from making predictions (Holdren had learned something) but relied on the same thoroughly failed “I=PAT” framework from 1971.

President Obama has spoken about the danger of politicizing science, but Holdren’s 1995 paper was thoroughly political.  It calls for disarmament, international control of military force, and redistribution of wealth, as well as other uncontroversial political aims. Further, it specifically criticizes conservative political thought, listing among the “ills that development must address”

Underlying human frailties — Greed, selfishness, intolerance, and shortsightedness — which collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980 92) to the status of a credo.

This is the man President Obama has chosen to champion science against politicization.

The NY Times reports:

President Obama has dropped the idea of appointing a single, powerful “car czar” to oversee the revamping of General Motors and Chrysler and will instead keep the politically delicate task in the hands of his most senior economic advisers, a top administration official said Sunday night. . .

The automakers had been expecting the appointment of a car czar to break the logjam of negotiations with the United Auto Workers over the finances of a retiree health care trust, and with bondholders about reducing the companies’ debt. . .

Another senior administration official said that Mr. Obama had considered appointing a car czar, and among those considered for the job was the private equity executive Steven Rattner. It was not clear why the administration changed course or whether Mr. Rattner would have a role on the task force.

I’m not sure what to make of this. Not long ago, having a car czar was supposedly central to the whole plan. Now it’s dropped. Why? Here’s my guess (and it’s only a guess):

The car czar idea was asinine in the first place, but a panel doesn’t seem much better, and might be even worse in one regard. As the NY Times article points out, a car czar might have had some ability to “break the logjam” in negotiations for UAW concessions. (Those negotiations are troubled, to say the least.) Perhaps that’s the entire point.  This might be simply a payoff to the unions, giving them more strength in the negotiations.

Reuters reports:

President Barack Obama‘s aides warned Americans on Sunday not to expect instant miracles from the $787 billion economic stimulus bill he will sign this week, but said it would help eventually.

(Via Roger’s Rules, via Instapundit.)

“Eventually”?  When is eventually?  The Congressional Budget Office says it will hurt in the long run.

President Obama’s opposition to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine seems to be no longer operative.

The Wall Street Journal: Obama to Shift Focus to Budget Deficit.  Sure, why not?  I’ve got an idea where he can cut a trillion.

One good reason why it’s important for rank-and-file legislators to read a bill before voting on it is the leadership cannot be trusted.  (Via Jammie Wearing Fool, via Instapundit.)

Will any banks return the money?  Those who needed it won’t, but many banks were pressured to take the money, and some of those might.  Those who don’t return the money will devise new compensation plans.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports:

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s brother solicited U.S. Sen. Roland Burris for up to $10,000 in campaign cash before Blagojevich named Burris to the coveted post — something Burris initially failed to disclose under oath before an Illinois House impeachment panel, records and interviews show.

Burris (D-Ill.) acknowledges being hit up for the money in a new affidavit he has sent to the head of the House committee that recommended Blagojevich be removed from office.

The affidavit is dated Feb. 5 — three weeks after Burris was sworn in to replace President Obama in the Senate.

Burris — who did not give money to the Blagojevich campaign fund in response to the previously undisclosed solicitation — provided a copy of the sworn statement to the Chicago Sun-Times Friday in response to questions about his contacts with the Blagojevich camp about fund-raising.

Burris acknowledged having three conversations with Robert Blagojevich, who headed the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund — and one of those was likely recorded by the FBI.

Burris’ statement offers the third version of events he has given about his discussions concerning the Senate seat, to which Blagojevich appointed him in late December, after Blagojevich was hit with federal corruption charges that included an allegation he tried to sell the Senate appointment.

(Emphasis mine.) (Via Instapundit.)

At a minimum, Burris seems to be guilty of perjury here. He’s possibly also guilty of failure to report a corrupt solicitation. But, barring any additional revelations, it’s a sure bet that he’ll never be prosecuted.

When the Blagojevich scandal broke, the Illinois legislature was poised to take action to remove the governor’s power to appoint a replacement senator. That plan was scuttled due to the intervention of Harry Reid, who was afraid that the seat might end up in Republican hands. Reid hoped that a strongly worded letter would be enough to deter Blagojevich from making an appointment, which of course it was not.

To Reid, the integrity of the Senate was a second priority to maximizing the number of Democrats in it. As a direct result of that decision, the Senate has yet another ethically tainted member. That’s a price Reid was willing to pay, and indeed it’s one he had to pay to round up the necessary votes for the “stimulus” disaster.

The American Small Business League says that President Obama has broken a promise to help small businesses, and what’s more, revised his web site to make the promise disappear:

President Obama seemed to agree it was time to stop the fraud and abuse in federal small business contracting programs when, in February of 2008, he released the statement, “Small businesses are the backbone of our nation’s economy and we must protect this great resource. It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php)

Since making that statement almost a year ago, President Obama has consistently refused to make good on his campaign promise, and support legislation to stop Fortune 500 firms from hijacking federal contracts designated for America’s nearly 27 million small businesses.

Not only has President Obama refused to propose even a single policy to address the problem, but he actually changed his Web site to remove the appearance that he had ever made the statement, “It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/sbhome/)

(Via Riehl World View, via Instapundit.)

I can’t verify this claim, because the most recent Internet Archive crawl of the Obama campaign site to become available is dated February 20, 2008, before the statement was reportedly made.  At that point, there was no small business plan to speak of, scrubbed or no. Still, President Obama has scrubbed his web site before so the claim is eminently plausible.  This is why I use WebCite to archive any campaign promises I find interesting.

POSTSCRIPT: I don’t actually care much about this specific promise.  I don’t see why the government should have set-asides for small businesses (or anyone else). His promise to eliminate capital gains on small business and start-ups is much more important. When will that happen? It doesn’t seem to be in the trillion-dollar stimulus package, despite being one of the biggest things the government could do to stimulate the economy. Probably it never will happen, but at least it hasn’t been scrubbed yet.

Candidate Obama:

End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors: As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people’s trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. By making these practices public, the American people will be able to hold their leaders accountable for wasteful spending and lawmakers won’t be able to slip favors for lobbyists into bills at the last minute.

President Obama:

We’re receiving E-mails from Capitol Hill staffers expressing frustration that they can’t get a copy of the stimulus bill agreed to last night at a price of $789 billion. What’s more, staffers are complaining about who does have a copy: K Street lobbyists. E-mails one key Democratic staffer: “K Street has the bill, or chunks of it, already, and the congressional offices don’t. . .

Reporters pressing for details, meanwhile, are getting different numbers from different offices, especially when seeking the details of specific programs. Worse, there seem to be several different versions of what was agreed upon, with some officials circulating older versions of the package that seems to still be developing. Leadership aides said that it will work out later today and promised that lawmakers will get time to review the bill before Friday’s vote.

I doubt he’ll keep his “sunlight before signing” pledge with this bill either.

(Via Instapundit.) (Previous post.)