When the going gets rough, the Democrats run away -- First Wisconsin, now Indiana

Just like in Wisconsin, today in Indiana we are being treated to the spectacle of legislators from a minority party, completely beholden to a small constituency (less than 12% of all workers nationwide, according to the BLS), refusing to live up to their constitutional responsibility. Indianapolis Star, February 22:

Seats on one side of the Indiana House were nearly empty today as House Democrats departed the the state rather than vote on anti-union legislation.

A source tells the Indianapolis Star that Democrats are headed to Illinois, though it was possible some also might go to Kentucky. They need to go to a state with a Democratic governor to avoid being taken into police custody and returned to Indiana.

The House came into session twice this morning, with only three of the 40 Democrats present. Those were needed to make a motion, and a seconding motion, for any procedural steps Democrats would want to take to ensure Republicans don’t do anything official without quorum.

With only 58 legislators present, there was no quorum present to do business. The House needs 67 of its members to be present.

House Speaker Brian Bosma said he did not know yet whether he would ask the Indiana State Police to compel the lawmakers to attend, if they can be found.

It seems obvious that the Dems hope to be seen as heroic, on a par with anti-regime protesters in various Middle Eastern countries, but the fact of the matter is that they are cowards who refuse to acknowledge that their biggest campaign cash source is a huge drag on our ailing economy and on the taxpayer's wallet.

The Democrats aren't about to bite the hand that feeds them.

Memo to GOP 2012 hopefuls who are addicted to corn alcohol

The Iowa caucuses have become so ridiculously overinflated in their importance that even many of the professed small-government conservatives can't seem to resist groveling at the feet of this tiny fraction of the electorate.

NRO notes today that it really does matter what the GOP's 2012 candidate believes about ethanol subsidies:

There are four potential midwestern 2012 Republican presidential nominees: Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, South Dakota senator John Thune, and Indiana congressman Mike Pence. When it comes to doling out favors to the ethanol industry, none of them can credibly claim his attitude was “just say no.”

Does it matter? Absolutely: As this year’s tariff and tax-credit extensions showed, even a Tea Party–driven small-government surge can’t stop politicians from kowtowing to the ethanol lobby. Further, a Republican president who is willing to carve out exemptions for ethanol interests will lack credibility when he battles spending or tax breaks benefiting other special interests. And finally, while some claim that ethanol will allow our nation to achieve energy independence, the fact that the highest approved corn-gas blend is only 15 percent ethanol (and is approved only for certain automobile models from 2007 or later) suggests that an America running on corn is unlikely in the extreme.

GOP candidates, please take note that the reenergized constitutionalist/conservative base that brought you back to power hasn't disbanded.  You are being watched closely by people who think that corn alcohol is not fit to be served at a tea party.

If you don't give up your addiction, Obama will have no trouble whatsover observing that the GOP seems to differ from the Democrats only in its spending priorities.

Government-authored spyware – what a great idea!

No, it’s not happening yet (that I know of), but the RIAA and MPAA are pushing hard to establish the legal precedent of government surveillance of average citizens’ private in-home activities.

Tom’s Guide reports:

Big Brother is watching you. Actually, it's the RIAA and the MPAA, especially if you're parked on a BitTorrent client. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that both organizations--along with a few others--want to take the file-monitoring process a huge step further by infiltrating consumer PCs and deleting the infringing content off their hard drives. How? Through "anti-infringement" spyware developed and enforced by the government.

This is no joke.

"There are several technologies and methods that can be used by network administrators and providers...these include [consumer] tools for managing copyright infringement from the home (based on tools used to protect consumers from viruses and malware)," reads a caption in a joint comment (pdf) filed by the MPAA and RIAA.

The joint comment goes on to suggest other means of copyright enforcement including a mandatory scan on all internet connections to interdict transfers of illegal content, physical searches at all borders of personal media players, laptops, and USB sticks. There's even an indication that the parties want to enforce international bullying to force other countries to put similar policies in place.

A couple of observations are in order.

First, the only reason  the RIAA and MPAA could even dream of getting the federal government to do something like this is that they know the fedgov recognizes no meaningful limits on its power.  Industries take advantage of this fact all of the time – using the government as a bludgeon against one’s competitors has become a time-honored tradition in this country – but the RIAA/MPAA proposal goes beyond what we normally see. 

