Monthly Archives: January 2009

John Yoo Continues to Defend Torture

Barack Obama may have once again banned torture as U.S. policy, but Bush torture apologist John Yoo is once again defending the egregious practice.  From the WSJ:

In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001. He’s also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.

Yoo’s attempt at legitimizing this barbaric practice also challenges what is probably the most libertarian statement President Obama has made to date:

It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”

While it’s obvious that Yoo is attempting to set up the framework for a legal defense for Bush administration interrogation policies, it’s also important to remember that Yoo also finds no reason for why we shouldn’t crush “the testicles of the person’s child” in order to extract information.

As late as a year ago, I would have never predicted there would be any serious legal action taken against senior Bush officials for acts of torture committed by Americans.  It’s now beginning to appear more and more likely that this will become a major legal issue in the not-to-distant future.

The Borg Obama vs. Cardassian Republicans

obamaborgTo the right is a photoshop found at Gawker which illustrates a relevant question. Over at reason, Matt Welch makes reference to a posting at DailyKos which “compares Republican non-assimilationists to The Borg.”

Dear Americans THIS is the Republican party you are left with… a crew of people (?) unwilling to defend the needs of their particular constituency (because, of course, there is NO WAY that the needs of, say, David Drier’s affluent California district has much to do with the needs of the rural, hat and cattle folk represented by Denny Rehberg in Montana’s at large, which has little in common with those living in the poorest congressional district in the country, Jo Bonner’s, in AL-1) choosing instead to participate in the THOUGHT HIVE of tax-cuts, tax-cuts, “Dear God no ass-fucking” and tax cuts.

To some degree, Kos writer JeffLieber is accurate. The GOP has been spending far too much effort and energy talking about tax cuts — as opposed to talking about spending cuts.  As the Rush Limbaugh plan suggests, they would be perfectly happy to increase the amount of federal debt if and only if the egregious spending bill is combined with tax cuts.

In other words, the Democrats wish to max out our federal credit cards with frivolous purchases while the Republicans wish to max out our credit cards with high-interest cash advances. People with common sense know that both of these solutions to fiscal problems lead to the same end: fiscal insolvency and eventual bankruptcy.

With regard to the anal sex reference, JeffLieber has another valid point.  Republicans, especially in Alabama, seem awfully fixated on the issue.  However, neither major political seems very upset about using the force of government to stick the tab up the wallets of our children and grandchildren.  No matter how one feels about the general topic, forced anal sex is worse than the voluntary variety.  And both major parties are guilty.

While I disagree with the GOP in their approach to this bill, at least they had the testicular fortitude to vote against the Democratic version.

What gets me is the Kos writer’s reference to the Borg.  Being neither elephant nor donkey allows me a bit more neutrality on the issue.  Currently, the right is in disarray and isn’t following any particular leader.  Obama and the mainstream media seem to be trying to push Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter into positions of greater influence.  With such buffoonish characters serving as the mouthpiece for the right, the left will certainly continue to enjoy electoral success.

To complete the Star Trek reference, the Republicans aren’t powerful enough to be compared to the Borg.  Here is one description which seems to better describe the GOP:

Cardassians were trained in military discipline from a very young age, taught to obey and not to ask questions and to accept the decisions of the state. The Cardassian judiciary presumes guilt from the beginning of the trial and serves only as a forum for forcing a confession from the accused.

However, the downright reverence on the left for The Messiah Barack Obama is not just creepy, it’s downright scary.  10 days ago, I wrote that the Democrats “wish to assimilate us into the collective of Borg Obama.”  I continue to stand by that statement.

Susette Kelo Tells Her Story at The Cato Institute

Interestingly, this new development that was supposed to bring in so much revenue and jobs to the City of New London remains an empty lot. The city has lost a tax base and the only new jobs which were created were for demolition. Here’s hoping that New London does not recover from this immoral stealing of property anytime soon.

