The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Must Be Stopped

Wow.  Just wow.  There are so many factoids out there about this bill, its just staggering.  How many ways, how many statistics does everyone have to see before it hits home what an exceedingly bad idea this bill- the biggest spending bill in history- really is.

The bill is 1,588 pages- that's more than three full reams of paper!  And Obama does not want to give people time to read the bill.  "The time for talk is over.  The time for action is now.", he says.  Why?  Because the Senate has been debating the bill for FOUR WHOLE DAYS.  And in yet another show of Obama's 'bipartisanship' and efforts to 'reach across the aisle', he refers to Republicans who want to carefully review this whopper spending bill as 'obstructionists'.  Way to extend the hand of friendship there, chief.

Okay, some interesting factoids here:

If you spent $1,000,000.00 a day, each and every day, since the birth of Jesus, you would still have 70 years to go to equal the amount of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

If you stacked enough $1,000.00 bills to equal the amount of the spending bill, the stack would be over 67 miles high.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the war in Iraq has cost us around $631,569,000.00 over the last six years.  With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Obama will have spent 25% more 

in his first month in office than Bush spent in the 5+ years since the beginning of the Iraq war.

If you divide the amount of the bill by the number of jobs its estimated to create, they 

are spending $150,000.00 for each job created.

Some of the line items ('pork') in the bill:

25 million to create ATV trails
650 million to buy cars for federal employees
75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI
248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Securities headquarters
400 million to the CDC to prevent STD’s
412 million for CDC property and buildings
820 Million to prevent pandemic influenza
6 billion for Special Education
???? National Institute of Health 
1 billion for the 2010 census

246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers
Giving $100 a month to people who lost their jobs in this recession
34 million to the commerce department
Only 21 Billion dollars goes to small business. That’s only 3% of the bill..
125 million for the DC sewer system
16 billion dollars to repair schools – the local city system should take care of that… not federal government
5.5 million for transportation
2.25 million neighbor stimulation program
5 million to upgrade local firestations – the federal government shouldn’t be involved in that
9 billion in telecommunication
Rebuilding and developing Golf courses, Dog parks, Parking garages, Museums, Skateboard park, etc.
8.4 million for polar bear exhibits
100,000 to create a lung cop guard in sulfur creek
500,000 sunset view dog park
Several million for Golf courses, some in Treport LA, MN, MA, St. Louis, MO, Nebraska, Kuai,  HI
27 million dollar Sanitation truck wash in Bridgeport, CT..

This bill passed the House 244-188, without a single Republican vote in favor. As a matter of 

fact, in the only real show of bipartisanship shown throughout this whole order was the 11 

Democrats that broke ranks and voted with the Republicans and voted against the bill.

The more time this bill sits in Congress, the more We, The People are finding out about it, the more we are not liking what we are hearing.

Have some time on your hands?  Maybe a wicked case of insomnia?  You can read the bill in all its legalese glory here: http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_text.pdf

There's still time- email and call the Republican Senators who may waver and give the Senate the to votes it needs to pass this unconscionable piece of legislation.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

Phone: Collins (202) 224-2523
Fax: Fax: (202) 224-2693
Website
413 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Phone: (202) 224-5344
Toll Free: (800) 432-1599
Fax: (202) 224-1946
Website
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)

Phone: (202) 224-4254
Fax: 202-228-1229
Website
711 Hart Building
Washington , DC 20510

Guantanamo Bay Closed... Now What?

Two days after Barack Obama's inauguration, he signed an executive order closing the terror detention facility at  Guantanamo Bay, effective within twelve months.  Many, including Democrats and foreign government officials, applauded the decision.  But when asked question- where will the 250 or so detainees currently being held go once the detention facility closes?- the same people who cheered the closing offered no answer.

Some Republicans, rather tongue-in-cheekly (at least I hope so), suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a vocal critic of GITMO, reopen Alcatraz in her home state and prep it for the detainees.  This partisan bickering does not solve any problems, but the Republicans did raise the question none of the Democrats wanted raised in public.

Speaker Pelosi shrugged off the Republicans' suggestion, but neither the speaker, nor any other Democrat offer up any alternatives.  And why would they?  In a show of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) literally on a national scale, not a single one of the 535 members of Congress offered up their states or congressional districts, not even those with active prisons.  And why would they?

