TAXES

Most people consider what they pay in taxes is what they have to pay on April 15th. The withholding tables were adjusted to allow an individual keep $13 more each week ($676 a year). But was anything done to insure that the savings, from the adjustment to the withholding tables, would not be taken back? How many people will find that their refund is less than prior years or they still owe more taxes than expected? To some it will seem like a tax increase. And most people will not buy that the change of withholding tables was a tax cut. Taxpayers will be so pissed off that polls will fall for democrats.

Palin

Palin is polling well but keep in mind the person who will be the Republican nominee for President in 2012 is not yet on the radar screen.

The desire of non-republicans to have Palin become the nominee is in order for them to have an easy election. Two things. 1) Since most would be expecting Obama as the Democratic nominee you should be hoping that Obama does a great job as president, and will not be in a position to need an easy opponent when running for re-election. 2) You do not want the person who will be a horrible president to have a lot of money. If the person would receive the nomination and some scandal hit the Obama camp, it could be enough of a shift to allow the person to win. It’s the old ‘be careful what you wish for’ saying. A mistake is in thinking that you want the person you view as being the worse President to be the nominee. Then you find out the person does well as a candidate. You would want the WORST candidate of those who could be a GOOD President. Palin’s popularity demonstrates a great desire for a conservative leader in the Republican Party.
People who are supporting Palin are doing so because they are thirsting for a conservative candidate. George HW Bush won because of peoples love of Reagan and lost when he went away from there, broke his promise and allowed new taxes. George W Bush won only a close election. Gore just needed to win his own HOME State of Tennessee. When the Republicans lose they think ‘we must be too far to the right’ not recognizing that it may be because voters have decided to not vote. As you move further and further to the left you lose more and more. IF moving to the left was the correct direction you would see better results.

Mainstream Sotomayor

Each time a person is nominated to the Supreme Court, people will ask ‘Is the nominee in the mainstream?’ So what does it mean to be in the ‘mainstream’? I see one definition has being “The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity”.
If the prevailing current of thought is outside of the US Constitution then I do not want the nominee to be in the ‘mainstream’. If the ‘mainstream’ view of the second amendment would have crossed the line of constitutionality but the ‘mainstream’ has not changed the constitution, then I would expect the Supreme court to rule against them. I expect the nominee to follow the US constitution, not what is popular. If its truly popular, I would expect the constitution to change.

Take the D.C. voting rights Bill. It would give the Washington D.C. a vote in the U.S. House. But this is reserved for States. Washington D.C. has not chosen to become our 51st state, and no one is changing the Constitution to allow D.C. to have votes. Allowing them to have a vote may have ‘mainstream’ support but it’s not constitutional. If it has sufficient support it would not be tough to make it constitutional. Simply passing legislation does not make it constitutional.


The Constitution is not living and breathing. It’s static. Its interpretation is not to change as each generation desires. Each generation may chose to change the Constitution, but you change the Constitution. You don’t pass unconstitutional legislation because you think it would be the right thing to do. You don’t pass laws to grant powers to the executive branch because you want them to do something. Congress can not just pass any legislation it wants. Yet that is what it does, and it seems to be accepted by the American people.

If being mainstream means not being constitutional, then don’t be mainstream.

The Obama Back Step.

Lets look at what President Obama said on Friday June 12 2009
From a pool report:

“We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran and obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there’s a possibility of change and, ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide but just as what has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well, is that you’re seeing people looking at new possibilities [sic], and whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”

President Obama is taking credit for how the election is going in Iran.
Read what was written in the economist.com.

“Last week, Hizbullah lost elections in Lebanon, and today Iranians are voting for president after a surprisingly hard-fought campaign. Yet critics of Mr Obama are not prepared to give him credit for a breakthrough that relies on Arab and Persian opinion swinging towards America. So they're pre-spinning the insignificant results. It might be smarter, though, if Iran's president loses, to follow Mr Krauthammer's lead and take credit for years of controversial Republican diplomacy that is only now bearing fruit. Either that, or quit making political issues out of the president saying "shukran" to an Arabic-speaking audience, and seriously consider whether Mr Obama's brand of diplomacy is actually working.

Update: His critics may not give him any credit for the events in the Middle East, but Mr Obama is claiming it nonetheless.”

If you did not click on the economist.com blog entry and follow the link here is where they linked to The New Republics Blog “The Spine” by Marty Peretz here it is

It appears that Obama was the one who was expressing a desire to see Ahmadinejad lose and Mousavi to win. Such a result would allow Obama to claim success in his foreign policy.
And now what does Obama say?

“Now, it's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections. What I will repeat and what I said yesterday is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people.

”


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-President-Lee-of-the-Republic-of-Korea-in-Joint-Press-Availability/

“Now, it's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections. What I will repeat and what I said yesterday is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people.”

“[A]lthough there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.”