To watch or listen to the rest of the event featuring Susette Kelo’s attorney from the now infamous case Scott Bullock and the author of the book Little Pink House Jeff Benedict, click here.

Lawsuit Filed Alleging Hillary Clinton Is Ineligible To Serve As Secretary Of State

Judicial Watch, which was a thorn in the side of the Clinton Administration back in the 1990’s, has filed a lawsuit alleging that Hillary Clinton is ineligible to serve as Secretary of State:

WASHINGTON — A conservative watchdog group filed a lawsuit Thursday arguing that Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot legally serve as secretary of state, even though she was sworn in last week.

The suit is based on an obscure section of the Constitution on compensation for public officials, the emoluments clause. The clause says no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job’s pay was increased during the lawmaker’s current term.

Clinton was serving in Congress when the secretary of state’s salary was raised to its current level of $191,300. So that Clinton could take the post, Congress last month lowered the salary to $186,600, the level when she began her second Senate term. A similar tactic has been used so that several other members of Congress from both parties could serve in the Cabinet.

Judicial Watch, which has pursued several suits against Clinton and other officials over the years, argues there can be no exceptions to the clause.

The group says that Hillary Clinton is “constitutionally ineligible” to be secretary of state until 2013, when her second Senate term would expire. She resigned from the Senate to take the Cabinet post.

A copy of the lawsuit can be found here, and it’s fairly straightforward.

Judicial Watch is representing a long-time State Department employee who alleges that it he would be damaged by being required to take orders, and act under the direction of, a Secretary of State who is ineligible to serve. Assuming that this is sufficient to get around the inevitable standing issues, the Constitutional argument is fairly straightforward:

  1. Article I Sec. 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that a sitting Senator or Representative cannot be appointed to a civil office for which the compensation was increased during the time that they served in the legislature
  2. On three separate occasions since Hillary Clinton began serving her second term in the Senate, the salary for the Secretary of State was increased by Executive Order.
  3. Therefore, by a strict reading of the emoluments clause, Hillary Clinton cannot be Secretary of State until at least 2013.

On the other side of the argument, there is the fact that, prior to the time that she took office at Foggy Bottom, Congress instituted a so-called Saxbe Fix — lowering the salary of the Secretary of State to where it was at the beginning of Clinton’s then-current Senate term. This is the same “solution” that was used when this issue came up in the past, although the last time it was tried Senator Robert Byrd pointed out that the so-called fix didn’t fix anything. (Of course, Saxbe was a Republican, and when Hillary’s nomination came before the Senate, Byrd voted yes)

As I noted when this controversy first arose, the Constitutional argument against Clinton’s eligibility is rather clear:

If the words of the Constitution mean what they say, then it seems fairly clear that Hillary Clinton is Constitutionally ineligible from serving as Secretary of State. Is it a dumb rule ? Probably, just like it’s a dumb rule that someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn’t serve as President of the United States merely because he was born in a foreign country. The way to deal with dumb rules, though, isn’t to ignore them, but to change them via the method that the Constitution provides.

>However, I don’t see this lawsuit going anywhere for a very simple reason:

[N]o Federal Court Judge is going to say that Barack Obama cannot have the Secretary of State of his choice.

And that goes double for any Judge on the Court of Appeals, or any Supreme Court Justice.

Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

Cross-posted from Below The Beltway

Let me just talk about numbers again for one second…

So let me ask you, what do you think would stimulate the economy more:

  1. $819 billion of taxpayer money and bad debt on our national credit cards; distributed via political favoritism, cronyism, and cherry picking of favored causes
  2. $2,676 in the pocket of every single man, woman, and child in America
  3. $7,122 for each and every household in America
  4. $11,870 for every household in America that actually pays taxes
  5. $17,804 for every household in America that pays taxes above the margin line (they pay more taxes than the government costs per household)

Obviously, all but number one are politically unlikely because they would take control away from the politicians and actually give the people some of their money back…

…And of course 4 and 5 are right out, because that would be “taking money from the poor to give to the rich” (of course it wouldn’t be, in fact all but 4 and 5 would be yet more redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the poor, or the politically favored).

