And now it begins....

[The Laughing Man]

...things like $150 million honey bee insurance and $650 million to buy government employees cars...

Yeah, I gotta say that doesn't make a lot of sense to me...maybe you could justify the cars by saying it's helping the auto-manufacturers, but didn't they just get a big whack of cash?

--A

some govt employees use vehicles provided by the govt. nothing new with that, and nothing wrong with that either.

[Avatar]

But isn't this over and above what they already spend?

--A

[Zarathustra]

Why does Obama need to take over the census? Why is such a micro-manage move so high on his list of priorities, that during the largest financial crisis of our time, he feels it's important enough to tackle in his first 3 weeks?

GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House
A number of Republicans are joining the fight to put the census issue into the political spotlight "before it's too late."

Monday, February 09, 2009

Utah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.

The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers.

At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department.

But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.

"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.

When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census.

The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau.

Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."

"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.

link

[High Lord Tolkien]

...things like $150 million honey bee insurance and $650 million to buy government employees cars...

Yeah, I gotta say that doesn't make a lot of sense to me...maybe you could justify the cars by saying it's helping the auto-manufacturers, but didn't they just get a big whack of cash?

--A

some govt employees use vehicles provided by the govt. nothing new with that, and nothing wrong with that either.

The devil is in the details.
I heard just the other day that currently there are 1000s of Gov cars not in use. (I'm not sure where the radio guys are getting this but they are usually pretty much dead right).
The "stimulus" money is for new hybrid cars.
Now, usually I'd be all for that but if there are currently cars just sitting there it doesn't make any sense yo buy more!

[Avatar]

They should at least sell or recycle them.

--A

[Cybrweez]

Chris Matthews, who "got a tingle in his leg" when thinking about Obama as President, and said as a journalist, its his job to help Obama succeed, is starting to get angry over BO's first month:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWe7190rbc

If you remember, this guy was removed from MSNBC political anchor b/c he was so blatantly biased for Obama. He's talking about sacking Geithner.

[Zarathustra]

Like I said earlier:

Obama's Budget Projects $1.75 Trillion Deficit

link

Unbelievable. Nearly 4 times larger than the deficit Bush got slammed for having. This cannot be good for our economy.

[Cail]

You guys just need some Hopeyness.

[Plissken]

(Of course, when you actually put Iraq and Afghanistan back on the books...)

[Cybrweez]

(Of course, when you actually put Iraq and Afghanistan back on the books...)

That somehow makes Obama's spending better? When the economy is worse? I'm not sure if that reasoning holds up...

[Cail]

No, it doesn't make it any better. But it does point out the double standard that certain things are OK as long as the right party is doing them.

[aliantha]

I'd love to see a recalculation of the Bush era deficits, with spending in Iraq and Afghanistan calculated in.

[Zarathustra]

I'd love to see a recalculation of the Bush era deficits, with spending in Iraq and Afghanistan calculated in.

I don't have the figures for every year, but here's what I found with a quick Google search, which turned up numbers for 2006:

. . . ABC News has learned today that President Bush will ask Congress for an additional $65.3 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It brings the total funds requested this year to more than $110 billion for those operations.

According to Office of Management and Budget, the deficit for that year was $248 billion. Add in the war spending, and that comes to a grand total of $358 billion. That's what Bush was so dishonestly hiding?

So when Obama says, "For too long, our budget has not told the whole truth about how precious tax dollars are spent . . . And that kind of dishonest accounting is not how you run your family budgets at home; it's not how your government should run its budgets, either," the appropriate reaction should be a jaw-dropping, shock that he would accuse another administration of being dishonest about a budget when his own deficit is going to be $1,392 billion larger than Bush's (for that year, for instance)--or 4.8 times larger. Obama is trying to disguise and distract from this appallingly large deficit by pointing fingers at Bush? WTF, man? Stand by your budget without making partisan statements, oh President. Stand by your deficit without pretending it's better than one 4.8 times smaller.

A former aide to President George W. Bush is defending the former president's budget proposals as a war of words erupts over how to manage massive government financing.

On the day President Obama and his team released a budget outline for fiscal year 2010, former Bush Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said the $3.55 trillion spending plan is over the top.

"Trying to mask huge spending increases under the cloak of 'fiscal responsibility' is the height of audacity," Fratto told FOX News on Thursday.

Fratto also took issue with Obama's criticisms of the way the Bush budgets were offered.

The Obama administration is selling its budget as "an open and honest accounting."

"For too long, our budget has not told the whole truth about how precious tax dollars are spent," Obama told reporters on Thursday.

He also criticized the the way the Bush administration budgeted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by submitting supplemental spending requests to Congress.

"And that kind of dishonest accounting is not how you run your family budgets at home; it's not how your government should run its budgets, either," said Obama.

Obama has included in his spending request $130 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on top of the $534 billion to fund the Defense Department.

Fratto said the Bush administration had good reason to separate the supplementals from the annual budget.

"Putting temporary war spending in supplemental budgets was done to avoid permanently baking those appropriations into the Defense Department's baseline budget. That's good budgeting, not a 'gimmick,'" Fratto said.

"Our budgets were honest, open and transparent. Every dime spent was presented, debated, voted on and counted," he added.

link

[Vain]

I've come to the conclusion that O can tell whatever porkies he wants to and the most people in America are just too stupid to actually wonder if there's any truth to them.

[finn]

Yeah, sort of like "weapons of mass distruction, lets go to war.......!"

Whatever spending needs to be done to keep the US economy afloat, its hardly a realistic comparison to suggest that promises made before the economic meltdown in the initial stages of the campaigns of either of the candidates can now be realistically called broken election promises. Bush had already earmarked $800billion of bailout do you really think he'd be taking his foot off the gas? If he had been in the white house now the deficit would not be significantly smaller.

Equally its absurd to compare budget deficits with Obama's situation in 2009 and Bush's in 2006. The 50% increase in the budget deficit is not alarming? That is of couirse the extra congressionally approved spending over and above the budgetted billions and the various back door payments to third party suppliers of military oriented goods and services.

I really think there are some here who have taken complete leave of their senses or perhaps are just baiting?

[Cybrweez]

No, it doesn't make it any better. But it does point out the double standard that certain things are OK as long as the right party is doing them.

Yes, I think that's a major problem in this country. People blindly follow a party, not realizing, they are more similar than different.

I love the comments here when a complaint is raised against Obama, and someone responds, you mean like Bush did.

Do you get it?

[Avatar]

...the appropriate reaction should be a jaw-dropping, shock that he would accuse another administration of being dishonest about a budget when his own deficit is going to be $1,392 billion larger than Bush's (for that year, for instance)--or 4.8 times larger.

*shrug* He's not saying it's going to be smaller. Just that they're going to be honest about it.

--A

[finn]

No, it doesn't make it any better. But it does point out the double standard that certain things are OK as long as the right party is doing them.

Yes, I think that's a major problem in this country. People blindly follow a party, not realizing, they are more similar than different.

I love the comments here when a complaint is raised against Obama, and someone responds, you mean like Bush did.

Do you get it?

Actually I was agreeing with Vain that most Americans are stupid.....do you really get it?

[Cybrweez]

I think so, b/c I said the same in the first part of my post? Altho I wouldn't say stupid, maybe uninformed. Or, blind.

[Avatar]

I don't think Americans have a monopoly on it by any means...might as well say the general public.

--A