And in a press conference on June 15, 2009 with Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy

“I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.”

Did you see it? President Obama made a back step. The question is was it a bit too late? Many hold the view that the election in Iraq would not make any difference since all candidates would be under the authority of the Maulas. So they could allow for free and fair elections but when Obama made his statement it made the Iranian leaders mad for Obama to suggest that his Cairo speech was what made the difference. So they simply announced Ahmadinejad won and by a large majority and the hell with Obama.
They however did not expect such a revolt from the people.

Congressman Pence would like congress to say what?

And up to this point, they have not received the unqualified affirmation of the most powerful free nation in the history of the world. I think it's important that Congress say "we affirm the right of the dissidents to step forward. We affirm them seeking freedom of expression and free and fair elections." I'm hoping that the American people will be able to be heard on an American stage, even if the administration is taking a more measured approach.

William Kristol

Question for White House spokesman Robert Gibbs: As "things" have continued to unfold, is President Obama now willing to condemn the brutal actions of a violently illiberal regime? If not, what would the regime have to do to generate clear moral and political condemnation from our "deeply troubled" president?

If Obama is not being strong enough, it because he is going to have to deal with Iran when all this is over. If he wants success he can’t seem to promote the overthrow of the Iranian government. He will also have to speak out for the people of Iran to have free speech.

Patrick Leahy has set the date of July 13 for the start of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.

Patrick Leahy has set the date of July 13 for the start of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. With the numerous number decisions I would have expected to take a bit longer to start the hearings. There is plenty of time before the October session. I hope Sen. Leahy showed some consideration for Judge Sotomayor and conferred with her about the date. She may not have every case she has done on the top of her head, and she needs time to examine each case. Does she have enough time to prepare the answers she will be asked? It not just the people asking the question who will need time, she needs the time to review her prior decisions.
Alito v Sotomayor
Two key differences between what Alito said in his confirmation hearing and what Sotomayor has said.
1. Alito never said he would come up with a better decision. She would need to present the point that its not a issue of race but that Wisdom with experience leads to better decisions. Experience without wisdom, does not lead to a good decision and Wisdom alone may be better than experience alone but is still not as good as a person with both Wisdom and Experience.
2. We do not hear her saying what Alito said. Which is “And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.” She needs to express a similar view. Other wise it would seem she would be bias and not objective.

Sotomayor’s Senate Hearing

Sotomayor had a large number cases before her during her time on the bench. So her hearings should take a large amount of time. If the previous Supreme court nominees had just a small percentage of cases requiring further scrutiny, and it would then be reasonable to expect Sotomayor to also have a small percentage of cases requiring a further look. This would mean looking at a lot more decisions. But with her many cases it is going to require spending a long time to go through. This will be shown on the cable news channels, and as the judicial committee goes through the many cases it will become very boring to the viewers. The lack of interest by the cable news viewers should not lead people to ask “Are they being to hard on her?”. The lack of patience by the American people should NOT lead the judicial committee to abandon its job. Take the time needed to do the proper job.

Campainality vs Reality and other thoughts.

During a presidential campaign the non-incumbent candidate will criticize the way things are being done in by the current administration. As he spends time in office President Obama comes face to face with reality. He has to deal with certain truths, which he could ignore while being a candidate. From learning that earmarks are not all bad, to learning the dangers posed by those in Gitmo, Obama is having to change what he promised in his campaigns. During the campaign his soon to be voters are out cheering him over these promises. But when those promise are wisely broken they are mad that he could not continue to ignore reality.

Obama is only human. His supporters should allow him to be human. Accept that he is inexperience, not too politically savvy. He will avoid having press conferences and will continue to use a the teleprompter or the big screen TV. Cut this “He is so humble.” crap. He is slightly over his head.

If President Obama wants to encourage bipartisanship, he needs to veto legislation. Find some a piece of legislation where republicans had wanted to filibuster. Discuss with a few republicans (John McCain could be one) some key issues of the legislation. Asked for these issues to be included in the legislation. Force them to work together. Bipartisanship tends to occur when it is needed. When you have near filibuster proof Senate you don’t need bipartisanship. If President Obama vetoes legislation it will force them working together to overturn the veto or work together to get the legislation in a form that is acceptable.

Specter’s Spectacle
I am amazed to hear people who say Specter’s change of party is only a selfish move and does not benefit the Democrats, but insists that it’s a huge lost for the Republicans. If how he votes does not change, republicans do not lose anything.

What are the predictions

Hillary Clinton will be running the State Department like it was a mini administration. It will not be Obama’s foreign policy but Hillary’s. If Hillary has success, and the domestic front is not going well, she will be praised and people will express regret not giving her the nomination. Obama would have to make quite a number of foreign trips, with major substantive speeches. Would Obama be able to keep up with Hillary who would be constantly travelling. As much as people love Obama. Sectary of State Hillary Clinton will have more press coverage than other Sec. Of State. It will be Hillary vs Obama all over again, and since Obama is President he will attempt to remove her from the position. With a 24/7 news cycle it will become a tough PR battle.