Think about it though… which do you think would actually stimulate the economy the most? Which would result in the most job creation? Which would result in the most wealth creation? In fact, which would result in the most people with their lives materially improved in the long term?

Yes, that’s right, it’s options 4 and 5; because options 1, 2, and 3, are nothing more than broken windows.

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

The Unselfaware Irony of Fascism

Eric Arthur Blair famously said “The word FASCISM has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies
“something not desirable.

In this he was referring (among other things) to the tendency of those on the left to call anything which restricted their tendencies or desires in any way fascists; which in such usage has been the preferred cavil of liberals and leftists since the 1940s.

Sadly, most of those making such imprecations don’t understand the true definition of fascism: a belief in the supremacy of the state and it’s leaders, over that of individuals; elevated to a level of blind enforced obedience and popular obeisance.

Fascism, for all intents and purposes, is the worship of the state, and of the “Dear leader”. Critically, when instituted it is always instituted by a majority, or a very strong minority, of willing subjects (I cannot call them citizens); who are looking for the government to “heal all their ills”.

Pledge of Allegiance Becomes Pledge to Obama

By Alan Gray, NewsBlaze

A parent in the Clark County School District of Las Vegas, Henderson area reported January 27th that his son, who is in 1st grade, came home yesterday saying that he didn’t want to go back to school anymore.

When asked why, the boy said that during the Pledge of Allegiance the teacher put up a large image of Obama next to the flag.

Thinking that the boy might be exaggerating, the man asked his son if he was sure, and suggested that by “large” he might mean an 8×10 photo of the president. The boy apparently said “No, it is a large picture of Obama and when we are done, the teacher turns off the image.”

The same thing was not done for President Bush last year.

After investigating this morning, the other parent reported that what the boy said was true.

At least three of the five classrooms have an overhead projector and as the children stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the teacher turns on the classroom overhead and a full body image of Obama, with six U.S. flags behind him, comes up about 4 feet away from the flag that hangs on the wall. The screen is apparently around five feet by six feet.

In the image, President Obama appears to be staring straight out with no facial expression, just a serious look. All of the kids in each class faced the President, instead of the flag that hangs in the corner.

15 years ago, I swore an oath to defend this country, and our constitution. Not our president, or our government; but our constitution. The president is our commander in chief; but our loyalty, our duty, our honor; is owed to the constitution, not to the president.

10 days ago, President Obama swore a similar oath; not to defend our government, or our leaders; but our nation, and our constitution.

America is an idea, not a man, or a government. That idea is expressed, however imperfectly, in our constitution; and those of us who chose to serve, be it in government, or the military; swear to defend that idea.

Isn’t it ironic, how the only serious proponents of fascism today are militant islamicists, and western leftists; the very people who, in form at least, rail against fascism… which they are most often accusing US of?

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

Oh, Look! The French Aren’t Working!

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

More than one million French workers downed tools yesterday in the first general strike to hit a major industrialised nation since the start of the global financial crisis.

Unions said more than two million public and private sector workers took to the streets across France to protest against President Nicolas Sarkozy’s handling of the economic crisis, saying too much had been done to bail out fat cats and banks, and not enough to protect jobs and help workers make ends meet.

Air traffic controllers, train drivers, teachers, nurses, and tax inspectors were joined by private sector workers including bank clerks and staff from the firm that runs the Paris stock exchange. Some schools were shut, flights were cancelled, and the Palace of Versailles cwas losed in a rare show of unity between unions, although “Black Thursday” did not bring total transport paralysis.

After dark, as crowds dispersed from the Paris protest, more than 100 people clashed with police at Place de l’Opéra, throwing bottles, overturning cars, and starting fires in the street. Thirteen people were arrested.

