Posted at my new blog App-lesauce:

Every where a hundred million...

President Obama is asking every department to cut $100 million from its budget. An article over at The Heritage Foundation has an excellent graphic of what $100 million looks like next to the porkulus bill and the even more enormous federal budget for 2010.

I just wanted to give some more comparisons to show how minute these cuts really are:

$100 Million is to $3.69 trillion as the population of Wyoming is to the population of China.



$100 million is to $3.69 trillion as Earth is to the sun...

...if the sun were 342 times as big as it is now.

$100 million is to $3.69 trillion as a sockeye salmon is to a blue whale.

Laid end to end, $3.69 trillion in thousand dollar bills would circle the earth 2.34 times.

Laid end to end, $100 million in thousand dollar bills would run for 9.46 miles roughly the distance from the White House to Falls Church, Virginia.

If the government found $100 million to cut every day, it would take them over thirty years to pay off the current national debt.

The current share of the national debt for every man, woman and child in the United States is $36,558.

The $3.69 trillion 2010 budget is equal to $12,056 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

A $100 million dollar cut would equal 32 cents for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

To paraphrase Heritage, asking the government to cut $100 million from its budget is like asking a family bringing in $100,000 to cut out one cup of Starbuck's coffee. Not per day, per year.

President Obama announced plans (really just intentions, not plans) to cut dozens of government programs deemed inefficient. How is he going to do that? By creating two new positions of course!

President Obama said Saturday that he would soon announce “the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective,” and he used his weekly radio address to name two new high-level officials to assist him in that effort.

If I were running a business, and had to cut my workforce, you can bet I wouldn't do it by hiring someone else. The city of Alexandria tried the same thing when they hired Michael Gillette, an ethicist, to make the decisions of what programs to cut. In case you are geographically challenged, Alexandria is very much a beltway town. How's that change working out for you?

When Obama was inaugurated, I kind of just watched with amusement when Dianne Feinstein introduced the "Oaf of Office". Chuckled when the "Oaf" was messed up, thinking it was Obama, then chuckling again when it turned out to be Roberts who flubbed. Anything that anyone considers funny is because of someone else's misfortune. Seeing someone fall down, step on a rake, take a pie in the face, or get nailed in the jewels by a kid with a pinata stick are hallmarks of comedy.




Well, I guess Obama is laughing his ass off right now as he has just kicked us all in the balls. The really bad thing, though, is that, right before he did it, he looked at us and said, "Don't worry, I'm not going to kick you in the balls. Just relax."

On Obama's first day, he brought with him new, tighter ethics rules. He put a salary freeze on high paid employees, saving the economy a few bucks. Kind of weak really, when you consider the task at hand, but the move is just dripping with symbolism, and the folks love their symbolism. How can anyone argue with tighter ethics rules and the symbolism of our beloved government making a sacrifice for the sake of its poor people, who have suffered for eight long years under the tyranny of George Bush. The kind of thing I would imagine a benevolent dictator doing after a successful coup.

Part of the tighter, and I use the word loosely, ethics rules was that people who have lobbied a particular interest within the government cannot work in the Obama administration for that particular department.

Obama called the rules tighter "than under any other administration in history." They followed pledges during his campaign to be strict about the influence of lobbyists in his White House.

He had to realize that this would rule out a lot of qualified people. The people who lobby for companies like Raytheon are experts in weaponry, aeronautics, and a whole range of other military technologies. This experience makes them extremely qualified for positions at the Pentagon. So Obama built in a waiver system to his executive order allowing for exceptions when it is best for national interests. The thing about making a rule, especially an ethics rule, is that you don't just turn around and break it yourself, not once but twice, two days later.

Bring in William Lynn, the top lobbyist for Raytheon. Despite his position, he has been tapped to take the number two spot at the Pentagon. It's okay, though. Obama has issued him an "Ethics Waiver" so that he can break his own rule.

Meanwhile, Obama's nomination for the No. 2 official at the Pentagon slowed as lawmakers considered whether William J. Lynn III might require an exemption from the administration's own lobbying rules. Lynn, who has broad support in Congress, had been considered a shoo-in for deputy defense secretary.

Then there is William V. Coor, who used to lobby the government on behalf of the Campaign for Tobacco Free kids. Obama tapped him to be the number two at the Department of Health and Human Services.

And don't forget about Tom Vilsak.

If we could charge money for these ethics waivers we could get the budget balanced and have economic growth for at least the next eight years. We could sell them to Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Tim Geithner, Rod Blagojevich, Bill Richardson, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and I'm sure that the Clintons would want to pick up a Family Four Pack.

