I could just post the link to each of these articles instead of copying and pasting them, but it's easier to comment and for readers to read my comments if the article is right there. All are from FOXNews.com. My comments are in bold.
"WE'RE SPENDING YOUR MONEY WELL" CLAIM SIGNS FUNDED BY YOU
Some local officials are spending freely to post street signs that let people know the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- better known as the stimulus bill -- has funded a highway project in local neighborhoods, an expense that has Republicans blistering over why taxpayer money is being used to promote how taxpayer money is being used.
Exactly.
State governments are estimated to be using millions of dollars to put up the signs that say what a great job they are doing spending money. Some examples:
-- In Washington, D.C., the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority spent $10,000 for a single 10-by-11-foot sign displayed at a highway project, advertising that the $15 million in stimulus funds the District received were provided by the stimulus.
-- Illinois spent about $650,000 during the last 14 months for 950 signs to be placed on 850 highway projects, Department of Transportation spokesman Josh Kauffman told FoxNews.com.
-- Pennsylvania spent $157,477 of the $1 billion in stimulus funds it received on 70 signs for 37 projects, Department of Transportation press officer Alison Wenger told FoxNews.com. The average cost of each sign was $2,250.
-- Tennessee bought 324 signs for $12,931, ABC News reported.
I must say, that is truly sad. As if we need to know how we're being helped; as if the Democrats aren't proclaiming it every day! Do they think we're idiots? (Then again, we elected them.)
But some states, including Florida, Vermont, Arizona and Virginia, aren't following neighboring states' signs.
"We decided that we were going to take all the money that we got from our stimulus projects and put it into the road," said Jeff Caldwell, chief of communications for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Last year, the Federal Highway Administration issued guidance to states on the layout and color of signs.
The statement issued shortly after the $787 billion stimulus bill passed noted that "President Obama made the commitment that all projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will bear a recovery emblem to make it easier for Americans to see which projects are funded by the ARRA."
Really, who cares?
On Tuesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he was pleased Republicans have noticed the nearly 11,000 road projects under way as a result of the stimulus.
"We have encouraged states to let people know how their tax money is being spent. Some post signs, some don't. I believe that as a matter of spending, those signs account for about 3 cents out of every hundred dollars that is spent on the recovery," he said.
How our money is being spent?!?!? If we really knew that, you'd be either out of office, out of the country, or both. Here are a few examples of how some of the stimulus funds were used: a study in sexual arousal in anesthetized female rats and creating a coordinated colonay of robotic bees. But you don't see signs for that.
California Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is probing into what was required of states and jurisdictions about sign construction.
And Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., introduced a resolution in the House that he summarized as saying, "We don't need to tell the American people with propaganda signs that we're spending their tax dollars wisely."
Schock said that not only is the signage an insult to people's intelligence to tell them that a road project is under way as they're driving through it, but it's a waste of stimulus funds and isn't doing anything to increase employment.
Don't be so sure about that: "The number of signs employed in the U.S. after ARRA passed has risen at exponential rates! The recession has ended! We're saved!"
But the House rejected the proposal.
"Taxpayers' dollars should not be used to advertise government programs and construct signs, but that obviously was rejected by the majority on the floor yesterday," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., told Fox News on Wednesday.
"The American people don't want to see tax dollars used to promote the economic agenda of this administration. They want to see them used used toward implementing policies that will put Americans back to work," Pence said.
GAY IMMIGRANTS GET GREEN CARDS IF SPOUSE IS AMERICAN
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are trying to broaden support for immigration reform by reaching out to the gay and lesbian community with a provision in immigration legislation that would allow gay and lesbian Americans to bring foreign partners home to the United States.
Under current law, American citizens and other legal permanent residents can get a green card or immigrant visa for a spouse or immediate family members living abroad. However, the same rights do not extend to same-sex couples living in the country.
During a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Mike Honda of California, among others, urged Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package this year.
"Right now too many same-sex, binational couples face an impossible choice," said Gutierrez, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, "to live apart or to break the law to be with partners, their families and children."
“Government should never engage in purposeless, gratuitous cruelty and we should stop it," Nadler said.
Fox News Poll: Most Oppose Government Suit Over Arizona LawWith no support from the GOP, the comprehensive immigration bill introduced by Gutierrez last December has stalled in the House. Republicans say this legislation won't help.
"These are creative people who just have the wrong philosophy," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a member of the immigration subcommittee. "It's an alliance designed to grant amnesty."
