To my loyal readers (both of you):
I've been overwhelmed with questions from some (read: one) of you about the nickname I used to describe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Democrat from the mythical 666th Congressional district where money evidently grows on trees). As memory serves (from yesterday) I referred to her as Nancy "the $600 Stimulator" Pelosi. Understandably some of you thought that this was some sort of suggestion that I believe her to be a moderately priced call girl specializing in things that I won't specifically mention for fear of alienating my valued Conservative base. It is an election year after all, I have to keep myself on a short leash.
I want to set the record straight here and now, to reassure my readers, and Ms. Pelosi's legal team that I was in no way implying that the Speaker of the House sells her body for money. Quite to the contrary actually, Pelosi sells the financial future of our nation.
To her credit, the Speaker doesn't do this to enrich herself, she's wealthy enough that she doesn't need the money, but instead to further her political aspirations. As Speaker of the House since early 2007, she has mostly ignored the law that requires all new spending to be accounted for with either commensurate spending cuts elsewhere in the budget, or new tax revenues. There have been many versions of this law over the years, but the general philosophy behind them all is known as "PAYGO"- short for "Pay as you Go." More information on the language of it can be found by going to http://www.thomas.gov/ and searching H.CON.RES.99. I wouldn't recommend it though, tyring to find the real meaning in the text of modern laws is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. And at the risk of briefly derailing my train of thought, I suspect that this is by design sadly. It's a lot easier to pass crumby laws if no one knows how to interpret them.
Back to business. The fact that a legislator has ignored the law is not by itself particularly remarkable, but what does make it remarkable is that this is legislation that Congresswoman Pelosi sponsored as part of the federal budget for the 2008 fiscal year. The press release from the Speaker's office regarding the law can be found here:
http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0122
The most blatant example of her failure to obey her own rules is the Economic Stimulus act of 2008, passed into law earlier this year and sponsored in chief by the Speaker.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:1:./temp/~bd0bGa:@@@L&summ2=m&/bss/d110query.html
We've all heard about this in the news, essentially the government is sending everyone either $600, $1200, or $2400 depending on your relative fertility and/or aversion to contraceptives. What the law doesn't do, however, is explain what spending cuts or new revenues will subsidize this $152 billion handout that is conveniently being distributed right before an election. The speaker avoided illegalities by passing it as an emergency spending measure, which do not have to comply with the the spending rules agreed to when the budget for that year was passed. Essentially, the federal budgetary process is not unlike my own efforts to budget my personal finances, I set rules, and break them almost immediately.
Maddeningly, emergency spending measures are not exclusively used in emergencies, in fact the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been almost entirely paid for out of emergency spending bills. As a result of all this excess spending the nation has spiraled into over $9 trillion worth of public debt. More information on our public debt can be found at the website for my Congressman, Representative Michael Capuano, whom I'd like to take the opportunity to show some love to for practicing the congressional version of 'keepin' it real' by being honest with the American public about the grim state of our nation's finances. Shout out to Big Mike.
http://www.house.gov/capuano/
What I don't understand is how a blip in the economy constitutes an emergency to Ms. Pelosi. I am well aware that there are many people out there who are losing their homes- but this is not due to an under-performing economy so much as it's a result of dumb bankers making bad loans to people with bad credit, people with good credit treating their home equity like a cash machine, and people buying more house than they can afford. Despite assertions by the talking heads on cable news, we are not yet in a recession. We experienced market corrections in the housing and stock markets at the same time and everyone panicked and yelled "recession", but if those talking heads actually paid attention to the print media they'd see that the economy actually grew in the first quarter of this year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30econ.html?scp=1&sq=economic+growth&st=nyt
Seeing as how the most common definition of an economic recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, I fail to see how our current economic situation qualifies as such, let alone an emergency. So Nancy Pelosi decided to put the nation a further $152 billion in debt because a lot of people think we're in a recession, not because we actually are. Well Nance, hindsight's always 20/20 I guess right? I mean, how could you, the third most powerful elected official in government, be expected to consider facts and figures and stuff when deciding how to use our national credit card?
Sarcasm aside, anyone recall hearing about how much the value of the dollar has lost against other world currencies over the past few years? Perhaps this will explain why that's happening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Risks_to_the_U.S._dollar
To be fair, Speaker Pelosi is not entirely to blame for all our debt, this miserable state of affairs is due to years of bad governance on the part of all our elected representatives. But if we're going to fix it, it has to start with the Speaker of the House. Put the credit card away Ms. Pelosi. You don't need to send us all $600 to get us to vote for a Democrat for President. George "is it January 20th yet?" W. Bush is doing a fine job of that without you. Stop saddling our children and grandchildren with debt just to secure the Democratic Party's position as the marginally less despised political party in America.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Farm-Barrel Politics
Well as the campaign season comes into full swing here with only 5 months left until the first Tuesday in November, the Presidential candidates and their surrogates in the House of Shame (known to us as the United States Congress) have stepped up PANDER-monium 2008 and brought us the semi-annual holy grail of bad policy: The Farm Bill!
For those of you who are unaware of just how ridiculous the terms of this legislation are, some good references can be found here: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11412562
In short, world food demand- and as a result, prices- are at inflation-adjusted record highs and yet somehow, House Speaker Nancy "The $600 Stimulator" Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry "Empty Suit" Reid felt the need to lavish the agricultural industry with handouts. Am I the only one who thinks that if prices are at record highs, the industry should have no issue making profits without taxpayer assistance?