Any city or state that opens its facilities to these detainees will make themselves a potential future target.  And let's not forget that, while there may be some innocent detainees, others, while maybe not directly guilty in the execution of a terror attack, may be complicit in either the planning or execution of past and/or future terror attacks.  And the thing sought after by many of the guilty, is the martyr's death, not only for the rewards they believe they will receive in heaven, but also because of the outrage, the indignation, the hate for America that their 'sacrifice' would, with any luck, raise in others in their fraternity.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and four of his co-defendants tried to enter a guilty plea on December 8, 2008- why? Are we o believe they had a change of conscience, and now wish to atone for their sins?  Please.  If you believe that, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.  Cheap.  Make me an offer.

No, the defendants entered their guilty plea after the election of the new U.S. President, but before the inauguration.  Since the new President-Elect had already telegraphed his intentions, they schemed and entered their plea, not because they believed they were guilty, but because they were hoping to be put to death by the evil United States Government.  Why?  To try to foment outrage with other Al-Quaeda members, in the hopes of spurring them into action, to get cracking on the next wave of terrorist attacks against our country and countrymen.  

And let's face it- prison isn't exactly a safe place to be- "accidents" happen, what with all of the gangs in prison, and guards, being only human, may not actively participate in harming the detainees, but they may not do absolutely everything in their power to prevent it.

  

Remember Jeffrey Dahmer?  Inmates have their own scale of wrong, and their own punishments.  I have no doubt that a remorseless schemer like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could (and would) say the wrong thing to the wrong people, and get himself shanked.  Even in a Supermax security prison, like Colorado's Florence Federal Supermax Penitentiary.  For the record, there was a riot at the facility as recently as April 2008, where 200 out of the approximately 500 inmates got out of control.  Its not a matter of if it will happen again, its when.  Don't think so?  Toss 200 foreign terror suspects into the mix, and you might as well throw gasoline onto a smoldering fire and expect it to not burst into flames.  Hell, if Vegas were to put an over/under on how long it'd take, I'd be tempted to put some money on it.

So, Mr. President, if we actually want to keep these detainees alive, and none of your fellow politicians is volunteering to house these detainees for fear of turning their cities and/or states into targets for potential future terrorist attacks, where are you going to ship these 250 or so detainees?

[crickets]

Well, Mr. President, perhaps you should've thought about that before you announced GITMO's closing as publicly as you did, eh?  Oh, I forgot, getting your hands dirty with little things like details isn't your thing.  You are more about the abstracts- 'hope' and 'change'- and the grand gestures.  You don't have time for little things like 'details'.

New Nuclear Power Plants- Just Say No

The last nuclear power plant built in the United States was completed in 1977, over 30 years ago.  In light of some of our recent energy challenges, there have been renewed calls for the permitting and construction of new nuclear reactors.

I like inexpensive power as much as anybody else, but I think the sheer length of the long term planning required for nuclear energy should disqualify it from future consideration.  We should instead look into true renewable, clean, nonpolluting sources of energy.  Things that are not going to cause more issues for future generations than they solve for us today. 

We as a society use a lot of power, and our usage is increasing every day.  That demand will only skyrocket if and when the environmentalists get their wish of so-called 'plug-in hybrids' and pure electric vehicles.  The environmentalists love them because they supposedly are 'zero emission vehicles'; truth be told, there are no tailpipe emissions, but that does not mean that there are no emissions... of course, I guess for the more passive environmentalists out there, if you don't see it, then there are none, right?  Wrong.

And commissioning new nuclear reactors is not the way to power this new armchair activism, this lashing out at oil companies and auto manufacturers under the pretense of environmentalism.  The long-term negative effects far outweigh the short-term gains. 

Since we started splitting the atom for power in the 1950s, radioactive waste has been building up with nowhere to go.  Generally, nuclear fuel will last three to four years in an average nuclear reactor (although the nuclear fuel in military vessels is designed to last much longer, up to 30 years by some estimates).  

At this point, the amount of spent nuclear fuel in the United States alone would fill a football stadium ten feet deep.  That's 576,000 cubic feet of highly radioactive waste (56,000 metric tons).  At current levels, without commissioning any new nuclear power plants, that number is projected to grow to 1,224,000 cubic feet by 2035 (119,000 metric tons).  What about that storage facility in Yucca Mountain, you say?  Well, current regulations will only allow a maximum of 720,000 cubic feet of radioactive waste to be stored at the Yucca Mountain facility (70,000 metric tons).  You've got to love long-term government planning.

To put those numbers in perspective, the average home in the United States, at 2,300 square feet, would be around 18,800 cubic feet.  The amount of spent nuclear fuel in temporary storage today would fill about 30 houses full of spent nuclear fuel, waste that will remain deadly for eons.

