House Democrat Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina stated, “We’re not going to save our way out of this recession.” In fact, he believes we haven’t spent enough yet.  In fact, Clyburn told reporters, “We’ve got to spend our way out of this recession.”

With soaring deficits and unemployment at 10 percent, one would think the federal government would be careful with how it spends taxpayers’ money.  The examples of wasteful spending continue to flood the press along with evidence of phony job creation numbers.

One would think that it would be bad enough that the government is spending money like drunken sailors.  But now we find out they are spending stimulus money to make drunken mice!

That’s right!  Your tax dollars are going to serve up alcohol to mice in the name of stimulating the economy.  This is one of the stimulus projects being conducted by researchers at Florida Atlantic University.

Ah!  There is nothing like paying college students to see if mice become disoriented with alcohol.

But wait, it gets worse.

We have yet another example of how the Obama Administration continues to publicize inflated phony figures on the number of jobs created with the stimulus money.

This project claimed to create 0.92 of a job with the $8,408 dollars it received. 

You do the math. 

They hired 2 students to work for 11 weeks on this study over the summer.  That would make for a total of 22 weeks of work.  If they actually created 0.92 jobs with that money, you would have to assume they are paying less than $4.40 per hour (less than minimum wage) and that the university uses none of the funds for overhead or materials (which never happens).

Is this really stimulating the economy?

Is this project so worthwhile that its costs should be borne by taxpayers of future generations?

If President Obama were seriously interested in saving jobs in this fragile economy, he should quit whining that his huge majority in both houses of Congress won’t pass his bills.  Instead, he should focus in on friends that he appointed to high positions in his administration who continue to push regulations that kill jobs and strangle our economy.

The Obama Administration began killing jobs the first day it took office when the EPA changed course to restrict coal mining activities in West Virginia. 

These regulations are costing thousands of jobs in a state where unemployment is over 9 percent.  It raises the cost of coal mining also, so everyone pays more for energy.

Next, President Obama told Congress to pass a jobs-destroying cap-and-trade energy bill.  The House passed that bill, but the Senate thought it did not make much sense to kill more jobs in a recession and has stalled efforts to pass it.

Undeterred in his agenda to kill more jobs with extremist environmental legislation, Obama directed his EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, to push forward with a bureaucratic effort to declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant.  To accomplish this, Obama appointees attempted to bury studies and reports questioning the use of unreviewed studies using poor data to support their findings that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

In President Obama’s State of the Union speech on January 27, 2010, he said, “Let’s try common sense.” 

However, no matter how much you try to explain to them that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, Obama and his extremist appointees continue to plow ahead with their effort to destroy jobs.

The Heritage Foundation points out,

With Congress unable to pass cap-and-trade legislation as easily as some Members hoped, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward with its own set of global warming regulations. The EPA’s endangerment finding, which took effect January 14, gives the EPA authority under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The EPA’s attempt to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2), in addition to being the most expensive and expansive environmental regulation in history, would bypass the legislative process completely.

But this same mentality is not limited to the EPA. 

On the very same day that Obama asks Washington and the nation to “try common sense,” his political appointees at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted to require businesses to include new reports with their quarterly filings on the impact their business has on global warming.

This does nothing to create productive jobs and instead will increase compliance costs on businesses that are trying to be productive in this unforgiving economy. 

While President Obama may think creating more work for armies of regulatory lawyers is the path to full employment, their work usually ends in costly litigation that prevents working people from having constructive jobs in our economy.

My perennially underperforming team, the Philadelphia Eagles, got knocked out of the playoffs so like millions of other Americans, I will be watching the Super Bowl for the ads.

Even though there is controversy swirling around the airing of  Pro-Life and gay dating website ads, the biggest controversy is that the United States Census Bureau will be using $2.5 million of taxpayer money to advertise during the Super Bowl.  According to the Washington Post:

The Census Bureau unveiled a $133 million advertising campaign Thursday that urges people to mail back the questionnaires that will be sent out in mid-March. The ads, in 28 languages, aim to save taxpayers’ money by reducing the need for temporary workers to survey people who don’t return their forms.

