Internet Scofflaw

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.)

Memories fade, but for now, things aren’t looking good for Specter:

Senator Arlen Specter is one of only three Republicans to support the economic stimulus bill in Congress, and the latest Rasmussen Reports survey in Pennsylvania shows that his position is costing him support back home. . .

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Republican voters in the state are less likely to vote for Specter. . . Specter won re-election in 2004 by a 53% to 42% margin. However, he barely survived a conservative primary challenge from then-Congressman Pat Toomey. Even though he had the support of the state’s Republican establishment, Specter was able to defeat Toomey only by two points, 51% to 49%.

(Via the Corner.)

(Via Greg Mankiw, via Instapundit.)

Iowahawk reports:

MATHEMATICIANS DISCOVER LARGEST NUMBER

PALO ALTO, CA – An international mathematics research team announced today that they had discovered a new integer that surpasses any previously known value “by a totally mindblowing shitload.” Project director Yujin Xiao of Stanford University said the theoretical number, dubbed a “stimulus,” could lead to breakthroughs in fields as diverse as astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and Chicago asphalt contracting.

(Via Instapundit.)

There’s a long list of prominent Democrats under an ethical cloud, even if you set aside those who merely cheated on their taxes: Blagojevich (former Illinois governor), Richardson (New Mexico governor), Adams (Portland mayor), Perez (Hartford mayor), Kilpatrick (Detroit mayor), Dixon (Baltimore mayor), Dodd (Connecticut senator), Rangel (New York congressman), Murtha (Pennsylvania congressman), Moran (Virginia congressman), Visclosky (Illinois congressman).  To that you could add Cyril Wecht (Allegheny County coroner), and (obviously) William “cold cash” Jefferson.

Republicans have trouble too, of course, but most of theirs have been turned out of office.  On the Democratic side they’re not even losing committee chairmanships.

(Via Instapundit.)

Check this out.

David John tells a story that explains why Paulson and company changed their plan for the TARP money from purchasing “toxic” assets to capital infusions.  The story is little more than rumor, but it would explain a lot.

Another Bush administration policy will be continued by the Obama administration:

Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama’s choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.

She echoed comments by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States was at war with Al Qaeda and suggested the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges.

(Via Dissenting Justice, via Instapundit.)

Now that both the Solicitor General (to be) and Attorney General for President Obama have taken this sensible position, can we set aside the notion that holding POWs in a time of war somehow sets us on the slippery slope to fascism?

The members of the conference committee for the “stimulus” package have been named. Neither Specter, Collins, nor Snowe is on it.  This strikes me as a little strange, since passage depends on getting two of their three votes.  President Obama is pushing hard to restore all of the cuts made in the Senate bill, which Specter and Collins say would be unacceptable.

So how does this play out? My guess is the conference committee will restore most of the cuts in the Senate bill, while preserving the increases in the Senate bill.  Specter and the ladies from Maine will then have to decide whether to join a filibuster. My guess is they will not, and will grasp at some meaningless fig leaf to save face.

I further predict that Specter will decide to retire in 2010, rather than fight an uphill battle for the nomination from a very angry Republican party.

UPDATE: It looks like I guessed wrong, that the conference bill is ever-so-slightly less irresponsible than it might have been, but we’ll need to see the details to be sure.

Massachusetts is considering tracking the movements of all drivers in order to impose a per-mile tax on driving.  Oregon is considering a similar plan.  (Via Instapundit.)

Hard to believe that Massachusetts was once the cradle of the American revolution.  Someone ought to be tarred and feathered for this.

POSTSCRIPT: In Oregon’s case, they’re promising not to use the system to keep track of people’s movements. Is that supposed to comfort us? How long would that promise be kept? Not long, if the battle over firearms trace data is any indication.

A poll sponsored by the ADL shows that anti-Semitism is alive and well in Europe, and on the rise in many parts of it.  41% say that Jews have too much influence in financial markets.  A mind-boggling 74% of Spaniards say so, up from 68% in just two years.

(Via Barcepundit, via Instapundit.)

Tsippi Livni caps an impressive comeback to win the most seats in the Knesset, but is still the underdog to become prime minister.  On Intrade, Netanyahu has fallen from 80, but is still trading at 60.

I’m glad we have separation of powers in America.  Parliaments are silly.

UPDATE: More here.  And Intrade has Netanyahu back up into the 80s.