And the worst problem with this is that this waste will be radioactive for up to BILLIONS of years.  Sure, there are some radioisotopes with half lives measured in days.  Others, like Cesium 137 and Strontium 90, although being considered some of the most dangerous radioisotope byproducts of nuclear fission, have a relatively manageable half life of 30 years.  Some radioisotopes, though, have significantly longer half-lives, measuring not in the hundreds or thousands of years, but in the millions and billions of years.  

Take Uranium, for example.  Not all Uranium is used up during its operating cycle.  Some isotopes of uranium have half-lives ranging from 700 million to 4.5 BILLION years...  To put that into perspective, 700 million years ago, the only life on earth was multicellular life- simple animals wouldn't be around for another 100 million years.  And modern geologists and geophysicists estimate the earth's age at 4.54 billion years old.

It is simply not worth mortgaging a future so far out that we can hardly imagine it.  As I've said before, if we're going to spend money, let's at least spend it wisely.  That means development of solar, wind, and hydro power.  Just say no to new nuclear power plants and junk science like 'clean coal'; technologies whose downsides far outweigh the immediate short-term gain.

If we instead commit the resources to true clean renewable technologies today, the investment would allow economies of scale to kick in, a renewed focus on R&D would increase their efficiency and reliability (if Moore's Law were to come into play, renewable energy could follow a similar reduction in cost to computers over the last two decades) , and best of all, we would no longer be in the unenviable position of choosing the lesser of two evils- fossil fuel versus nuclear- for our energy production.   

The Truth About 'Clean Coal' and 'Carbon Sequestration'

Yesterday's post touched on something, and I want to revisit that and go into a little more depth, so please allow me this small indulgence today to talk about some of the junk science being tossed around these days by your representative government.

One of the line items of the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects, also known as 'Carbon Sequestration'. To paraphrase the late great George Carlin, the more syllables, the less bad it sounds. So let me put it another way- Carbon Sequestration is nothing more than the 21st-century version of a dump, except instead of dumping trash under a mound of dirt, we're dumping tons of CO2, delaying the inevitable as a problem for future generations to deal with.

'Carbon Sequestration' sounds so neat and clean and technical; in reality, all it is is pumping all of the bad CO2 into a spent oil well and capping it. So it never really went anywhere, its just being stored... until the day something ruptures, that is. So how is this really solving the problem? The ugly truth your government doesn't want you to know- its not.

And why do they need to spend $2.4 billion on what is basically a proof-of-concept, when our neighbors to the north are already using this technology, at EnCana's Weyburn and Midale fields? Oh, yeah, I forgot- somebody somewhere made a generous campaign donation in exchange for the no doubt lucrative contract (as a side note, EnCana is actually lobbying the Canadian government for credits for carbon dioxide they import from the U.S. and store at their sites!)...

So what, you ask, does this have to do with 'clean coal', one of the cornerstones of Obama's new energy policy ( http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy )? Nothing, really, save for the fact that they are both vaporware- they don't exist except on paper somewhere.
Now you can argue semantics with me, but basically, 'clean coal' is no different from the coal we burn today. The difference is all in how the emissions are treated. Sure, the industry may talk about different ways to prep the coal before its burned to reduce sulfur and particulates, but the end result is that the same coal is being used, and at the end of the process, it is burned releasing carbon dioxide. The 'clean' part comes in when they sequester the carbon dioxide, preventing it from entering (or stalling its release into) the environment until peak CO2 emissions subside hundreds of years from now.

Sure. Let's create the mess, then leave it for our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children to worry about how to clean up the mess we chose to literally sweep under the rug. Sounds like excellent future planning to me.

This is not sound policy, and this is not something that should be even considered as a stepping stone to energy independence. Nuclear isn't the answer either, but I'll save that for another day.

Obama, on his website, talks about Clean Coal, among other things, creating "Millions of New Green Collar Jobs"... how many jobs, really, does every new coal-fired power plant create? The answer- in 1997, the average 300 MW coal-fired power plant had 53 employees. Just how many new power plants are you planning to build there, chief?

Why is renewable energy getting 'only' $8 billion? What, did they not contribute enough in the 2008 election?

When I relocated to Arizona, I decided to drive. Crossing from New Mexico into Arizona, I was in the middle of nowhere- no exits, no gas stations, no hotels, nothing. Then I saw a sign selling land for $200.00 an acre. I didn't think much of it at the time, because it was literally in the middle of nowhere, but lately, I've been thinking more and more about that...

How many photovoltaic panels can you squeeze into an acre of land, in the middle of nowhere, far away from anyone who would scream and yell "Not in my back yard!"?