Sadly, this is the type of behavior I'd expect from a Democratic majority in Congress- but the ridiculous aspect to this is that the Republicans in both houses (who routinely deride their Democratic colleagues over welfare and other government handouts) backed this bill as well. So much so that it passed into law despite a veto from President "it took me 7 years to find my inner fiscal conservative" Bush. Perhaps there was something in it for the Republicans as well?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16fri3.html?scp=5&sq=farm%20bill&st=cse
Oh of course, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican of Kentucky) gets a hunk of taxpayer money to support racehorse breeding in his home state. I suppose this bill is a win-win if you're a member of the US Congress (about a fifth of whom are millionaires) but a lose-lose if you're a taxpaying citizen of the United States....most of whom are not millionaires.
But the hits keep on coming ladies and gentlemen, because not only does this bill screw over the middle class in this country, it completely fucks the impoverished peoples of the world who in this time of record high prices can no longer afford to feed themselves... Why? Because when our super-subsidized food hits the export markets and winds up in impoverished countries, local farmers (who do not qualify for U.S. farm subsidies) cannot compete with the cost of the imported American food and are literally put out of business when they can't sell their locally produced food. As a result, poor nations the world over have consistently lost the ability to feed themselves as local farmers go bankrupt- and then everyone becomes even more hopelessly dependent on subsidized American food exports. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what's known as a Vicious Circle.
And if that weren't bad enough?
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20080529&id=8704389
The Associated Press piece linked above is another good example of why this legislation is bad for all Americans. Farm subsidies are always the most hotly contested issue at any round of WTO negotiations and almost always prevents significant advances in the goal of reducing barriers to globalization and free trade- which contrary to what some dope-smoking, latte-drinking hippie from Seattle will tell you, is the best way to improve the lives of people in both developed economies as well as developing economies. As JFK opined more than 40 years ago, "a rising tide lifts all boats."
In this foggy-headed blogger's opinion, anything that prevents the tide from rising and gouges the taxpayer at the same time is shit policy.
Post Script: More information on this inherently communist agricultural policy, including what other multibillion dollar industries get handouts and who voted for it (Spoiler alert! Barack "Yes We Can continue to gouge the taxpayer" Obama voted for it, John McCain voted against it) you can go to http://www.thomas.gov/ and search "H.R. 6124" and "H.R. 2419" to see special interest governance at it's worst.
For those of you who are unaware of just how ridiculous the terms of this legislation are, some good references can be found here: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11412562
In short, world food demand- and as a result, prices- are at inflation-adjusted record highs and yet somehow, House Speaker Nancy "The $600 Stimulator" Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry "Empty Suit" Reid felt the need to lavish the agricultural industry with handouts. Am I the only one who thinks that if prices are at record highs, the industry should have no issue making profits without taxpayer assistance?
Sadly, this is the type of behavior I'd expect from a Democratic majority in Congress- but the ridiculous aspect to this is that the Republicans in both houses (who routinely deride their Democratic colleagues over welfare and other government handouts) backed this bill as well. So much so that it passed into law despite a veto from President "it took me 7 years to find my inner fiscal conservative" Bush. Perhaps there was something in it for the Republicans as well?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16fri3.html?scp=5&sq=farm%20bill&st=cse
Oh of course, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican of Kentucky) gets a hunk of taxpayer money to support racehorse breeding in his home state. I suppose this bill is a win-win if you're a member of the US Congress (about a fifth of whom are millionaires) but a lose-lose if you're a taxpaying citizen of the United States....most of whom are not millionaires.
But the hits keep on coming ladies and gentlemen, because not only does this bill screw over the middle class in this country, it completely fucks the impoverished peoples of the world who in this time of record high prices can no longer afford to feed themselves... Why? Because when our super-subsidized food hits the export markets and winds up in impoverished countries, local farmers (who do not qualify for U.S. farm subsidies) cannot compete with the cost of the imported American food and are literally put out of business when they can't sell their locally produced food. As a result, poor nations the world over have consistently lost the ability to feed themselves as local farmers go bankrupt- and then everyone becomes even more hopelessly dependent on subsidized American food exports. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what's known as a Vicious Circle.
And if that weren't bad enough?
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20080529&id=8704389
The Associated Press piece linked above is another good example of why this legislation is bad for all Americans. Farm subsidies are always the most hotly contested issue at any round of WTO negotiations and almost always prevents significant advances in the goal of reducing barriers to globalization and free trade- which contrary to what some dope-smoking, latte-drinking hippie from Seattle will tell you, is the best way to improve the lives of people in both developed economies as well as developing economies. As JFK opined more than 40 years ago, "a rising tide lifts all boats."
In this foggy-headed blogger's opinion, anything that prevents the tide from rising and gouges the taxpayer at the same time is shit policy.
Post Script: More information on this inherently communist agricultural policy, including what other multibillion dollar industries get handouts and who voted for it (Spoiler alert! Barack "Yes We Can continue to gouge the taxpayer" Obama voted for it, John McCain voted against it) you can go to http://www.thomas.gov/ and search "H.R. 6124" and "H.R. 2419" to see special interest governance at it's worst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)