It looks like the governor of Louisiana is going to decline stimulus money. Here's a transcript of his radio interview:
Hugh Hewitt interview with Governor Jindal of Louisiana
Keep in mind, he's only refusing money that mandates changes in state law. Those monies that help the state without changing laws will still be accepted. Here's his official legislation proposal. It's dry reading, but near the bottom is where he goes into his official reasons for declining portions of the stimulus package.
For clarification purposes, here's an article explaining the stimulus bill measures being introduced and the constitutional laws that are being violated by the force-feeding of stimulus money.
Keep in mind that each state is effectively a nation onto itself. All the states in the union agree to work together for the common good. Hence, the "United States of America".
The Federal government is the system established by the states to handle affairs that affect the nation as a whole. Foreign affairs, military defense against outside threats, etc.
State government serves it's citizens and Federal government serves states. This is a very simplified explanation of the responsibilities of the various levels of government, but should help you understand how our system was designed and how these responsibilities are being shuffled around or usurped.
If you're interested, read the comments on the legal explanation. One poster said (s)he was all for the abolition of state government and having a centralized national government. I nearly fell out of my seat when I read this. This is the mindset Obama's administration is fostering.
The United States is unequaled throughout history for average quality of life, technological advancement, financial strength and overall happiness of it's citizens.
Our system has it's flaws, but it works amazingly well when the Constitution is adhered to. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Misunderstanding of Earmarks...
Earmarks. That word has been popping up a lot since Obama got his $410 billion omnibus bill put through. It contained nearly 9000 earmarks.
Republicans are slamming Obama for not following through of his promise to cut earmarks. Democrats are slamming Republicans for having so many earmarks in the bill. So on and so forth.
Do you know what an earmark is? Our good friends at Wikipedia define a political earmark thusly:
"In US politics, an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees."
What that means is an earmark clearly states what the money is supposed to be spent on. It creates transparency and helps insure the money...OUR money...is used for it's intended purpose.
Each branch of the Federal government used to propose their own budgets for the coming year. Then some lunkhead came up with the bright idea of just doing one big budget plan, assigning it to the Executive branch and letting it dole out the money.
Only ~2% of the $410 billion federal spending bill (omnibus) was earmarked. Guess who gets to decide where the rest goes? That's right. The president does. What's worse, since the executive branch is now responsible for doling out the funds, it can do so at it's discretion with little, if any, oversight. Kinda makes you wonder why Obama is such a proponent of earmark elimination, huh?
Every single penny of that bill should have been earmarked so that we know where our money is going.
Earmarks in and of themselves aren't bad. It's where the earmarks direct the money...the contents of the earmark...that are bad. The omnibus bill contained earmarks for lobster research in Maine, termite research in New Orleans and a rodeo museum in South Dakota just to name a few.
An awful lot of our money is being given to a very few people. Without oversight, without earmarks, what's to keep them honest?
Republicans are slamming Obama for not following through of his promise to cut earmarks. Democrats are slamming Republicans for having so many earmarks in the bill. So on and so forth.
Do you know what an earmark is? Our good friends at Wikipedia define a political earmark thusly:
"In US politics, an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees."
What that means is an earmark clearly states what the money is supposed to be spent on. It creates transparency and helps insure the money...OUR money...is used for it's intended purpose.
Each branch of the Federal government used to propose their own budgets for the coming year. Then some lunkhead came up with the bright idea of just doing one big budget plan, assigning it to the Executive branch and letting it dole out the money.
Only ~2% of the $410 billion federal spending bill (omnibus) was earmarked. Guess who gets to decide where the rest goes? That's right. The president does. What's worse, since the executive branch is now responsible for doling out the funds, it can do so at it's discretion with little, if any, oversight. Kinda makes you wonder why Obama is such a proponent of earmark elimination, huh?
Every single penny of that bill should have been earmarked so that we know where our money is going.
Earmarks in and of themselves aren't bad. It's where the earmarks direct the money...the contents of the earmark...that are bad. The omnibus bill contained earmarks for lobster research in Maine, termite research in New Orleans and a rodeo museum in South Dakota just to name a few.
An awful lot of our money is being given to a very few people. Without oversight, without earmarks, what's to keep them honest?
Great online learning site for young kids...
My wife found, thanks to her mommy friends on JustMommies.com, a terrific website with educational games for young kids.
It's called Starfall. Preschoolers seem to be the target audience, but there are more advanced activities.
We were starting to get concerned about our 3 year-old son's lack of progress with his verbal skills. Within days of his using the site, they began to improve dramatically. He's also becoming more verbal. Instead of grunting and pointing, he's asking for things by name. Now he's a little pro at it. Another added benefit(?) is that his computer use skills are being developed.
What's best is we don't have to force him to use it. He loves it. In fact it's difficult to get him off it at times.
It's so cute to watch him cruise through the sites many activities. Of course, now we fight over the computers.
It's called Starfall. Preschoolers seem to be the target audience, but there are more advanced activities.
We were starting to get concerned about our 3 year-old son's lack of progress with his verbal skills. Within days of his using the site, they began to improve dramatically. He's also becoming more verbal. Instead of grunting and pointing, he's asking for things by name. Now he's a little pro at it. Another added benefit(?) is that his computer use skills are being developed.
What's best is we don't have to force him to use it. He loves it. In fact it's difficult to get him off it at times.