And even with the current efficiency of around 20%, since Arizona averages 330 days of sun per year, how much power would that one acre of land generate?

And how many jobs would that create, from the highly skilled labor actually building the panels to the construction workers installing them to the utilities running the lines to hook the site up to the grid?

Wind Turbines are a subject for another thread, but there again, true renewable energy, and the things are so massive, its cost prohibitive to build them overseas and ship them here, so there are more skilled jobs that would have to go to Americans- not only the fabrication, but also the installation and the maintenance.

These are the things we should be investing in. With unemployment at a 50-year high, there are literally millions of Americans that need a job. They don't need welfare, they don't need unemployment, they don't need a handout- they need a job.

Its already a foregone conclusion that Obama is going to get his $825 billion package; if you are going to spend money we don't have, could you at least spend it wisely? Use the funding for true 'green' projects, not nostra like so-called clean coal and carbon capture/sequestration, and use the job training initiatives already in the bill to train people for these new careers.

Either that, or break out the fiddle and do your best impression of Nero, watching while this great country our Founding Fathers built burn and crumble to the ground.

There is no try. There is only do.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009- Not 'For The People' After All...

"We won the election. We wrote the bill."

-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, January, 2008, regarding the House of Representatives version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, November, 2008.

You hear that whirring noise sounding something like a high-speed drill coming out of Washington? That's Washington firing up the printing presses, getting ready to print up as much money as they can as fast as they can under the pretext of 'Economic Stimulus'. They'll print up so much money so fast, your cash won't be worth the paper its printed on.

In truth, Pelosi, Emanuel, et al can only claim about 12 CENTS out of every dollar in the roughly $825 BILLION 'Economic Stimulus Package' would actually go to create jobs and stimulate the economy- anything more, and their noses would grow so fast it would make Pinocchio blush.

What's in the 647-page bill anyway? Some of the highlights:

$40 billion for arguably worthwhile priorities like broadband and electrical grid development, airports, and clean water projects.

$30 billion for fixing bridges and other highway projects- less than 5% of the total cost. This is what President Obama calls "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy."? This after the bridge collapse in Minneapolis in 2007, after which a report was released in 2007 showing 75,621 bridges were also given the same 'structurally deficient' label as the I-35W bridge, and promises were made to get the infrastructure improved. Well, if they were to concentrate on the bridges and nothing but the bridges, that would amount to about $396,715.00 per bridge... what will that really get you? And that does not even cover any new projects, expansion, nothing. I don't know about you, but I think I'm going to start just avoiding bridges altogether.

$20 billion for business tax cuts.

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture 'demonstration projects' (huh?), a.k.a. carbon sequestration, a.k.a. junk science that does not do anything to change behavior or reduce our use of fossil fuels.

$2 Billion in child-care subsidies.

Amtrak gets $1 Billion; I mean, hey, who cares if they haven't turned a profit in 40 years?

And additional $650 million for even more digital TV conversion coupons.

$50 Million for the National Endowment for the Arts.

By the Wall Street Journal's estimates, only about $90 billion of the total- just over ten percent- could be considered something that would contribute to growth.

And the best part- the President's new budget director, Peter Orszag, told Congress a year ago that the public works projects can't start quickly enough to provide a timely stimulus to the economy.

What else is in here?

$83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax.

$81 billion for Medicaid.

$66 billion or education- with verbiage to prevent the funds from being used to provide financial assistance to students to attend private schools... yeah, because we wouldn't want any of that money going to non-union employees, now would we?

$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits.

$20 billion for food stamps.

$8 Billion for renewable energy funding... I guess its a start, but considering its less than half of the money we sent overseas for oil in December 2008 alone, it seems kind of an empty gesture to me.

$7 Billion to modernize Federal buildings and facilities.

$6 billion to mass transit. Considering how entrenched unions are in mass transit, and how much the Democratic Party courts the unions, does this smell like buying votes to anybody else?

$600 million for the Federal Government to buy new cars.

Where is the job creation in all of this?

And come next budget year, how much of this is going to be figured into the baseline? Or do you actually believe that Congress will actually cut spending on all of these programs next year?

The Speaker said it best- "We [The Democratic Party] won the election. We wrote the bill." Who cares what you want or need, or even what's best for the American people as a whole; the Democratic Party has to look out for number one- the Party itself. Change indeed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The Party and the special interests get everything they want the way they want, and who's left holding the bill? Look in the mirror.

http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB123310466514522309-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB123310466514522309-lMyQjAxMDI5MzIzODEyMDg0Wj.html

"We Just Have A Difference Here, And I'm President"

"We Just Have A Difference Here, And I'm President"
-President Barack Obama to Rep. Eric Cantor (R- Virginia) Friday, January 23rd, three days after his inauguration, in his first meeting with the leaders of both parties in congress.