Blagojevich Gets the Boot

Fox News Reports:

Illinois senators stripped Gov. Rod Blagojevich of power Thursday in the final act of a political drama that handed the reins of state government to his estranged lieutenant governor, Pat Quinn, and likely will end Blagojevich’s career in politics.

Senators voted unanimously to convict Blagojevich and bar him from holding political office in the state again. Shortly after the vote, Quinn was sworn in as Illinois’ new governor.

The outcome was never in doubt. In fact, Quinn went to the state Capitol earlier in the day to prepare to be sworn in.

I haven’t been following this story as closely as others but the fact that only one person in either house of the Illinois Legislature voted in support of the Governor tells me that they really had the goods on the guy. It’s not often that legislators agree on anything particularly in matters of impeachment which are usually decided along party lines.

Obama For Pittsburgh Steelers and American Steel

From the USA Today:

There’s no more doubt: President Obama says he’s rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers in Sunday’s Super Bowl.

“I wish the (Arizona) Cardinals the best,” the president told reporters at the White House, “but I am a long-time Steelers fan” and a friend of the Rooney family that owns the team.

And his bailout bill (c/o Cato):

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the United States.

I’d claim McCain is a Cardinal’s fan, but I’m not sure they exist.

Render Unto Caesar Whatever The Hell He Wants

Commit a crime? No? Have a reason to carry a lot of cash? Yes? Don’t expect to hang onto it:

Over at the poker forum Two Plus Two, pro poker player David Peat writes that he was essentially mugged by DEA agents at an airport in Toledo, Ohio.

According to Peat, he and his girlfriend had originally planned to fly back to Las Vegas together after visiting her family. But after purchasing their tickets, Peat decided to fly to L.A. to play in a poker game. He bought a last minute, first-class ticket, and paid in cash. That apparently was enough to set off red flags.

Peat says he was accosted by several DEA agents, who asked him questions about who he was and where he was going. He told them he was a poker player, and had $15,000 in cash in his pocket. They first let him go, but then chased him down, and told him he’d need to come with them for questioning. Peat says the agents then confiscated all of his money, as well as his $50,000 Rolex watch. He says they gave him a receipt, and told him to expect more information in the mail.

There’s no corroboration of the story as of yet, but I see no reason why he would make it up… Further, it doesn’t seem entirely out of character for the Federalis.

Now, I’ll admit that someone traveling with $15K in cash is a bit suspicious. That doesn’t make him a drug dealer, though. It seems to me that he had a pretty simple explanation for carrying so much cash — in his job as a high-stakes poker player, he needs it. And the link Radley Balko found suggests that he could support his story rather easily. Notwithstanding whether the IRS might have an issue with him, the DEA has no reason to. Yet all that didn’t matter. His cash is now in their hands, and he’s likely going to have to prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — that it’s not drug related. Considering that his poker opponents probably didn’t give him receipts for their losses, that might not be easy to do.

For David Peat, I wish him luck recovering his assets from the DEA. For the agents, I wish upon them a punishment far worse than living in Toledo. Something about losing an extremity in a freak x-ray machine accident sounds about right.

Nanny State Republicans

legalizefreedomAccording to Rasmussen, “62% of adults say there should be a nationwide ban on smoking in all public places, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree, and five percent (5%) are not sure.”

Here comes the money line:

Republicans, who usually frown on government restrictions, are more emphatic about the need for a nationwide smoking ban than Democrats, 66% to 59%. Sixty-one percent (61%) of those not affiliated with either party agree.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of whites favor such a ban, compared to 50% of African-Americans.

In mid-December, 22% of U.S. voters said the federal government should outlaw tobacco smoking.

Somehow, I’m not at all surprised about these data.

Here’s a quick thought for the Nannystatists (of any political persuasion) out there:

When the Nannystatists came for the smokers,
I remained silent;
I was not a smoker.

When they locked up the drinkers,
I remained silent;
I don’t drink alcoholic beverages.

