http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/18/pelo...is-un-american/




Pelosi: Enforcing American immigration law is un-American

posted at 7:45 pm on March 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Spectacular Hispandering (as Kaus calls it) from Madam Speaker, coinciding with The One’s decision to toss yet another hot-button issue that he doesn’t have to deal with right now onto his already crowded plate. Describing positions she disagrees with as un-American or unpatriotic is an endearing little habit of Pelosi’s and comes this time with a twist: Not only are immigration raids unpatriotic, apparently, but illegal aliens are among the greatest patriots of all.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is “un-American.”…

“You are special people. You’re here on a Saturday night to take responsibility for our country’s future. That makes you very, very patriotic.”

“I was embarrassed by what she said,” said Rick Oltman, with Californians for Population Stabilization, an anti-illegal immigrant group. “Exhorting illegal aliens for taking responsibility for our country’s future…. In fact, sitting there in the audience…. I really resented that comment.”

This also coincides with a new poll from Rasmussen showing 68% support for punishing businesses that hire illegals, up slightly from a few years ago despite the headwinds from Hopenchange. No matter. Like The One says, “I won.” And like the boss says, “The question is not whether, but when.”

This is a good excuse for Democrats to create a business enemies list and special tax punishments to be visited on small and select groups that earn their money in some unapproved but legal way.

Friday, April 10, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Climate bill could trigger lawsuit landslide

Tom LoBianco

EXCLUSIVE:

Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.

"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill was written by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat. Both lawmakers declined repeated requests for comment.

Oh good.

More stimulus.

Oh good.

More stimulus.

Might need to think about that Environmental Engineer degree... will be significant need for expert witnesses in court...

Just become an actor and make a movie about it. Less work.

Or Vice President...

God only knows what all that really means. I have read recently of the increased need to prepare for major cyber attacks from sophisticated state actors.

And isn't that the essential mischief contained within the bill? Sort of like, "Anything not expressly forbidden is mandatory." Laws should be clear and structured, not so vague as to allow for all sorts of interpretation after the fact. The Mack truck governments may drive through those "holes" may just be the one that runs you over. Your heirs and assigns may eventually be redressed on your behalf, but that potential outcome does you absolutely no good.

Nancy Pelosi's brutal reality check


Asked this weekend to grade her performance as speaker, Nancy Pelosi gave herself an “A for effort.”

But Pelosi knows that the real test is still to come.

Pelosi is inarguably one of the strongest speakers in modern history — an authoritarian figure in an era of centralized power in the House. But the coming months are a make-or-break period for her, a brutal reality check of her ability to manage all aspects of her job — consensus-building, agenda-setting, vote-counting, fundraising and campaigning.

Now in her fourth year as speaker and eighth overall as the top Democrat in the House, Pelosi has never faced such a daunting set of challenges:

Health care: Pelosi and other top House Democrats say publicly that they have the votes to push through a comprehensive package, but privately, they know they don’t. Pelosi must balance the diverging interests of her own members while simultaneously satisfying Senate Democrats and working with President Barack Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a former House colleague with whom she has an uneasy relationship.

The voters: The electoral winds that were at Pelosi’s back in the past two cycles thanks to having George W. Bush in the White House are blowing this year in Democrats’ faces. Prognosticators both inside and outside the party are laying odds on an outcome that seemed unthinkable just a few months ago: a GOP takeover of the House.

Democratic infighting: The factions that make up the House Democratic majority, from the conservative Blue Dog Coalition to the liberal Progressive Caucus, are increasingly willing to fight for their own priorities at the risk of party unity. That dynamic was evident last week when a simple $15 billion jobs bill was punted from the floor schedule over a series of Goldilocks-like objections about too little spending, too much spending and misdirected spending.

Brutal campaigning: Pelosi faces a tough year on the fundraising circuit, with a punishing travel schedule and hard environment in which to raise money. She’s collected $18.5 million for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — with a goal of $25 million for the election cycle — and $3.6 million for vulnerable Democratic incumbents and challengers. But hints of GOP victory in the fall could to make it more difficult for her to raise money from Corporate America and K Street.

Loss of allies: Pelosi suffered a tremendous personal loss with the death of her friend and her most influential ally in the House, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha. Another of Pelosi’s powerful colleagues, Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, has seen his influence diminished by ethical problems — including an admonishment last week by theHouse ethics committee.

The “bullet in the head” factor: Pelosi insists she will fight for every Democratic seat this November. But as Election Day draws nearer, Pelosi will most likely have to make tough calls on which vulnerable Democratic candidates to help and which ones to cut loose. Those choices would cause conflict in her caucus and could threaten the Democratic majority if she picks poorly.

Internal polls look bad for the Democrats, and Charlie Cook has warned that the party may lose its majority in November.

But in an interview over the weekend, Pelosi said unequivocally that the Democrats will hold on to their majority in November.

“I’m not yielding one grain of sand; we’re fighting for every seat,” the speaker said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Pelosi’s supporters point to her past successes as a sign that she’ll succeed again this year, despite all the obstacles and the gloom and doom.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/...l#ixzz0gxBRa2gw

Jim Bunning Plays Chicken with Unemployment Benefits



Mar 1 2010, 10:48 AM ET


I'm glad that Jim Bunning wants to be fiscally responsible. But the extension of unemployment benefits is really not the right place to start. His cunning plan to put a hold on the reauthorization of unemployment benefits until the Democrats agree to fund them out of existing stimulus dollars will not do much good, and it could do great harm.

The United States has basically the right idea about unemployment benefits. Giving people unemployment assistance has a negative effect on work: the easier it is to stay out of the workforce, the more people will do it. Not only does this up the cost to the public fisc; it also destroys human capital, as skills stagnate. This is a lot of the reason that Europe has historically had high unemployment compared to the U.S. (though there are other issues, and the insurance system is much worse in some countries than others.)

In my opinion, unemployment benefits should be more generous financially--the worst effects seem to come from letting people linger on the rolls, rather than the size of the checks. Given how much disruption a generous benefit could prevent, I think we could (and should) help out families in temporary need more than we do. But on the duration of benefits, we get it right: it's temporary assistance, not a way of life. In a normal economy, when just about anyone can find some kind of job, shorter term benefits are sound policy.

However, in recessions, the length of time for which people need "temporary" assistance stretches out. That means that the government has to respond with temporary benefit extensions. These aren't just good for the people who are unemployed; it's also good for us. Unemployment assistance is one of the "automatic fiscal stabilizers" that all but the most hard-nosed conservative economists agree help smooth the business cycle in modern industrial countries. Indeed, it's one of the most effective forms of stimulus we have.

Even if you think the government needs a plan to get its house in order, why on earth is Bunning making a stand on this issue? It's political poison--even the Republican base knows people who are out of work. It's terrible economic policy--suddenly cutting off the taps would have nasty knock-on effects on the economy. And while it's a lot of money, it's one of the few government programs that pretty much unequivocally improve the net welfare of the American people. If Bunning wants to hold up something, how about finding some useless defense appropriations to complain about?

Press Releases
For Immediate Release
March 1, 2010

Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury



Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

I'm slowly reading through the Business and Finance thread, though the crisis episode. Interesting to read with hindsight.

I backed into it. Seems that page 380 is a good place to start. I'm at page 400 right now.

Megan McCardle (Libertarian) on the Bunning hold up-




http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...benefits/36815/

I'm slowly reading through the Business and Finance thread, though the crisis episode. Interesting to read with hindsight.

Megan McCardle (Libertarian) on the Bunning hold up-




http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...benefits/36815/

An extremely bitter Charlie Rangel steps down from House Ways & Means Committee chairmanship...