Well so much for 'bipartisanshp' and 'reaching across the aisle'.

Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said that Mr. Obama was being lighthearted and that lawmakers of both parties had laughed.

Oh, well, okay, then, I guess that makes it okay.

Sarcasm aside, as the maxim states, "In every joke there is a little bit of truth"; that Mr. Obama would even verbalize this notion, I think, speaks more about how he intends to work with the Legislative branch now that he is President than any of his campaign rhetoric of 'change'. I guess what he meant was that YOU are going to change; since I'm the President, its my way or the highway. Thanks for clarifying that at the outset of your administration.

At the same meeting, the President also stated, "You're correct, there's a philosophical difference, but I won, so we're going to prevail on that."

Oh, boy... "I won"...? If Mr. Obama wasn't trying to be arrogant, then it must just come naturally to him.

And what discussion predicated this exchange? Mr. Obama is unwilling to cede any ground in some of the points of his $825 billion Economic Stimulus Package that he is trying to push through Congress before they recess on February 13th. Specifically, the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, which the President wants to extend to workers who earn too little to pay income taxes.

So, wait, let me get this straight- you want to give tax credits to workers who don't even pay income tax in the first place? Seriously? This makes sense to you?

Three days down, 1,457 or so to go...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/us/politics/24stimulus.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22We%20just%20have%20a%20difference%20here,%20and%20I'm%20president%22&st=cse

Excuse me, but do you have change for a $35,000.00 bill...?

That's one big number, huh, kids? That's ten TRILLION dollars, which is the sum total, as of January 27, 2009 at 1:59:33 AM GMT of the U.S. national debt.

Assuming a U.S. population of 305,534,200, that equates to $34,794.70 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Do you have change for a $35,000.00 bill?

How about if I just give you $35,000.00, and we call it even, and you can count me out from here on out? Sounds fair to me.

And this astonishing total does not include the $840 Billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)- passed against the wishes of the majority of U.S. citizens, but that's a topic for another time- nor does it include President Obama's Economic Stimulus package, which he is trying to push through Congress before they recess for President's Day on February 13th. Since the plan is not yet finalized, the total cost cannot yet be known, but estimates so far put the sum total at an additional $825 Billion, $550 Billion of which is additional spending. Together, those two amounts would easily push the total well over $11 TRILLION dollars.

The National Debt Clock in Times Square, which has been keeping the running total since 1989, maxed out in September 2008. The dollar sign ($) was removed to make room for a '1' when the debt increased from $9 Trillion to $10 Trillion. Did anyone take this as a sign that maybe we should reevaluate where decades of mismanagement has gotten us? No, we just need a new clock. Don't worry, its already in the works, and the new clock is expected to be finished in September 2009. The new clock will have room to count up to ONE QUADRILLION DOLLARS of debt. That's a one followed by FIFTEEN zeros, kids.

This has got to stop. Is it any wonder the American savings rate is the lowest since the depression, and that our debt ratios are at record high levels? Given the stellar example set by our government, its no wonder.

And the best part- since we don't have this money just lying around somewhere, and, thanks to leaders like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we're no longer on the Gold Standard, so when the Government needs more money, they just fire up the printing presses. You can't do that, no. That's counterfeiting. But if you're the Federal Government, nobody thinks twice about it. Not until the inflation tax kicks in.

In 1950, the average cost of a new car was $1,510.00, and a new house would set you back a whopping $8,450.00.

In 1975, those average costs had risen to $4,250.00 and $42,600.00 respectively.

In 2005 (the most current year that I could find statistics for auto prices), those had skyrocketed to $27,958.00 and $297,000.00. That's inflation, folks. My last car cost me more than my parents' first home.

The more money the Federal Government prints, the less a dollar will buy. The larger the disparity between the Federal Government's income and their debts and obligations, the more the deficit grows. Now you or I would probably be looked at derisively and told to live within our means. Sure, we may take out loans but at some point, we would exhaust all of our avenues and would no longer be able to secure credit. But our representative government (and I use the term loosely) has no such limitations, and they see nothing wrong with firing up the printing presses and just churning out more money.

We need to put a stop to this now, before we put each and every one of our children and grandchildren in the position of being $3,272,956.00 in debt at birth, saddled with 60-year mortgages and 12-year auto loans just to pay for the average house and car.

See the debt clock at: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/