Some ads will be featured on high-viewership television shows such as the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday and the Super Bowl in early February.

This is the same agency that has had other problems.  According to Time magazine:

Use of the word Negro to describe a black person has largely fallen out of polite conversation — except on the U.S. Census questionnaire. There, under “What is this person’s race?” is an option that reads, “Black, African Am., or Negro.” That has raised the ire of certain black activists and politicians as the Census Bureau gears up to mail out its once-a-decade questionnaires. The controversy has been cast by many as an instance of a tone-deaf agency not keeping up with the times.

President Obama’s January 27th State of the Union Address raised more questions than answers. While the national debt continues to soar past $12.3 trillion and the unemployment rate hangs at 10 percent, Americans long to hear the President offer some commonsense solutions. Instead, the President stubbornly clings to his stagnant tax-borrow-and-spend policies.

The below list, courtesy of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, shows some of the spending measures signed and policies supported by the President in the last year:

• 2009 stimulus – $862 billion
• Cash for Clunkers – $3 billion
• Obama Auto bailout – $53 billion
• Two massive appropriations omnibuses within 12 months – roughly 20 percent increase in non-security spending
• Senate-passed health care bill – $2.3 trillion fully implemented cost
• Waxman-Markey House-passed cap-and-trade – $823 billion

Now let’s compare those hefty price tags to some of the less-than-generous savings offered by the Obama administration:

• Ten year savings from proposed spending freeze – $250 billion
• Ten year savings from proposed terminations and reductions – $240 billion
• Ten year savings from proposed Medicare cuts in Senate-passed health care bill – $500 billion
• Savings from last year’s effort at finding efficiencies in the Federal government – $100 million

Obama’s spending measures outweigh his savings proposals by just a few billion.  Chump change?  I don’t think so.  If President Obama was determined to achieve real savings he would go line-by-line through the federal budget and start making some serious cuts. 

Mr. President, in case you’re stumped, Citizens Against Government Waste has done your homework for you.  Check out our 2010 Prime Cuts report, released on January 27, which has 763 recommendations that would save $350 billion in the first year and $2.2 trillion over the next five years.  It’s time to chuck your meager scalpel and pick up a hatchet.

According to a January 29, 2010 article in the Boston Globe, the fight over the alternate engine is about to start all over again.  According to the Globe:

The Pentagon’s budget request for fiscal year 2011, due out Monday, will try yet again to eliminate the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the costly effort repeatedly funded at the insistence of Bay State lawmakers looking out for jobs at General Electric’s Lynn plant.

This news comes only weeks after Congress was successful in anonymously adding $465,000,000 to the F136 alternate engine program in the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

As you can see in the preceding quote, the paper does not pull punches as to who it blames for the alternate engine funds.  The Globe also names names:

In December, Democratic Sen. John Kerry and Rep. John Tierney, a Democrat of Salem, lauded the reversal as safeguarding as many as 1,000 jobs at GE’s plant, which is helping to design the engine to compete with the primary one built by Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney.

According to a November 10, 2009 Reuters article, deliveries of the F136 alternate engine will be delayed by one year.  Built by General Electric and Rolls-Royce, the alternate engine program has had two major setbacks in as many months.  In October, F136 testing was halted when a nut came loose, damaging turbine blades in the engine.  The project, which has received $771.8 million in earmarks since 2004,  is expensive, unnecessary, and only survives because of pork-barrel politics.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) made the case against the alternate engine in an issue brief released in September.  In addition, for the past several months, CAGW has been raising awareness of the inherent waste of the program through a national advertising campaign that began on July 16, as well as communications to its members and supporters.

That’s right, January 28 is Data Privacy Day.  According to Data Privacy 2010:

Data Privacy Day is an annual international celebration to raise awareness and generate discussion about information privacy.  In 2009, both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives recognized January 28th as National Data Privacy Day.