In the next four years no one will ask Obama if he made a mistake.

Criticisms of Obama will be viewed as racism. As a result instead of publicly giving reasons why something is the wrong path (which may help an Obama administration choose a better path) many will give praise to something that is not so praiseworthy. Obama’s administration will happily go down the path less traveled. And unfortunately it will be a path full of peril and too difficult to come back from. One must give good honest fair criticism of Obama’s administration in order to help him have a successful time in office. Making everything Obama does greater than it is may give him greater confidence to choose the wrong path.

Just as those who were in Washington D.C. to witness the Obama swearing found them selves disappointed, so may the many people who have projected on to Obama their ideas of change. They will have assumed that Obama will approach things in a manner that they expect, and when he does things in a very realistic manner they will be asking “Where is the change?”.

Obama will not be able to fully pull out of Iraq in 16 months. Bear in mind, we have built a massive embassy. It will have many troops. How many people will be upset at our final troop level (it will not be zero troops). Troops will be moving in and out of Iraq for YEARS, in fact DECADES. Can Obama make being in Iraq the key to peace in the Middle East? Iraq will have to be transformed from where we fight the war on terrorism, into a major key in creating peace.

When asked about what tax software Sec. Of Treasury nominee Timothy Geithner used in preparing his mistaken tax return, he said Turbo Tax. He did failed to understand the point of why one would be asked the question. It was not to be critical of Turbo Tax but to see if someone filling out their taxes would be prompted to tax certain action and chose to ignore it. If he would be prompted, then it becomes less of a mistake, and more of a intentional error. Bloggers will be grabbing old copies of Turbo Tax and test to see how easy it would be to make such an oversight without any warning by the software.


The Supremes

The Supreme Court will have a vacancy after this years term is completed. Anyone in the Liberal side of the court could retire. I would say it could be John Paul Stevens, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

(btw when will Barrack Obama be added to spell check?)

On thin ice?

Can the recent increase in the Arctic ice be used to prove that global warming proponents are wrong? Or would any one making that suggesting be standing on thin ice? In the month of March you should get the maximum increase of ice. Since this current increase took place in such a short time, how much more will the ice increase during March? How thick will the ice be, and how does that compare to past thickness of ice. We would have to wait until September or October to know what is the minimum amount of this ice remains. To make any argument now that the new formation of ice is evidence of the cyclical nature of Arctic ice would be premature but we would have to wait and see what the ice level does this year.

Leon Panetta

The selection of Leon Panetta by President-Elect Barrack Obama seems to be a surprise to most people. Most of all a surprise to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She was expecting someone to give her heads up on the nomination. Feinstein in an article “Obama's intel picks short on direct experience” by Pamela Hess is quoted to have said "I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," she said. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."
When I looked around cable news shows, and online sites I am finding it difficult to find anyone who is defending Panetta. Some seem to be searching for some explanations. They wonder if Feinstein's objections are more because of she was not informed or because she would like to see a person with an intelligence background to be selected. The answer tends to be the same. He does not have enough experience. So this seems like the a major up hill battle for the new Obama administration. (might be the first battle)
If no one comes forth now and defends Panetta He is not going to be able to survive his committee hearing and will never reach the Senate floor. But could we afford having a CIA chief who would need time to learn about the agency. Or someone who may take the agency in a direction away from securing the US. If Biden was correct, (some major test will be presented to the Obama administration) can we afford to waste time needed to catch the problem before it can happen.

Senate appointments

Must the Democratic Senators reject Burris’ appointment? Can the Senate do a certain amount of vetting. I read the rules committee could be spending 90 days looking into Burris’ eligibility to the Senate. Could the Senate ethics committee also be looking into Burris? If you can insure that no corrupt individual is in the US Senate (well at least that the person replacing Obama is not corrupted.) Blago could be trying to cause trouble by handing the Senate Dems a major PR problem, but must they threaten to block Burris from entering the Senate floor? If he is properly approved in ill. , have hearings to insure he is not part of any justice department investigation, and is not in violation of any ethics rules.


When deciding who to fill Senate Vacancies, one must not just consider the person’s qualifications but ones potential electability. The person selected would have only a year to prepare. That means one year to get a good understanding of the issues, and one year to learn about being a senator. There is no time to learn from your mistakes. In one year a opposition candidate will have risen up, and if the appointed candidate has done a poor job he or she will be on the way out.

So objections to any Blago appointments are probably about future electability. But in the process of preventing someone who MAY be rejected by the people, you are not destroying the person. Find a way to make the person acceptable to others. SHOW people he has no ethical problem, and he is capable of making a contribution to the Senate.