"It tries to redefine traditional marriage. I can't support that," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Fox News. "If they're looking to truly reach out to conservatives and Republicans and do something in a bipartisan way, this isn't it."
The legislation appears to be part of an effort to strengthen support on the left, rather than the right, by targeting a constituency that has yet to be heard from in the immigration debate -- the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered community.
"Last time around the pro-immigration side took us for granted. ... It is crucial to shore up the support of real genuine progressives who will pick up the phone and call their representatives," said Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality, an organization that describes itself as one fighting for equal immigration rights for the LGBT community as well as HIV positive immigrants and their families.
Last month in Arizona, Phoenix' gay chamber of commerce urged national gay rights groups not to boycott the state over its impending immigration law that allows a crackdown by local police on illegals, saying the decision would hurt gay-friendly businesses. Proposed comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress is in part a reaction to criticism that the federal government has not done enough to resolve illegal immigration in the country.
Because this isn't discrimination at all! No, this is EQUAL OPPORTUNITY! We want illegals, gays, and gay illegals to feel comfortable in society. You know what? Gay unions are not marriages. Thus, they cannot bring back a spouse from a foreign country because they can't have spouses. I am sick of all this PC favoritism in the name of equal rights. Illegal immigrants are illegal, whether they're gay or not. I can't comment any more on this or I'll sound like a rage-crazed freak. It's just unbelievable...
GOVERNMENT TO FIX ALL YET AGAIN (only part of the article is here, as it was, well... quite lengthy)
Congress on Thursday passed the stiffest restrictions on banks and Wall Street since the Great Depression, clamping down on lending practices and expanding consumer protections to prevent a repeat of the 2008 meltdown that knocked the economy to its knees.
A year in the making and 22 months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a worldwide panic in credit and other markets, the bill cleared its final hurdle with a 60-39 Senate vote. It now goes to the White House for President Obama's signature, expected as early as Wednesday.
The law will give the government new powers to break up companies that threaten the economy, create a new agency to guard consumers in their financial transactions and shine a light into shadow financial markets that escaped the oversight of regulators.
Large, failing financial institutions would be liquidated and the costs assessed on their surviving peers. The Federal Reserve is getting new powers while falling under greater congressional scrutiny.
From storefront payday lenders to the biggest banking and investment houses on Wall Street, few players in the financial world are immune to the bill's reach. Consumer and investor transactions, whether simple debit card swipes or the most complex securities trades, face new safeguards or restrictions.
"I'm about to sign Wall Street reform into law, to protect consumers and lay the foundation for a stronger and safer financial system, one that is innovative, creative, competitive and far less prone to panic and collapse," Obama said.
"Unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you have nothing to fear."
Republicans said the bill is a vast federal overreach that will drive financial-sector jobs overseas. Before the final vote was even cast, House Republican Leader John Boehner called for its repeal.
At an eye-glazing 390,000 words -- half the size of the King James Bible -- the legislation doesn't offer a quick remedy, however. Rather, it lays down prescriptions for regulators to act. In many cases, the real impact won't be felt for years.
One of the top regulators who will be charged with implementing the law, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, said the Senate vote represents a "far-reaching step toward preventing a replay of the recent financial crisis."
The Senate's final passage of the bill, two weeks after the House approved it, is a welcome achievement for a president and congressional Democrats, both increasingly unpopular with voters four months from midterm elections that threaten to put Republicans in charge of Congress. Only three Republicans voted for it -- Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has said the bill is not tough enough, voted with most Republicans against it.
The law has been a priority for Obama, ranking just behind his health care overhaul enacted in March. In its final form, the package hews closely to the plan unwrapped a year ago by the White House and in some ways is even tougher. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs promptly cast the vote in political terms.
"This will be a vote that Democrats will talk about through November as a way of highlighting the choice that people will get to make in 2010," he said.
The political benefits, however, stand to be overshadowed by lingering high unemployment. And Republicans were betting that public antipathy toward big government and worries over jobs would trump their anger at Wall Street.
"We're going to be driving jobs and business overseas with this massive piece of legislation," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who worked with Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut on certain aspects of the bill, denounced it as a "legislative monster."
Whenever the government gets involved in something, it jacks it up. The free market is supposed to go up and down; it's what makes it free. It's not free if the government has its greedy, idiotic hand in it all the time. IT CANNOT FUNCTION if you don't let it. And not only is the market becoming enslaved, but so will we if we let this madness continue. The people and the businesses will work things out. The government needs to stay out or there will be consequences. No, that's not a threat. That's just the conviction of someone who observes history.
No comments:
Post a Comment