President Obama doesn’t like follow-up questions:

President Barack Obama’s first prime-time press conference was most remarkable for how he borrowed a page from his predecessor, refusing to accept follow-up questions. It might seem like a petty issue, but it was significant and telling that George W. Bush would not allow follow-up questions in his sessions with reporters. . .

In last night’s press conference, Obama cut off any attempt by reporters to follow up his answers to their questions. If he intends to maintain this Bush policy, reporters must work together and agree to ask the obvious follow-up to the previous question as they take their turns. Otherwise, these press conferences are nothing but one-sided speeches.

(Via LGF.)

The problem with this plan is it requires not just one journalist willing to ask a question unfavorable to President Obama, but the entire press corps to collaborate to ask a question unfavorable to the president. That seems very unlikely ever to happen.

President Obama orders, more or less, that most stimulus projects must use union labor.  (Via the Corner.)

The purpose of a labor union, like any monopoly, is to restrict supply in order to boost prices.  For labor, that means restricting employment in order to boost wages for those in the union.  Since the supposed purpose of the stimulus package is to create jobs, why would we require stimulus spending to go through organizations dedicated to cutting employment?  One might even get the idea that the purpose of the stimulus isn’t actually to create jobs, but to pay off political favors.

A new Rasmussen poll shows that 62% think the stimulus package should have more tax cuts and less government spending.  Only 34% see it the other way or like it as-is.  (Via Power Line.)

This is a little strange, because while most Americans agree with the Republican position, a Gallup poll says that more of them disapprove of the Republican handling of the issue.  Go figure.  (Via Hot Air.)

A few days ago, a Congressional Budget Office analysis showed that the “stimulus” package would hurt the economy in the long run.  Now, another CBO analysis shows that it’s not even necessary in the short run:

CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started in December 2007, will last until the second half of 2009.

Nevertheless, passing the package is so urgent we can’t even take some time to look at it.  Why is that exactly?

(Via Instapundit.)

More tax problems with Obama’s team, this time with Rahm Emanuel. This one isn’t so clear cut as the other four (!), and since the Chief of Staff doesn’t face confirmation, there are unlikely to be any sharp questions about it.  (The press would have to ask them. . .)

After a rocky start with tax-evading cabinet appointments and an unpopular stimulus bill, President Obama’s approval rating has slipped. According to Rasmussen, it now stands at 60%, still solid but now well within historical norms.  During the first two months of President Bush’s administration, his approval rating ranged between 57% and 63%, according to Gallup (Rasmussen didn’t exist back then).

Speaking of the unpopular stimulus bill, half of those polled now say it will make things worse, not better.  Only 37% say that’s unlikely.

Lost in all the talk of stimulus boondoggles is one important piece of news; the Administration is reportedly set to suspend mark-to-market rules.  Iain Murray has been worrying that the market rally that will follow will be taken as a endorsement of the stimulus disaster.  So a minor piece of good news is the Senate’s cloture vote is scheduled for 5:30 pm Monday; too late for it to take credit for anything that happens on the stock exchanges that day.

UPDATE: I should have seen this coming.  The announcement has been pushed back to Tuesday.

UPDATE: Never mind.  No announcement on mark-to-market after all.

Biden will be Biden:

The president and I were talking about something yesterday in the Oval Office — which, to the press here, I’ll not suggest what it was — but the response was to the folks that were in the office with us — was, you know, if we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, we stand up there and we make really tough decisions, there’s still a 30-percent chance we’re going to get it wrong.

(Via the Corner.)

Are they re-running the news now?

Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company under U.S. government control, will loosen rules for homeowners seeking to lower their loan payments by refinancing.

Fannie Mae will drop some credit-score requirements, reduce income-documentation standards and waive the need for appraisals in some cases, according to a notice yesterday to lenders posted on the Washington-based company’s Web site.

(Via For What It’s Worth, via Instapundit.)

Wow.  It’s rare that government irresponsibility actually manages to surprise me.  But I suppose it makes sense for Fannie, since bailouts are part of their business model now.

A parody of supply-side economics is “any tax cut at all stimulates the economy.”  As far as I’m aware, no one important has ever actually said that.  A supply-side economist would say that tax cuts must be crafted to encourage work, investment, and entrepreneurship.  Lower marginal income tax rates and lower capital gains taxes fit the bill.

A comparable parody of liberal economics would be “any government spending at all stimulates the economy.”  That is equally foolish, but at least one person has said it.  President Obama:

So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That’s the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That’s the point. (Applause.)