Many people who will complain that this is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and a denial of due process will, the next day, demand that the government provide health care, jobless benefits, welfare, etc.  We can’t have it both ways.  Either the federal government is bound by the U.S. Constitution, or it isn’t.

Second, is there any real difference between government-authored spyware on our computers and government-installed surveillance cameras in our homes?  Both would have the same official purpose – crime prevention.  I wonder if RIAA and MPAA executives would consent to government video surveillance of their mansions, “just in case” they decided to do something illegal.

Unions could indeed be the strongest force for good government, if it wasn’t for the fact that they are unions

Today’s email update from CNSNews had this ironic juxtaposition of headlines:

Rep. Grayson Calls Labor Unions Strongest Force for ‘Good Government’

Unions Making Postal Service Unsustainable, GAO Says

House Deemocrats come under withering online mockery of their unconstitutional proposal

Even the Washington Post can’t ignore the absurdity of simply deeming a bill to be passed without an up-or-down vote:

The proposed House "deem and pass" vote strategy is already facing one of the most insidious enemies of contemporary political discourse: online mockery.

Perhaps because of the resemblance of the phrase to #demonsheep, a hashtag given to a recent bewildering California U.S. Senate race ad, the deem and pass legislative procedure has been given one of its own by opponents on Twitter, where wits and wags have decided that they can play this game at home and #deem things done just by declaring them so.

Keep up with the Twitter feed here.

That giant sucking sound you hear…

…is your hard-earned money going into the coffers of the federal government and into the pockets of those who do business (directly or indirectly, through contracts or lobbying) with the federal government.

Washington Examiner, March 10:

6 of the 10 richest counties in U.S. are in DC area

Loudoun ranks as the richest county in the United States, immediately followed by Fairfax and Howard counties, while Montgomery, traditionally one of the wealthiest, is now 10th.

Forbes magazine ranked eight other Washington-area counties in its list of the nation's 25 wealthiest counties, far more than any other area in the country. The rankings are based on 2008 median household income data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Loudoun's median household income was $110,643, while Fairfax's was $106,785 and Howard's came in at $101,710.

Here are the rankings, according to Forbes.

In my youth my family lived in four of the top ten counties, but we certainly dragged the median down in each case.

Democrat operatives continue their campaign to destroy Sarah Palin

Just a few days remain before Sarah Palin leaves the Alaska governor’s office, and yet her political enemies (mostly, but not all, Democrats*) are still waging a campaign of frivolous harassment at the expense of the taxpayers of that state.

As this Facebook announcement from Palin’s attorney Thomas van Flein shows, not a single substantial ethics accusation made against her has held up to scrutiny.

To underscore the fact that these complaints are political warfare, van Flein notes that complainants are routinely violating the ethics laws themselves by publicizing the complaints.

Enjoy it while you can, Dems.  In a few days, Sarah will be free to return fire.

FOR RELEASE: JULY 20, 2009
Another Ethics Complaint Filed Against the Governor
July 20, 2009, Anchorage, Alaska – Once again, an ethics complaint has been filed and publicly released in violation of state law. This is the sixth complaint filed by Ms. McLeod. In addition, she has filed a lawsuit against the Governor's office and multiple public records act requests. All of her prior complaints that have been ruled on have been dismissed. The Ethics Act serves important state interests in ensuring ethical state government and was intended to prevent the various forms of corrupt misconduct that had plagued the Legislature in prior years and which resulted in the prosecution of legislators and others. It is unfortunate that the law has been abused and trivialized in the current manner.

Today’s complaint, filed just six days before the Governor leaves office, alleges that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act by failing to submit complete gift disclosure forms in a timely manner, and obtained “free” services. The apparent primary goal of this complaint has been achieved, namely, an effort to keep the complainant’s name in the paper. We anticipate another dismissal of this complaint as with the complainant’s other complaints. This is the fourth ethics complaint filed against the Governor since the announcement of her resignation on July 3. In every case, the complainers violated the confidentiality provision of the Ethics Act in making their  complaints public knowledge.