Over the past few years, privacy professionals, corporations, government officials and representatives, academics, and students in the United States, Canada, and 27 European countries have participated in a wide variety of privacy-focused events and educational initiatives in honor of Data Privacy Day.  They have conducted discussions, examined materials and explored technologies in an effort to bring information privacy into our daily thoughts, conversations and actions.

While this may not be one of the more recognizable holidays in 2010, it’s importance is growing every year considering the massive amounts of information that is being shared online, including, but not limited to, social networking sites such as Facebook.

We are entering an era where your “online reputation” is becoming more and more important.  And, according to a report commissioned by Microsoft,

Of U.S. recruiters and HR professionals surveyed, 70% say they have rejected candidates based on information they found online.  Though not as frequently, respondents from the U.K. and Germany report the same trend. 

The biggest problem, according to the report’s findings, is that while many people do manage their online reputation:

…there are a significant percentage of respondents (between 30% and 35% depending on nationality) who don’t feel their online reputation affects their personal or professional life.  Consequently, they are not taking steps to mange their reputations.

This could be a huge problem.  And, if the companies running these sites don’t take steps to educate people and protect people’s privacy and reputation that could open the door for government regulation. 

While the government should always have the right of enforcement, the less government intrusion the better.  Then, there is the question of the security and use of information stored by the government.

So many questions, so little time.  So, in the meantime, sit back, go post a Status Update on Facebook and enjoy Data Privacy Day 2010.  Just remember, somebody that you don’t know may be reading your posts or looking at your pictures.

CAGW President Tom Schatz’s Statement About President Obama’s first State of the Union Address:

The cash register started ringing up the trillions as soon as President Obama walked down the aisle.  He had to do something to overcome 10 percent employment and a combined $1.7 trillion deficit for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and based on his agenda for the past year, it was going to be costly.  

The applause could not hide the frosty relations between Congress and the White House or the people and the President.  After lauding the American spirit and calling for a government that matches the people’s decency and strength, he launched into a discussion of the economy. 

He presented a disjointed plan.  First, after saving the banks, he wants to tax them.  Second, after not raising income taxes, he wants to increase them on those making more than $250,000.  Third, he claimed 2 million jobs were saved through the stimulus bill, which he touted as a success, but didn’t talk about how much it cost to create each job.  Fourth, he called for small business tax credits and the elimination of capital gains plus passage of a new jobs bill at a cost of $80 billion, an amount he never mentioned. 

The President talked about a ‘deficit of trust’ in Washington and that the acrimony on both sides had to be overcome so progress could be made.  While he called out both parties, he did not assess any blame to his own leadership, or lack thereof, on any issues.  

Of course, the ugly showed up, as he blamed the prior administration of George Bush for most of the budget shortfall.  At the same time President Obama called for taking action to reduce the deficit and debt, he continued to push for healthcare, cap-and-trade, and other very expensive programs.  Even ideas that might have been good – a spending freeze and earmark reform – fell far short of being effective.  Cutting $15 billion from a freeze in the face of the other very expensive programs he proposed is worth supporting, but will have little impact on the deficit and debt.  Rather than calling for an end to earmarks, he suggested publishing all earmarks on the Internet in a searchable manner before each vote.

The President touted another very expensive idea – high speed rail, an $8 billion boondoggle that will never work without additional massive subsidies.  There was a quick discussion of something good in regard to energy – nuclear power and offshore drilling.  But the bad followed without hesitation – climate change and a lot of subsidies for research on solar and other alternative energy sources.

 The National Export Initiative sounded a lot like existing programs such as the Market Access Program, which subsidies profitable companies for their efforts to sell goods overseas.  Then something good – support for free trade agreements; the first time Republicans stood up and Democrats stayed put.

 The national competition to improve schools implied that the Department of Education had not been doing its job.  He also suggested a takeover of student loans and forgiveness of certain loans if students entered public service, which will be the beginning of many other professions seeking such an exemption.  This may lead to the government just writing a check for everyone’s college education.

 While it was not first on the list, the extremely expensive healthcare bill came up about 30 minutes into the speech.  The President made the preposterous claim that it would save $1 trillion, a figure that no one has ever seen, which will add to the distrust of the proposal rather than increase its popularity.  His remarks showed a complete dismissal of the Massachusetts election last Tuesday.