(Via Power Line.)

It’s right there in black and white: any spending is stimulus.

POSTSCRIPT: Closer to the truth would be “no government stimulus at all stimulates the economy.”  Economist Robert Barro has calculated the so-called multiplier to be “insignificantly different from zero.”

President Obama faces adversity for the first time, and he doesn’t much care for it:

Frustrated by Republican unity against his economic-stimulus plan, President Barack Obama toughened his rhetoric Thursday and moved to wield his personal popularity to overcome opposition in Congress.

Mr. Obama’s recent courtship of Republicans gave way to blunt derision of their ideas for the stimulus, as he tried to raise the political pressure to pass a measure with a price tag of over $900 billion in the Senate.

Republican proposals are “rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems, that government doesn’t have a role to play, that half measures and tinkering are somehow enough, that we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges,” the president said in an address at the Department of Energy Thursday. “Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed.”

Set aside the straw men (name one person who says any of those things!) and consider the strangeness of this.  Democrats have the votes to do whatever they want, so what does it matter what Republicans think?  Republicans matter because the stimulus package is deeply unpopular, and the Democrats want political cover.  The stimulus package is deeply unpopular because he is losing the debate, and he is losing the debate because it is a very, very bad bill.

If the President really believed this bill was a winner, he would push it through without any Republican votes and happily claim credit.  He knows it’s not, so he’s trying to change the subject from the crapulence of the bill to anything else (Rush Limbaugh, evil Republicans, or a host of economic straw men).

I think the President is making a political mistake.  We know by now that few in Congress (Democrat or Republican) have any real principles.  The Republicans are standing strong because they are winning the debate.  If public opinion turns against them, they’ll wilt overnight, but as long as they hold public opinion, they won’t be bullied.  If President Obama wants to win Republican votes he needs to win the debate, and if he wins the debate, he won’t need those Republican votes any more.  Either way, he ought to be making the case for the bill, not trying to personalize it.

POSTSCRIPT: President Obama might be suffering from a bad habit learned during the campaign.  During the campaign, personalizing everything worked, because he could tie everything (fairly or not) to an unpopular president.  Now he is the president, and he doesn’t have an unpopular opposing counterpart to blame.  (I don’t think Limbaugh will cut it for him.)  He has to lead now, and he hasn’t learned to do it yet.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) plans to have hearings on reimposing the Fairness Doctrine:

I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

Let’s just take this at face value.  She wants to bring “accountability to the airwaves” and put “standards” in place.  That means only one thing.  The government should control what people can say; free speech be damned.

Jonah Goldberg explains:

Remember what passes for a “cut” in Washington. Any decrease in the rate of increase counts as reduced spending. If you spend 20 percent more this year than you did last year, that’s a spending increase. But next year, that additional 20 percent is part of the baseline. And if your budget grows by “only” an additional ten percent, you’ve just “drastically cut” spending! 

The stimulus bill was designed to give Democrats maximum maneuvering room. It would increase non-defense discretionary spending by more than 80 percent in a single year, in a single bill! Moving forward, they could grow government by smaller percentages while seeming to be responsible budget balancers. By putting chips on every square of social spending, they could let it ride for years to come.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: President Obama’s Chief of Staff put it this way:  “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. . . [It gives you] an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

In a minor but significant potential victory for federalism, President Obama indicates that he will end federal raids of marijuana shops that are legal under state law, once he has a new DEA director in place. (Via Volokh.)

I’m going to wait and see that it actually happens, but it’s a good sign that this promise hasn’t gone down the memory hole.

UPDATE (2/16/2010): The promise may not have gone down the memory hole, but it doesn’t seem to have been kept either.

The stimulus package has a $2 billion earmark for Rod Blagojevich.

So says an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:

President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

(Via Instapundit.)

The surprising thing isn’t that the stimulus package hurts the economy.  That’s been obvious since Inauguration Day at least.  The surprising thing is even the CBO’s model shows it.

I can’t believe I’m doing another “taxpayers are chumps” post. Do any of these people pay taxes?

A Senate committee today abruptly canceled a session to consider President Obama’s nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis to be labor secretary in the wake of a report saying that her husband yesterday paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business — including liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.

(Via Instapundit.)

The latest is Leon Panetta:

The White House’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has earned more than $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008, with some of the payments coming from troubled financial firms and from a firm that invests in contractors for federal national security agencies, according to financial disclosures released Wednesday. . .