THOMAS VAN FLEIN—Personal Attorney for Governor Palin

* Sarah’s anticorruption crusade in Alaska stepped on quite a few Republican toes as well, so it’s not surprising that some of the snipers are from her own party.

As if the Democrats are going to go after one of their greatest enablers

It appears that as long as the Dems control the federal government, the criminal activities of the "community organizers" in ACORN are safe from congressional scrutiny, as Matthew Vadum of The American Spectator observes:

Some coincidences live in infamy.

It would have been hard Monday for Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) not to understand how Bill Ayers felt the day the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked. Unforgiving history records that on Sept. 11, 2001, the retired domestic terrorist's "I don't regret setting bombs" comment ran in a New York Times profile.

While obviously of a much lesser magnitude, the House Judiciary Committee chairman's May 4 statement exonerating ACORN couldn't have come out at a worse time. "Based on my review of the information regarding the complaints against ACORN, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time," Conyers said in a statement aired that night on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight."

Just hours earlier his fellow Democrats in Nevada, Secretary of State Ross Miller and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto dropped a bombshell. ACORN and two former senior ACORN employees in the state, they announced, had been charged with a total of 39 felony counts related to voter registrations.

The Nevada voter registration fraud case is just one of many being pursued around the country (for example, here).

Dodd falls on his sword, sort of (UPDATE: Just kidding -- it's Obama's fault)

CNN's Political Ticker reports that Sen. Chris Dodd has finally admitted what was already well-known:

Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN’s Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.

Go to the link to see the video.

Sen. Charles Grassley could not be reached for comment.


UPDATE: This just keeps getting better and better. Dodd says he did it, but he's not taking responsibility. CNN this evening:

Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language.

Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies.

"The administration had expressed reservations," Dodd said. "They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely."

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with adding the language, which has been used by officials at bailed-out insurance giant AIG to justify paying millions of dollars in bonuses to executives after receiving federal money.

He said Wednesday that the "grandfather clause" language "seemed like innocent modifications" at the time.

"I agreed reluctantly," Dodd said. "I was changing the amendment because others were insistent."

He agreed reluctantly, he says. Then again, just yesterday he lied about whether or not he was involved in the first place, so take that assurance with a grain of salt.

Apparently, AIG didn't pay enough protection money to the Dems in Congress

The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets website is a treasure trove of information on where the money is flowing in politics. A glance at contributions by AIG employees yields some interesting insights.

The first chart shows overall contributions, organized by election cycle and recipients' party. Until 1992, AIG contributions favored the Republicans, but since then, each election has tipped the balance even more in the Democrats' favor. In the just-concluded cycle, Democrats reaped 69% of AIG contributions.

(Click each image to enlarge)

In congressional elections, Democrats took in over 75% of AIG contributions. Not surprising, since Democrats control both houses, and Congress holds life-or-death regulatory power over corporations like AIG.


So, which members of Congress were the greatest benefactors of AIG largesse? Some familiar names top the list, all of them senators (at the time). The top recipients were also presidential candidates at one time or another in the cycle, so they naturally drew greater attention, with Barack Obama the clear winner in contributions.


Interestingly, close behind Obama in contributions was Senator Chris Dodd. Although his presidential campaign fizzled early, he still managed to far outpace the third-place recipient (McCain). There's no reason this should be puzzling. Dodd is chairman of the powerful Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which happens to have regulatory power over corporations like AIG.

AIG's troubled Financial Products affiliate, where most of the corporation's hemorraghing has occurred, is responsible for the vast majority of employee contributions to Democrats, with that unit favoring the Dems 86%-14%. OpenSecrets doesn't detail the individual recipients of the Financial Products contributions, but simple logic dictates that Dodd was a prime beneficiary.


Perhaps Financial Products thought that it was getting its money's worth when Dodd included an amendment in the stimulus package specifically allowing companies like AIG to pay out contractually-obligated merit bonuses using bailout money.

Dodd, however, apparently felt like he had no choice but to join the dogpile of phony outrage when AIG went ahead and did what the Dodd amendment specifically authorized.

Sigh. What's this country coming to? It used to be that when businessmen bought a politician, he stayed bought.