After intelligence gathered at Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan revealed al-Qaida thought about attacking trains in the United States, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said that like we do for airplanes, the name of anyone who rides a train should be checked against a "no-ride" list.
Of course, if you look at the ridership numbers, it would appear that the vast majorities of Americans are already on some sort of "no ride" list.
And looking at the numbers and the sure-fire money loser that Amtrak has become, if we simply get rid of Amtrak, we save tax-payer dollars and eliminate a terrorist threat. It's a win-win, people!
We've taken Amtrak twice - both times up to Orange County from down here in San Diego and aside from the bar car, there was no inherent advantage that we saw to taking the train.
You may be familiar with our preferred mode of transportation...
We're tight with the director of operations as well as the chief security officer, so matters such as departure/arrival times and any such "no ride" lists have never been an issue.
... or how statism eventually swallowed itself whole.
Let's hit the way back machine, shall we, to just over two years ago when Congressional hearings were being held with respect to just how Porkulus (or in more civil circles, the American Recovery Act, was going to be shaped.
Dr. Robert Reich and Rep. Chuckie Rangel, the floor is yours:
.
.
.
So, what do we have: "high social return"... "white male construction workers" (not so much)... "the long-termed unemployed, minorities and women"... "formulas and criterias" (i.e. mandated wealth redistribution), etc., etc...
Last November, President-elect Obama addressed the devastation in the construction and manufacturing industries by proposing an ambitious New Deal-like program to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. He called for a two-year "shovel ready" stimulus program to modernize roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, public transportation, and dams and made reinvigorating the hardest-hit sectors of the economy the goal of the legislation that would become the recovery act.
Women's groups were appalled. Grids? Dams? Opinion pieces immediately appeared in major newspapers with titles like "Where are the New Jobs for Women?" and "The Macho Stimulus Plan." A group of "notable feminist economists" circulated a petition that quickly garnered more than 600 signatures, calling on the president-elect to add projects in health, child care, education, and social services and to "institute apprenticeships" to train women for "at least one third" of the infrastructure jobs. At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Obama not to favor a "heavily male-dominated field" like construction: "We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges." As soon as these groups became aware of each other, they formed an anti-stimulus plan action group called WEAVE--
Women's Equality Adds Value to the Economy.
Taken in toto and given the apparent stated priorities in crafting the legislation for Porkulus, is it any wonder it failed spectacularly? This was never really about jobs or maybe it was but only in as much as those jobs were created for the purpose of a "high social return", whatever the hell that means.
Listen again to Rangel: he isn't interested in job creation but rather kickbacks to his constituents.
Porkulus will forever stand as a near $1 trillion monument to tax-payer-funded give-aways from the ruling class to the favored-status class.
It's interesting to note both Rangel and Reich whining about those pesky state legislators. State legislators and a dense and complex web of bureaucracies and regulations set up by the same that are blocking the money from getting to where Rangel and Reich, er... the formulas and criterias determine.
Imagine that: the statists' dream of "stimulating" a recessed economy via demand-side Keynesian economics completely choked off by a bureacratic and regulatory regime built-up over the years by the very same statists.
* The photo was taken while traveling through southern Colorado last fall. If you enlarge it you can make out a signal man on the right hand side of the road and a signal man in the distance for traffic coming in the opposite direction. One problem: there was no work going on. Zip. Zero. Nada. Two dudes slowing traffic down for no reason whatsoever. Right before we came up on them, we were greeted by one those Porkulus road signs.
In our mind, this picture remains the enduring image of Porkulus.
One in a series that takes a look at some of the zany and madcap things said by Sarah Palin.
"We have to pay for unemployment insurance, we don't have to pay for tax cuts for the rich," Sarah Palin said. "Tax cuts do not create jobs. They haven't throughout the Bush administration. Unemployment insurance creates jobs and does not add to the deficit."
"Extending unemployment insurance benefits is not only a critical form of economic security for American families, but also a key source of fiscal stimulus that has the potential to ease pressure on the labor market by stimulating economic growth," the report said.
Of course, Sarah Palin didn't say these things but rather the first paragraph fell from the lips of that glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, Nancy Pelosi and the second paragraph was from something called the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress which despite its bipartisan-sounding name is chaired by two New York Democrats, Carolyn B. Maloney and Chuckie Schumer.
Sarah Palin could string together a quantity of gaffes that would stretch from her back yard to Russia and still not come close to uttering anything as clueless and demonstrating such an astounding misunderstanding of basic economics as Pelosi, Maloney and Schumer displayed just there.
So, just what is it with liberals roughing up people in public?
This summer we had the purple people-beaters of the SEIU smack around Kenneth Gladney at a Tea Party rally in St. Louis (btw, because this beat-down was clearly politically-motivated and because Gladney is black (a liberal two-fer!) why isn’t this case being prosecuted under hate-crime statutes?).
Now, we’ve got a Martha Coakley supporter shoving to the ground a Weekly Standard reporter who dared ask the candidate for Ted Kennedy’s vacated Senate seat a question after her fundraiser in Washington. Coakley is currently locked up in a tight one with Mass. state senator, Republican Scott Brown. The shover turned out to be a Dem Party operative, Michael Meehan. Follow links for full story here.
And Chuckie Schumer (D-NY) weighs in on the closely contested battle with a plea for donors that starts off with this:
I got the message below from Ted Kennedy's widow, Vicki, and I wanted to make sure you saw it.
Martha Coakley is running to fill the rest of Ted Kennedy's term, and her opponent is a far-right tea-bagger Republican.
It would be bad enough to lose this seat -- and Democrats' sixtieth vote in the Senate -- right before the final health care reform vote. But it would be even worse for the decisive "no" vote to come from Ted Kennedy's old seat.
But, of course - the obligatory “tea-bagger” reference and a call by proxy from the grave. Jeezus! Can you all just let the man rest in peace?
Things are grim right now in Massachusetts, very grim indeed.
So, how’s that credit card reform working for ya? About as well as one would expect when the credit card companies are being faced with restrictions on pricing and other rules that prohibit setting credit terms based on the borrower’s individual risk profile.
Banks such as Chase, Bank of America, Capitol One, and Citigroup are doing everything from raising balance-transfer fees and expanding who gets hit with a penalty interest rate to establishing higher minimum APRs and raising card rates for certain borrowers.
Of course, Senators Charles Schumer (pictured) and Chris Dodd are shocked, absolutely shocked that banks would attempt to recoup potential losses in anticipation of tightening down revenue streams that will take effect in February of 2010. They have been unsuccessful to date in getting federal regulators to impose an “emergency freeze” on rate increases.
In a statement Monday, Schumer slammed issuers for trying to "wring more dollars out of their customers." Some of the changes in card terms, Schumer says, are "against the spirit of the law and ... just plain wrong."
In Chuckie’s fantasy world, the Banks will tell their board members and shareholders that they are voluntarily accepting a cut in revenue and profit margins because “it’s in the spirit of the law…. and is the right thing to do.”
This represents another example of counter-productive congressional meddling into affairs in which they have no business. It’s the law of unintended consequences that will dictate the cost of protecting bad credit risks being borne by the proverbial little guy who is a responsible credit card holder.
Look, we fully realize that credit card companies haven't exactly behaved like angels in this whole affiar, so as ones who have managed a very solid middle-class lifestyle here in San Diego without the assistance of a credit card for 12 years… we highly recommend it.
Posts