The former White House chief of staff’s disclosure form also shows the delicate balance President Barack Obama is trying to strike — trying to curb the influence of lobbyists, while relying on Washington veterans who often help clients navigate the halls of power. Mr. Panetta’s forms show that he performed government affairs consulting last year and also sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. Like Mr. Daschle, who also worked for a firm with lobbying clients, Mr. Panetta doesn’t violate Mr. Obama’s ban on hiring registered lobbyists.

Like Daschle, Panetta is not a registered lobbyist, he merely uses his contacts to influence policy on behalf of clients.

Candidate Obama:

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

President Obama:

Obama appears poised to break his campaign pledge to give the public five days to review a bill before he signs it.

Obama scheduled a bill signing for 4:35 p.m. Wednesday, even though the House has yet to vote on the legislation expanding a children’s health insurance program. The legislation is expected to win final approval only hours before the president will make it law. . .

Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act only two days after it received final passage last week, and it wasn’t posted on the White House website until after it became law.

(Via Instapundit.)

The bill has now been signed, so the pledge has already been violated twice. In fact, as far as I’m aware, those are the only two bills that have been sent to the President thus far.

The “sunlight before signing” principle was just one of several ethical principles promised by candidate Obama that have already been violated or are on the verge of it. A few more from the same web page are:

• Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers: No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.
• Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.
• Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics: Obama will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution.

Several top appointments have already violated the lobbyist pledge. As far as executive orders go, it’s always possible he’ll still issue them eventually, but after two weeks in office the President has already issued the executive orders that are important to him.

UPDATE: We plan to live up to our ethical standards very, very soon. Heh.

Nancy Pelosi:

Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.

At that pace, unemployment would hit 100% in eight days.

Rasmussen reports that public support for the stimulus package has fallen into negative territory.  The public now opposes the measure by a 43-37 margin.  Public support has fallen steadily since Rasmussen began polling the issue on Inauguration Day.

(Via Instapundit.) (Previous post.)

If Christopher Dodd (D-CT) were innocent of wrongdoing regarding his “Friends of Angelo” Countrywide mortgage, he could clear his name whenever he wants by releasing the documents.  More than six months ago, he pledged to do just that.  But, for reasons that remain unclear (unclear, that is, if he’s innocent), he hasn’t done so.  His recent decision to give up the mortgage did little to quell the pressure, particularly since interest rates being now near historic lows means it costs him very little to do so.

So, Dodd is trying a new tack.  He allowed a few journalists to see the documents (over 100 pages of them), but only for a few minutes and they were not permitted to make copies.  Moreover, no journalists from the Washington D.C. beat were among the selected few.

Is this how innocent people behave?

(Via Instapundit.)

The London Times reports:

The European Union warned the US yesterday against plunging the world into depression by adopting a planned “Buy American” policy, intensifying fears of a trade war.

The EU threatened to retaliate if the US Congress went ahead with sweeping measures in its $800 billion (£554 billion) stimulus plan to restrict spending to American goods and services. . .

Last night Mr Obama gave a strong signal that he would remove the most provocative passages from the Bill.

“I agree that we can’t send a protectionist message,” he said in an interview with Fox TV. “I want to see what kind of language we can work on this issue. I think it would be a mistake, though, at a time when worldwide trade is declining, for us to start sending a message that somehow we’re just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade.”

(Via the Corner.)

A rise in protectionism would have been the worst thing that could happen at this juncture.  We’ve seen where that goes.  President Obama gets credit for playing the grown-up.  Sooner would have been better, but this was soon enough to avert a crisis.  On the other hand, there seems to be no limit to the fecklessness of Congressional Democrats.  Do these fools study history at all?

It’s not just Republicans that are upset about being shut out of crafting legislation:

A group of more than 50 House Democrats has penned a letter to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) imploring him to “restore this institution” and see that the House returns to a “regular order” process of legislating.

The letter, signed by a large number of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition and the centrist New Democratic Coalition, has not yet been sent. Members are still gathering signatures in an effort to send the strongest signal possible to all top House Democrats that the caucus is up in arms over the top-down method of legislating employed by Democrats since late last year. . .

Since last year, many senior House Democrats — many of them subcommittee chairmen — have grown overly frustrated with how only small and select bands of legislators have been responsible for writing bills, such as the $700 billion Wall Street bailout as well as much of the $819 billion economic stimulus bill.