Harry Reid may not be able to find the time to smell the tourists this year, judging by his first week leading this Senate. Democrats wanted to hit the ground running, but Rod Blagojevich tripped them up and instead, they hit the ground with a wet thud.

When Blago was arrested, Reid drew up a letter demanding that Blago resign and not make the appointment, and had all of the senate democrats sign it. In the letter, he said, "Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request ...and make the appointment, we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated."

Reid backed down from that statement the day after the pictures appeared of the black Roland Burris and his black entourage being stopped from entering the 'All White Mens' Club'.


Technically, the law is on Reid's side, though, as the Senate has the final say in who its members are.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

This is only one of the stumbling blocks that the democrats faced this week, as Bill "Horatio Sanz" Richardson withdrew his name from the nomination for Secretary of Commerce. This was a known issue to Obama's vetters since before his nomination, so there must be something there we don't know about.

Then there was the appointment of Leon Panetta as director of the CIA. Appointing an intelligence chief without any experience is about as smart as electing a president with absolutely no executive experience. Oh, wait, we did that one, didn't we?

Let's not forget about Obama's 'present' vote on the situation between Hamas and Israel. He conveniently use his new mantra "One President at a Time" in deferring all decisions about US reaction to the conflict to Bush. Come on, Bam-Bam, you only have ten days before this all falls in your lap. You must have some kind of opinion.

Finally, there was Obama's backtrack on his economic stimulus plan. This week, Obama told the country that we would be looking at huge deficits for years to come. Let me guess... four years? Eight years? In doing this, he has admitted that his plan won't work. He also revised the word 'created' to 'saved' when talking about jobs in his plan. This may have been smart on Obama's part. How do you measure a 'saved' job? Will he take credit for every job not done away with during his tenure? Using that standard, three million should be a fairly easy goal to reach.

So this is what it's like when the most ethical congress teams up with the chosen one to solve all of our country's woes. Flip-flopping, continued deficits despite a trillion dollar stimulus package, vacillating in the face of terrorism, questions of integrity... and that's just in the first week. This is going to be a looooooonnggg four years. I can only hope that the segment of the population who gets their news from Entertainment Tonight and The Daily Show really see what they have gotten us. It would be too much of a stretch for them to realize that this has been going on for the past two years and was being passed off as Bush's fault.

With a couple of weeks left in the year I thought it would be good to look back at the congressional job approval numbers for the year, and how they compare to previous years.

The numbers I am presenting come from pollingreport.com. What I did was take the average difference between people who approved of the job congress was doing and those who dissapproved. This includes a large number of polls (80-90 a year) from a good number of sources, so the sample is large.

During the year 2005, the first year on the site, congress earned itself an average -24% approval rating. Twenty-four percent more people thought that congress was doing a bad job than a good one. In 2006, that number jumped to -33.1%. This swing ushered in the Democratic majority that we enjoy(gag!) today.

The beginning of 2007 showed the momentum that the democrats had. The first few months of 2007 showed approval ratings from the single digits into the lower twenties. By August of 2007, people realized what the dems were up to and the rating jumped as high as -58% and stayed between the high 30's to low 50's for the rest of the year. The average for 2007 ended up being -32.9%, a negligible gain for the year.

By 2008 the people showed exactly what they thought of their new congress. The average score was a -53.2% difference in the people who thought congress was doing well vs. doing poorly. That shows a 20.3% jump in congress' disapproval rating. Numerous scores above 60% since October show what must be an alarming trend for the dems. In 2009, it will all be on them. Can anyone say backlash in the 2010 elections? How about mandate? I say that we end up seeing both.

Bill Richardson, Obama's appointee for Secretary of Commerce, is now being investigated by a grand jury for allegedly giving California firm CDR Financial Services a lucrative government contract in exchange for campaign donations.

A person familiar with the proceedings told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the panel is looking into possible "pay-to-play" dealings between CDR Financial Products and someone in a position to push the contract through with the state of New Mexico.

So, how many corrupt politicians does it take to change Washington?
Just one, but he brings all his buddies with him, anyway.

Change.gov recently closed a segment entitled "Open Questions" where the public was asked to pose questions which could then be voted on and ranked by other users. Out of the top 50 questions, 12 questions including question #1 had to do with legalizing marijuana. Research into a high speed railroad instead of a massive highway bill had the second highest number of questions. Others in the top 50 have already been answered by His O-liness:

"What will you do as President to restore the Constitutional protections that have been subverted by the Bush Administration and how will you ensure that our system of checks and balances is renewed?" - Kari

"The constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It only spells out what the government cannot do to you. It does not spell out what government must do for you." Having said that, next question:

"Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor - ideally Patrick Fitzgerald - to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretaps?" - Bob Fertik

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
Obama may have his own witchhunt to deal with after all. But then again, Fitzgerald may want to keep his job. Strangely enough, there were no questions about Blagojevich.