When they came for the sex toys,
I did not speak out;
I don’t use sex toys.

When they came to ban guns,
I remained silent;
I don’t like guns.

When they came to ban free speech,
I didn’t say a word;
As I no longer had a gun to protect myself.

When they came for me,
there were so few individual liberties or civil rights remaining, there was no way for me to defend myself from the government.

PETA’s Banned Sexy Video

I’m much more of a fan of hot women in sexy videos than I am of the policies organizations like PETA propose.  If you enjoy eating red meat as much as I do, I suggest that you go throw a ribeye on the grill.  If you don’t have any ribeyes in the ‘fridge, any sort of meat will do. Especially if it isn’t free-range meat.

Crack open a beer. Slip on a pair of fur-lined slippers.

When your steak is ready, sit in front of your computer.  Take a bite of steak.  Swallow. Then turn on the video below.

This way you can get your meat and vegetables all at the same time.

‘Veggie Love': PETA’s Banned Super Bowl Ad

Additional banned sexy vegetable video footage here.

UPDATE: Speaking of sexy videos, check this one out to see the immediate future of YouTube. Props.

Quote Of The Day

Stephen Green on the Republican Party’s newly re-discovered “commitment” to fiscal conservatism:

The problem of course is that ever since about 1998, the Republicans haven’t had a leg to stand on when it comes to spending restraint. If they’re going to sounds ballsy on the radio, they’d better act ballsy in Congress — otherwise voters will gladly take goodies from non-hypocrites who don’t harangue them, instead of from hypocrites who do.

And, notwithstanding the vote yesterday, they’ve still got a lot to prove and a lot of penance to do.

So What Is Barack Obama’s Carbon Footprint ?

Apparently, our new President likes to crank up the thermostat:

WASHINGTON — The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

Does anyone remember what Obama said back in May ?

Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.

Apparently, though, wearing a sweater and turning down the heat is just for the little people.

And, oh yeah, Obama may have been born in Hawaii, but he spent the last several decades in Chicago. He should be used to the cold by now.

Cross-posed from Below The Beltway

USPS Looking To Cease Saturday Mail Delivery

In typical government (well, quasi-private) bureaucratic “sense”, a failing government service needs a bailout. Rather than face the music and look for ways to streamline their operation and improve efficiency, they just figure they’ll piss off voters quickly enough to get the sniveling, cowering politicians to hand over a few billion. They’re not saying that up front, of course, but believe me, that’s the goal:

The U.S. Postal Service may be forced to eliminate a day of mail service because the economic downturn has led to plummeting volume and revenue, the postmaster general said Wednesday.

Postmaster General John E. Potter, in testimony before a Senate subcommittee, warned of a possible worst-case scenario: eliminating the requirement to deliver mail six days a week to every address in America.

If the recession continues to hammer at USPS revenue, six-day delivery may not be possible, Potter said. Federal law has mandated the six-day schedule since 1983.

In fiscal 2008, total mail volume fell by more than 9 billion pieces – 4.5% -compared to the previous year, Potter said. And the agency suffered a greater-than-expected net loss of $2.8 billion last year, he added.

USPS is “a vital economic engine in our national economy,” Potter said, noting that USPS is the country’s second-largest employer and the mail affects both jobs and commerce.

“We could experience a net loss of $6 billion or more this fiscal year,” Potter told the subcommittee. That shortfall would exceed the Postal Service’s credit limit under current law.

“We believe that legislative relief is necessary to preserve the nation’s mail system,” Potter said.

Do you think the postal service really wants to cease Saturday delivery? I don’t. And they’re not throwing out terms like “bailout” quickly. They are asking for relaxation of the regulations meant to wean them off the federal teat; while it may or may not make sense, it’s slightly too far to call it a bailout.

But let me ask you a question… If the automakers, and the banks, and every other failing private enterprise can get bailed out, you think the USPS will give in? No, they’ll make a few noises about canceling Saturday delivery, the public outcry will begin, and Congressmen will be beating down their doors with checkbook in hand.