Democratic leaders have acknowledged that the “regular order” process of methodically developing and writing bills in subcommittees and committees has been abandoned recently. But they have defended the handling of such sensitive and important legislation by only an exclusive group of leadership and senior lawmakers as a necessary tactic during exceptional times.

(Via Hot Air.)

Ah yes, exceptional times.  Aren’t they always.

President Obama’s pledge to bar lobbyists from his administration has been shown to be a complete fraud:

President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House.”

So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico.

Obama aides did not challenge the the list of lobbyists appointed to administration jobs, but they stressed that former lobbyists comprise a fraction of the more than 8,000 employees who will be hired by the new administration. And they pointed out that before Obama made his campaign-trail promise, he issued a more complete – and more nuanced – policy on former lobbyists.

Formalized in a recent presidential executive order, it forbids executive branch employees from working in an agency, or on a program, for which they have lobbied in the last two years.

Yet in the past few days, a number of exceptions have been granted, with the administration conceding at least two waivers and that a handful of other appointees will recuse themselves from dealing with matters on which they lobbied within the two-year window.

(Emphasis mine.) (Via Hot Air.)

Full list (as of today) at the link.

I suppose this is largely moot now that Daschle has withdrawn his nomination, but it turns out that he still hasn’t paid all his back taxes:

It became clear on Monday that Mr. Daschle was responsible for thousands of dollars in additional unpaid taxes related to his use of the car service, even after already paying $140,000 in taxes and interest. He has acknowledged that he owes Medicare taxes equal to 2.9 percent of the personal value of the car service he received from Leo Hindery Jr., a big Democratic donor and founder of a private equity firm to which Mr. Daschle was an adviser. Mr. Daschle’s failure to pay Medicare taxes on the income was discovered by the Finance Committee.

(Via the Corner.)

A new Gallup poll shows that support for the stimulus package has slipped further.  Although most still want some kind of stimulus package passed, 54% reject the current bill.  Only 38% support it, down from a majority just one week ago.

Another Gallup poll shows that Americans oppose President Obama’s first two executive orders.  By a 58-35 margin, Americans oppose his order reversing the Mexico City policy, thereby allowing the government to spend money for abortions abroad.  And, by a 50-44 margin, Americans oppose his order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison.  The latter result is despite enormous positive response from the media.

Nevertheless, the President’s job approval has weakened only slightly, and stands at 66%.

Over the last couple of weeks, Vice-President Biden has treated us to an inconsequential but amusing soap opera.  He first mocked Chief Justice Roberts for flubbing President Obama’s oath of office, then apologized, then denied that he apologized.  Today, in a hilarious coda to the story, Biden flubbed the oath of office for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Oh geez.  This is getting silly:

Nancy Killefer on Tuesday withdrew her nomination to become chief performance officer, a new post in President Obama’s administration, a White House spokesman told CNN.

Officials said privately the reason for the withdrawal was unspecified tax issues.

The withdrawal is an embarrassment to the White House, as the much-touted post was aimed at scrubbing the federal budget.

(Via Instapundit.)

Now that she’s withdrawing her name, I wonder if she’ll pay whatever she owes.  We’ll never know.

UPDATE: It seems the amount at issue in Killefer’s case is only about $300 ($950 with interest and penalties), much less than Geithner, Daschle, Rangel, Franken, etc.  (Via Volokh.)  I wonder why she was the first to take a fall.

Christopher Dodd is going to refinance his sweetheart mortgage:

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, whose two mortgages with a troubled lender are under a Senate ethics investigation, said Monday he will refinance them.

Sen. Dodd said he sought no special treatment from Countrywide Financial Corp., when he refinanced his Washington and East Haddam, Conn., homes in 2003. Sen. Dodd has acknowledged participating in a VIP program at Countrywide, which he thought referred to upgraded customer service, not reduced rates. . .

The bank, a leading subprime lender at the center of the mortgage meltdown, was sold to Bank of America Corp. last year and has been the focus of allegations that it gave favorable loan terms to lawmakers. . .

Sen. Dodd, whose committee has oversight over the mortgage and banking industries, faced heavy criticism in his home state for not releasing details of his mortgages when the controversy erupted last year. . .

The terms of the mortgages are under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee.

“I just wanted to put this behind us,” said Sen. Dodd, speaking to reporters in his Hartford office. . .

Sen. Dodd played a key role in crafting the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan, which allows the government to spend billions of dollars to buy bad mortgage-related securities and other devalued assets from troubled financial institutions.

