Bush Says Spending Cuts Will Be Needed

"One day after pledging to undertake one of history's largest reconstruction efforts, President Bush served notice yesterday that rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast will require spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

Amid growing concern among congressional Republicans about the huge cost of the planned reconstruction effort, Bush said the federal government can foot the bill without resorting to a tax increase. 'You bet it's going to cost money. But I'm confident we can handle it,' Bush said. 'It's going to mean that we're going to have to cut unnecessary spending."

Cut spending, Mr. President...I agree, but where? Maybe I can help...
• The federal government cannot account for $24.5 billion spent in 2003.
• A White House review of just a sample of the federal budget identified $90 billion spent on programs deemed that were either ineffective, marginally adequate, or operating under a flawed purpose or design.
• The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” book identifying $140 billion in potential spending cuts.
• The federal government spends $23 billion annually on special interest pork projects such as grants to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or funds to combat teenage “goth” culture in Blue Springs, Missouri.
• Washington spends tens of billions of dollars on failed and outdated programs such as the Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Geological Survey and Economic Development Association.
• The federal government made $20 billion in overpayments in 2001.
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s $3.3 billion in overpayments in 2001 accounted for over 10 percent of the department’s total budget.
• Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.
• Examples of wasteful duplication include: 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water.
• The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses, and 40% of this goes to Fortune 500 companies.
• The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets, and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were reimbursable.
• The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually to not farm their land.
• Washington spends $60 billion annually on corporate welfare, versus $43 billion on homeland security.

I believe that could give us a start on cleaning up Katrina, and paying for the war. Bear in mind also, that this is just the tip of the iceberg, I have all but left out the pork in this years transportation budget.

But, how are our Congressmen handling this news?

"We need specific information to ensure accountability," said Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

In other words, "We're not giving up our Pork unless you can tell us where each dollar goes."

I wonder how long it will be before our "bloated" government explodes? All these years of surplus and prosperity have given them the idea that they can spend all year long, and the money will just be there when we need it. Not so, Gentlemen, Not so.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ (Free WAPO registration required)

I've been spending a lot of time this week glued to the boob tube to hear just how asinine the Dem.s on the Judiciary committee could get. All week we have heard from Democratic leaders and the MSM that they were afraid that Judge Roberts was "on the fringe" or "too conservative for the mainstream". This led me to ponder just what the left would consider "mainstream".

After a little digging on the bloggosphere, I ran across an article on

GOP Bloggers

that asked the same question. After reading this, I decided to check the results for myself. So, I asked a few leftist friends of mine, and the answer I received was exactly what I expected...Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Let's go back in time a little, shall we? Prior to her confirmation, Justice Ginsburg, according to her own writings, believed the following:

• Mother's Day, and Father's Day should be abolished, as they are both sexist.
• The Constitution provides for the Right to Prostitution.
• The legal age for sexual consent should be 12!
• Prisons should all be co-ed... after all, segregation is promoting "separate but equal".

This is mainstream? If so, then I'm pleased to say that I, along with John Roberts and many many others have completely fallen off the edge leaving the fringes behind long ago.

Also remember, by the way, Ginsburg was confirmed with a 98-2 vote. Republicans understood that Clinton won the election, hence could appoint his Justices. I'll go 9 to 1 with anyone that the Dems will not do the same for Roberts.

Sheehan Just Won't Shut Up.

I have tried, I really have. But now, the Sweetheart of the Left has managed to push my limits of loonyness far beyond the breaking point. Watch out, this ain't gonna be pretty.
In her latest bizzarro post to Michael (Big Fat Rich Liar) Moore's website, "Mother" Sheehan goes on a rant to end U.S. occupations again. But wait, now we must end our "occupation" of... New Orleans. That's right, NOLA, the Big Easy, The Crescent City; we must leave now.

"One thing that truly troubled me about my visit to Louisiana
was the level of the military presence there. I imagined before that if the
military had to be used in a CONUS (Continental US) operations that they would
be there to help the citizens: Clothe them, feed them, shelter them, and protect
them. But what I saw was a city that is occupied. I saw soldiers walking
around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. I wanted to
ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me. Sand bags
were removed from private property to make machine gun nests."

As absolutely insane as this sounds to anyone with a shred of common sense, the left is eating this stuff up. The compassion of the "party of compassion" is gone, buried, and now returned to the dust of the Earth. Don't jump on the messenger, I can back this up. Note that in the entire article, she spoke of the great works that she had done the entire time...and then, all of a sudden one thing that "troubled" her was the military presence in NOLA!!! Not the human suffering, missing children, or the loss of life. The military was the ultimate evil in this case.

This proves, folks, that if we give these "Michael Moore" types any control, much less the country, we will have NO military. They don't want them in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran...but they also don't want them used at home to help our own people. Just a sheer hatred for the military extending even to contemptual feelings for them when they are helping our fellow Americans through one of the worst disasters in American history.

So, leftists, which is it? "Don't send them out there when there's so much suffering here" or "don't occupy our cities"? Eating your own cake doesn't taste so good, does it.

A Tale of Three Branches

For all those on the left who insist on getting more from Roberts in his hearings, please allow me to explain the concepts of a Representative Republic.

First off, we do not hold to the mob-mentality of a Democracy. There are many reasons for that which I will explain at a later time. In a Representative Republic, representatives are elected by the citizens as their representatives but not their proxies this means that they are only obligated to act in the best interest of their constituents, not to their wishes, whims, or ideals.

The founders, in their infinite wisdom, gave us a three tiered government. They did this as to prevent one man, or group of men (or women) could take absolute control of the country. They are defined as follows.

1) Executive: The President of the United States of America. The President has many duties, read the Constitution if you wish to know them.
2)Legislative: House and Senate. See above.
3)Judicial: Supreme Court (specifically who I will be discussing). They try disputes between states, uphold the Constitution (specifically the constitutionality of laws.), etc.

Note that in no wise is the SCOTUS representative of any other body. No matter what you may think, they are not sent as a representative of the Arlen Specter, Ted Kennedy, Kyl, Biden (especially Biden), or anyone else. They, in essence represent the Constitution.

If we allow Roberts, or anyone else to be branded either "right" or "left", then that will make them political figures. We all can agree that all political figures inherently come with their own agendas, whether right or left. Do we really want a SCOTUS that is beholden to Senators? Absolutely not. The power of the government would be drastically tilted to Congress, and we would be left with a lame-duck President no matter who we elected.

Roe v. Wade; United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber; or any other case is not important enough to completely do away with our precious form of governance. The Constitution strictly lays out the framework for a strong executive. The character of the Executive was one of the most delicate problems that the convention faced. Madison's Virginia Plan called for the executive to be elected by the Legislature, thus concentrating power in the Legislative...however, experience in the states had shown that a strong Executive was of the utmost importance in matters of foreign relations. Especially when the Legislative was at an impasse.

Thus is the genius behind SCOTUS nominees not giving "previews" on future rulings, but merely a glimpse of their judicial philosophy.