It's so cute to watch him cruise through the sites many activities. Of course, now we fight over the computers.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
As mentioned in my previous article, many states (up to 30 at last count) are considering invoking the 10th Amendment which allows states to ignore Federal laws which they find to be Constitutionally outside the authority of Federal government.
Keep in mind, the Constitution clearly states which areas the Federal government may enact laws governing. As stated earlier, these areas are finite and may not be added upon. Any other area is governed at the state level.
A few of the states have brought the subject to a vote in their respective state Houses. An interesting pattern is developing in these results.
Arkansas representatives voted the proposal down 10 to 8. New Hampshire representatives also voted down the bill 216 to 150. Washington didn't even bother, instead shelving the proposal and effectively killing it.
Here's the interesting bit. In Arkansas, all "No" votes came from Democrats. Same with New Hampshire...in spite of the fact the street in front of the Statehouse had hundreds of citizens (the linked article lables them "activists") voicing their support for the proposal. The Washington chairman who decided to not even bring it up for vote was also a Democrat.
See what's happening here? The Democrats have control and plan to abuse that control for as long as they can. To be fair, if Republicans had majority I'm sure they'd do the same thing. This isn't a question of party so much as it is responsibility. Our elected officials are behaving irresponsibly. They are doing nothing to protect our rights.
This next bit is purely opinion based on the hundreds of articles I've read, videos I've watched and legislation and bills I've forced myself to decipher (dreadfully boring stuff).
Due to an overwhelming amount of ignorance amongst the general populace of the United States we are steadily giving up everything that makes this the best nation on Earth. The last presidential election had an amazing turnout, but it was comprised of voters who had no idea what or whom they were voting for.Obama won not because he was the better candidate. Not because he was more experienced...two years as a junior senator (a position he "won" by forcing all opponents to drop their bid) and absent for 75% of his term (look at the number of "Not Voting" in his senate voting record). He won because he had more money to spend, looked better in front of the cameras and most importantly because he was black (even though he isn't really).
Seriously folks. Wake up already. Our kids have to grow up in this country. Our actions will determine what kind of country they will inherit from us. The government works for us, not the other way around.
However, if you want the government to continue to make your decisions for you then, by all means, keep up the good work.
I mean, it worked so well for the Soviet Union. Why shouldn't it work here as well?
Keep in mind, the Constitution clearly states which areas the Federal government may enact laws governing. As stated earlier, these areas are finite and may not be added upon. Any other area is governed at the state level.
A few of the states have brought the subject to a vote in their respective state Houses. An interesting pattern is developing in these results.
Arkansas representatives voted the proposal down 10 to 8. New Hampshire representatives also voted down the bill 216 to 150. Washington didn't even bother, instead shelving the proposal and effectively killing it.
Here's the interesting bit. In Arkansas, all "No" votes came from Democrats. Same with New Hampshire...in spite of the fact the street in front of the Statehouse had hundreds of citizens (the linked article lables them "activists") voicing their support for the proposal. The Washington chairman who decided to not even bring it up for vote was also a Democrat.
See what's happening here? The Democrats have control and plan to abuse that control for as long as they can. To be fair, if Republicans had majority I'm sure they'd do the same thing. This isn't a question of party so much as it is responsibility. Our elected officials are behaving irresponsibly. They are doing nothing to protect our rights.
This next bit is purely opinion based on the hundreds of articles I've read, videos I've watched and legislation and bills I've forced myself to decipher (dreadfully boring stuff).
Due to an overwhelming amount of ignorance amongst the general populace of the United States we are steadily giving up everything that makes this the best nation on Earth. The last presidential election had an amazing turnout, but it was comprised of voters who had no idea what or whom they were voting for.Obama won not because he was the better candidate. Not because he was more experienced...two years as a junior senator (a position he "won" by forcing all opponents to drop their bid) and absent for 75% of his term (look at the number of "Not Voting" in his senate voting record). He won because he had more money to spend, looked better in front of the cameras and most importantly because he was black (even though he isn't really).
Seriously folks. Wake up already. Our kids have to grow up in this country. Our actions will determine what kind of country they will inherit from us. The government works for us, not the other way around.
However, if you want the government to continue to make your decisions for you then, by all means, keep up the good work.
I mean, it worked so well for the Soviet Union. Why shouldn't it work here as well?
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
What this means is that the powers of the Federal government are clearly defined and finite. They may not appoint themselves more powers. Any powers not given to the Federal government are to be handled by the States or the citizens.
Now stop and think how many powers our Federal government has that aren't given to them by the Constitution:
Gun control
Drug Enforcement
Education
Health Care
etc. etc.
So, from a Constitutional standpoint, anyone arrested and convicted by a Federal law enforcement agency or court for drug offenses is being arrested, tried and held illegally.
The Constitution clearly defines what the Federal government may and may not do. Our elected officials have been systematically siezing these powers right under our noses.
Of course, we're to blame because we let them do it.
What this means is that the powers of the Federal government are clearly defined and finite. They may not appoint themselves more powers. Any powers not given to the Federal government are to be handled by the States or the citizens.
Now stop and think how many powers our Federal government has that aren't given to them by the Constitution:
Gun control
Drug Enforcement
Education
Health Care
etc. etc.
So, from a Constitutional standpoint, anyone arrested and convicted by a Federal law enforcement agency or court for drug offenses is being arrested, tried and held illegally.
The Constitution clearly defines what the Federal government may and may not do. Our elected officials have been systematically siezing these powers right under our noses.
Of course, we're to blame because we let them do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