(Via the Corner, via Instapundit.)

Is “I’ll give it back” a defense for bribery now?

RedState notices that the Senate’s “stimulus” bill would channel $90 million to two liberal activist groups, under the guise of digital TV transition.  (Via Instapundit.)

I’d be very surprised if this were all of it.  I’m reminded of the Canadian sponsorship scandal, in which $100 million (Canadian) was channeled to liberal partisans with the intent of promoting the Liberal party at the polls.  The Canadian Liberals weren’t as clever, though.  They foolishly tried to hide that $100 million within a $250 million program, rather than a $1.2 trillion program.

The Wall Street Journal sums up the Dodd scandal in one sentence: “Rare is the politician who could clear his name overnight and chooses not to.”  Yep.

(Via Instapundit.)

Democrats are outraged that Wall Street firms gave $18 billion in bonuses last year.  President Obama called it the height of irresponsibility.  Christopher Dodd (who still won’t honor his promise to release his loan documents) has even vowed to confiscate those bonuses somehow.  It’s ridiculous that an industry that did so badly, and required taxpayer money to stay afloat, would give itself bonuses amounting to about $100k per employee or so.

But another enterprise that did even worse last year is giving itself $93k more per member: the US Congress.  Congress has voted to give itself a $93k increase in annual petty cash (that’s walking-around money members can spend in their districts to ensure perpetual incumbency).  (Via LGF.)  The coincidence in the two numbers is striking but illusory.  The Congressional figure is just the increase; the total figure is in the millions.

While the Democrats push a preposterous 1.2 trillion “stimulus” boondoggle (filled with not only pork, but every liberal hobby horse), more than quadrupling the deficit in a single year, they plan to cut defense spending by 10%.

Tax-and-spend, check.  Weak on defense, check.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: The story is not so simple, after all.  Hot Air says the “cut” is in the usual sense of Washington double-speak: a cut relative to the proposed increase.  In the real world, it’s as much as an 8% increase.  It may be that the larger figure determined by the Joint Chiefs’ is necessary, and it certainly isn’t as though the rest of the government is being asked to limit its spending, but it’s much harder to get outraged about this than for a real cut.  I think President Obama is off the hook.

Still, I would like to see the Democrats be forced to stand up and make this case.  They have historically prattled on about Republican spending cuts (I wish!) where there were actually only cuts to proposed increases.  I would like to see them admit that an increase is not a cut.  But it’s doubtful that the media will press them on this.

Rod Blagojevich: I did it for the children.

It’s not just the tax evasion:

Tom Daschle, tapped to be President Obama’s health czar, was paid more than $200,000 by the health-care industry in the past two years, according to documents obtained by Politico.

The former Senate majority leader, who gave speeches to firms and groups with a vested-interest in the administration’s upcoming health reform, collected the checks as part of a $5 million windfall after he lost reelection to his South Dakota seat. . .

For instance, the Health Industry Distributors Association plunked down $14,000 to land the former Senate Democratic leader in March 2008. The association, which represents medical products distributors, boasts on its website that Daschle met with it after he was nominated to discuss “the impact an Obama administration will have on the industry.”

This week, the group began openly lobbying him, sending him a letter urging him to rescind a rule requiring competitive bidding of Medicare contracts.

Scrappleface reports:

Obama Plan Has Already Boosted IRS Tax Collections

In office less than two weeks, President Barack Obama has already increased tax receipts at the U.S. Treasury with an innovative plan to get tax-dodgers to pay up, in full, immediately.

“The president’s plan is simple but ingenious,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, “He targets wealthy individuals who filed inaccurate tax forms, cheating the government out of tens of thousands of dollars. Then he just nominates them for cabinet positions. They suddenly see the error of their ways, and they cut checks for the full amount owed, plus interest.”

(Via Instapundit.)  Heh.

It’s getting hard to keep track of the Democrats who don’t like to pay their taxes.  Tom Daschle is the latest. Weren’t we told recently that avoiding taxes is unpatriotic?

UPDATE and BUMP: It’s even worse than it sounds.  Ed Whelan notes the chronology:  On June 5, the Obama campaign floated the possibility of Daschle as HHS Secretary.  Then, sometime during June, Daschle told his staff that “something made him think that the car service might be taxable and he disclosed the arrangement to his accountant.”  Coincidence?  This doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Even then, Daschle didn’t actually pay his taxes until January 2, over three weeks after he was nominated on December 11.