 Finally Americans saw the absurd – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to the President’s pledge to support the rights of Afghans, men and women alike.  She gave a little fist pump of excitement about those women’s rights, which is about all Americans need to know about the person that is third in line for the presidency.

President Obama repeatedly said both as a candidate and after inauguration that he would root out wasteful spending in the budget.  One year after taking full control of the reins of government he is preparing his first State Of The Union speech in which he plans to tell America that the dog ate his homework.

Spending and deficits have soared to historic levels in his first year.  The economy still shows little sign of life despite Obama’s claim in July that the recession was over.  And he continues to develop and propose new spending programs without finding anything to cut.

Now, rather than do his job and make the cuts he promised, or even propose them, he wants to put off his responsibility on an appointed commission to further study the issue of waste and report back sometime after the congressional elections in November.

If he were in school, this is not just telling the teacher that the dog ate his homework.  It is more like telling the teacher that the dog ate his homework and he had his uncle do the work instead and turn it in after grades were due for the year. . .but it’ll be OK, his uncle will do good work.

President Obama needs to step away from the teleprompter, stop giving empty speeches of promises of doing his job in the future and do the job he was elected and said he would do.

There is no need for any more commissions.  The government overflows with waste. The country watched as a lot of time was spent on a proposed government takeover of healthcare that included huge tax increases and cuts in benefits without a single provision addressing the waste and fraud in existing federal healthcare entitlements.

CAGW has pointed out billions of dollars of wasteful spending in the federal government.  President Obama is in charge of the Executive Branch of government and his party controls overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress. 

It is time to quit dithering and blaming others for not doing your job.  There is no need for another commission. 

Just do it.

What is Prime Cuts you ask?  It is the document that can help Congress, the President, and the nation move in the right direction to reduce the deficit.  Prime Cuts is a list of 763 spending cut recommendations that could save taxpayers $350 billion in one year and $2.2 trillion over five years.  Yes, we are talking real money.

From the Grace Commission to Reps. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and even President Obama, Prime Cuts uses a number of different sources to suggest spending cuts.

What is in Prime Cuts.? Here is a sampling:

• Eliminate pork-barrel spending:  Savings 0f $19.6 Billion
• Cut funding for the C-17:  Savings of $4 billion
• Eliminate funding for the DOE’s Nuclear Power 2010 Program:  Savings of $600 million
• Eliminate the Market Access Program:  Savings of $231 million

The list goes on, and on and on and…..

With President Obama expected to talk about a partial spending freeze and fiscal responsibility in his State of the Union and the Congressional Budget Office releasing its new deficit number for 2010 at $1.3 trillion, Prime Cuts is needed now more than ever before.

Now that President Obama has pushed through major spending bills including the TARP and “stimulus” packages (and let’s not forget the pricey healthcare and cap-and-trade proposals that hang in the balance), he believes it’s time to scale back the spending.

Don’t we all feel like dieting after stuffing our faces in a feeding frenzy?

In an effort to address concerns over the ballooning $12.3 trillion national debt, President Obama will propose a three-year spending freeze.

According to a January 26 Wall Street Journal article:

The administration officials said the cap won’t be imposed across the board. Some areas would see cuts while others, including education and investments related to job creation, would realize increases.

Among the areas that may be potentially subject to cuts: the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Energy, Transportation, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services.

Though this freeze has been touted as a well-intentioned step in the right direction, it would (at best) save $250 billion over the next ten years, small change compared to the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars spent in the blink of an eye this year.

The freeze would only affect 17 percent of the total federal budget and would not affect spending on defense, homeland security, veterans affairs, or international affairs…or entitlements…or mandatory programs…or “emergency” spending like a possible $80 billion “jobs” bill.  Hmmmm.

Overall, the proposal to limit discretionary spending will not have much impact as funding levels will be preserved at their already grossly-inflated 2010 levels.  It’s too little, too late.