Maybe some people older than myself might remember the days where business success in this country was based upon performing at a level that exceeded that of your peers. Some unlucky souls — like me — delude ourselves into the belief that we can still succeed under those terms. Instead, we’re the asses bearing the load. Not only do we watch as our government rewards failure, we live under the knowledge that it’s our money paying for it.

Judge Demands Remorse From Criminal For Victimless Crime

In the year of my birth, Jimmy Carter actually did something good: he legalized homebrewing of beer. About 27 years later, I took advantage of that legality by beginning to do so myself, and have been enjoying the hobby ever since.

I appreciate the fact that it’s legal. While I’m not one to personally respect laws criminalizing acts which hurt nobody, I also prefer not to worry about getting locked in jail for what I’m doing.

Home distilling, on the other hand, isn’t legal. I’m not a big fan of hard liquor, so I’ve never tried it myself, but I know that I wouldn’t let some law stand in my way of distilling a liquor for my own consumption. Either way, though, it would be criminal.

Tennessean Marvin “Popcorn” Sutton, who’s likely been distilling liquor longer than I’ve lived, also doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong. He’s a remorseless criminal, and he’s headed to the clink for it*. In fact, his lack of remorse is part of his problem:

He gained fame through a book he wrote called “Me and My Likker,” as well as through Internet videos and cable TV documentaries in which he demonstrated how to make moonshine.

That notoriety may have harmed him in the sentencing hearing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Reeves introduced several of the videos as evidence Monday, claiming they showed Sutton “flaunted criminal activity.”

The judge appeared to agree.

“Your moonshining is a violation of the law,” Greer told Sutton. “I don’t care how it is glamorized on the History Channel or the Discovery Channel.”

The testimony, he added, showed that “not only are you not remorseful for your criminal conduct, you seem to be proud of it.”

Now, I can’t speak for Sutton. But I can speak for myself. If homebrewing were illegal, and I was caught doing it, would I be remorseful? Not a chance.

Remorse makes sense when you’ve wronged someone. It doesn’t even need to be a criminal matter, if I say something unkind, or treat another person disrespectfully, I’m not a criminal — but I am remorseful. It is not difficult to break a law without remorse. If you’re at a deserted stoplight in the middle of the night, and there’s a “No Turn on Red” sign but you do so anyway, will you feel remorse if you’re caught?

Demanding remorse for committing victimless crimes is demanding fealty. It is demanding obedience to an unjust law.

I brew good beer. I like my beer. My family and my friends like my beer. If it were illegal, I would still be brewing, and that beer would be bringing pleasure to myself and those around me. Any law infringing on that deserves to be broken, and without a shred of remorse.

Hat Tip: TJIC
» Read more

House Republicans Grow Some Cajones

The big news isn’t the stimulus package just passed the House, but that Obama’s “bid to woo Republicans failed to convince even a single GOP member to join Democrats to back the bill.”

“I can also promise that my administration will administer this recovery plan with a level of transparency and accountability never before seen in Washington,” said Obama in a statement from the White House. ” Once it is passed, every American will be able to go the website and see how and where their money is being spent.”

I’ll not hold my breath on the transparency, as we still have no idea where a good chunk of money from the previous bailout went.

While I’m sure a handful of Republicans opposed the bill on principle, it’s at least refreshing for it to be politically expedient for the rest of them to cast a “no” vote on one of the worst fiscal bills of my lifetime.  Unfortunately, it seems the only way to get the GOP to pretend to be responsible stewards of our tax dollars is for the Democrats to be in control.

This bill can’t be considered a bipartisan bill with no Republican support (and 11 Democrats voted against it, too).  It’s your political hot potato now, Democrats.

More Government Spending Required to Stimulate the Economy? At Least 207 Economists Disagree

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

[See full list of economists who disagree here @ Cato’s “Fiscal Reality Central”]

1 2 3 6