"What will you do to promote science and mathematics education to Elementary and Middle School students?" - JasonWyatt

"You know, sometimes I'll go to an eighth-grade graduation and there's all that pomp and circumstance and gowns and flowers. And I think to myself, it's just eighth grade. To really compete, they need to graduate high school, and then they need to graduate college, and they probably need a graduate degree too. An eighth-grade education doesn't cut it today. Let's give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library!"

""What will you do to end the use of mercenary forces (ie Blackwater) by our military?" - Betsie

Obama's new chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (IL), wants to institute three months of "Universal Civil Defense Training" for college-aged Americans. He argued that this mandatory service was necessary, "because we have a lot more challenges." In other words, we won't need companies like blackwater because they will be replaced with the SS Civil Defense Force.

""What will be done to make the banking industry accountable when there are so many substantiated stories about their mismangement in relationship to selling bank owned properties and managing potential foreclosures?" - Robyn

"We've got to have transparency, openness, fair dealing in our financial markets and that's an area where I think over the last eight years we've fallen short. We've got to provide a blood infusion to the patient right now to make sure the patient is stabilized. We can't worry short term about the deficit ... We've got to make sure the economic stimulus plan is large enough to get the economy moving." So to hell with sound financial planning. Let's just throw money at the problem until it goes away.


We all saw what we were dealing with when Rasmussen did it's poll of Obama voters last month, so I guess it comes as no surprise that people posting questions at Change.gov didn't know that President-elect Government had already answered them.

Moonbattery put up a post about how the Libs in Connecticut have recently banned the sale of novelty lighters.

The ordinance will take effect Dec. 17. The fire marshal and city police officers will enforce the local law, which includes $100 fine for the “retail sale, offer of retail sale, gift or distribution of any novelty lighter within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of New London.”

Massachusetts senator Chris Dodd agrees with the ban. He has congratulated the town of New London. In July, he sponsored federal legislation for the ban.

In July, U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd introduced legislation with two other senators to ban novelty lighters nationwide. In a statement at the time, Dodd said, “While they may appear to be harmless toys, novelty lighters can be incredibly dangerous to young children.” Dodd plans to reintroduce the legislation in January.

You have probably seen a novelty lighter before, though you might not have known it. Displayed in the checkout lane at your local convenience store or at a gas station with the racks of sunglasses and key chains, you may not recognize them if you saw them, because they look like small toys. And it’s due to this misleading appearance that they pose such a threat to our kids, and should be pulled off the market.

Novelty lighters can look like almost anything but a fire-starting device. They appear in the form of small cars or motorcycles. They can be musical instruments, tiny rubber animals, shoes, cell phones, or even fire hydrants. They come with sound affects, flashing lights, and may even play music.

Thank you, Senator Whitmer. Thank you for telling me what a novelty lighter is. I was really too stupid to figure that one out for myself. At least I'm not the one too stupid to use the word effects properly.

But while these novelty lighters are still for sale and can easily fall into the wrong hands, they will continue to undermine our efforts as adults to keep our kids out of harm’s way. It’s time that we put a stop to selling dangerous and deceptive toy-like lighters.

And while we keep electing these nanny staters, our government can easily fall into the wrong hands. They will continue to undermine our rights as adults. It's time that we put a stop to electing these deceptive, toy-like leaders.

This has been the hallmark, so far, of the incoming Obama administration. It's probably the only thing that I agree with him on so far. Obama has been one of the most public Presidents-elect that we have had.

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

That is what the Constitution says, and I want to congratulate Obama for his (possibly) first originalist interpretation of the Constitution. (It will probably be the last.)

Members of Congress, though, are not happy with this.

"He's going to have to be more assertive than he's been," House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., told consumer advocates Thursday.


"At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time," Frank said. "I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation."

Overstating the number of presidents? So, we have no president? Good one, Frank.

Frankly, I can't blame Bush for choosing the path of inaction, if that were the path he was following. Just because he doesn't want to use money set aside to bail out the mortgage and banking industry for bailing out the auto industry doesn't mean that he is taking the path of inaction.

Frank goes on to say, "Having lived with this very right wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time, the notion of trying to deal with them as if we could be post-partisan gives me post-partisan depression,"

In case Frank mised it, the Democrats have had control of the House for most of the last 50 years. He also points out the Democrat strategy. There is no way that there will be any 'reaching across the aisle' during the next two years. The only reaching that I foresee will be by RINO's attempting to save their jobs when the conservative backlash hits at the next Congressional election.