Thursday, February 04, 2010

Arlen Specter, Why Must We Suffer You?

Here is a copy of my letter to Arlen Specter in response to his latest form of propaganda. (I won't even comment about the fact that I've clicked the link to be removed from his e-mail blaasts in the past, and yet I continue to receive them.)

Dear Arlen Specter,

I address this letter to you not as Senator, because I hope during the next election you are thrown out of office. But that is not the reason for my note, it's just a little wishful thinking on my part.

I am writing in response to your most recent e-mail (propaganda) campaign where you toot your own horn by showing your 'exchange' with the President. What a farce; your softball question is insulting to everyone of your constituents in the state of Pennsylvania. If you and the President truly believe that China is going to 'play fair', then you are more out of touch with reality than anyone could have imagined. Once again Obama shows his socialist tendencies by making the statement "If we are able to compete on an even playing field, nobody can beat us." WAKE-UP!! It's not an even playing field, it never has been, and it NEVER will be. Not everyone is going to play by our rules but what makes this country the greatest in the world is that despite the uneven 'playing field', WE STILL PREVAIL!

I don't know what it's going to take to make the lemmings in Washington understand this, but maybe once you are out of office things will be a little more clear.

I also realize that you will probably never read this because you really don't care what people in Pennsylvania think; all you care about is what makes sense for Arlen Specter and how it will help you get re-elected. Good luck with that approach in the next election.

Kevin F. Mogee

I wonder if he'll get the message?

Friday, March 20, 2009

President Obama's 'Good Answer' to Jay Leno

I don't watch Jay Leno. Not for any reason other than I'm usually asleep by the time his show airs. So when President Obama appeared on The Tonight Show, I didn't watch. I did read the transcript though, and it's interesting to see this discussion in print. I say interesting because everyone knows what an eloquent, dynamic, articulate (insert your own adjective here) speaker he is, but when you read his words on paper they just don't seem as profound.

Let's take a look at one example. Here's the exchange between Jay and President Obama about the potential 90% tax on the bonuses given out to AIG execs.

MR. LENO: Well, here's something that kind of scared me. Today they passed this thing that says we're going to tax 90 percent of these bonuses. And the part that scares me is, I mean, you're a good guy -- if the government decides they don't like a guy, all of a sudden, hey, we're going to tax you and then, boom, and it passes. I mean, that seems a little scary as a taxpayer, they can just decide -- you want to take a break and answer that when we come back? Okay, hold that answer.

MR. OBAMA: I will. I've got a good answer, too. (Applause.)

MR. LENO: Welcome back. We are talking with President Barack Obama.

Before the break I mentioned that they had just passed this new bill which will tax them 90 percent -- and I said it was frightening to me as an American that Congress, whoever, could decide, I don't like that group, let's pass a law and tax them at 90 percent.

MR. OBAMA: Well, look, I understand Congress' frustrations, and they're responding to, I think, everybody's anger. But I think that the best way to handle this is to make sure that you've closed the door before the horse gets out of the barn. And what happened here was the money has already gone out and people are scrambling to try to find ways to get back at them.

The change I'd like to see in terms of tax policy is that we have a system, going back to where we were back in the 1990s, where you and I who are doing pretty well pay a little bit more to pay for health care, to pay for energy, to make sure that kids can go to college who aren't as fortunate as our -- as my kids might be. Those are the kinds of measured steps that we can take. But the important thing over the next several months is making sure that we don't lurch from thing to thing, but we try to make steady progress, build a foundation for long-term economic growth. That's what I think the American people expect. (Applause.)

Now that you've read that statement, go back and read it again, only this time look for the answer. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Don't worry I couldn't find it either. The statement is just spin by our President, and Leno let him get away with it. The question was 'just because they don't like a group of people, how can Congress decide they can tax them at 90%?' Obama talked about Congress reacting to the anger of the people and moving back to the tax code of the 90's. He even managed to slip in a little 'sharing the wealth' socialism with his 'you and I should pay a little more' speech. What happens when Congress decides that actors make too much money, and they can afford a 70% tax rate?

Jay Leno should have held President Obama's feet to the fire on this one; the fact that he didn't may end up costing him dearly.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Arlen Specter - Spin Master

Arlen Specter has a lot of nerve. His op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer (Rising above partisanship 3/10/09) makes him sound like the last fiscal conservative in Washington. He makes statements such as:
"The challenges we face are not subject to rigid formulaic solutions, whether defined as fiscal conservatism or Keynesian economics. Nor should they be subject to hasty and ill-defined solutions, as happened with the TARP bailout, passed under duress and the threat of an imminent banking collapse. The December auto bailout faced similar pressures for haste."

'Passed under duress'? I'm sorry Senator, but no one held a gun to your head, and had you actually listened to your constituents, you would have known that the majority of people you claim to represent were against the TARP bailout.

If you read the entire piece, you might come away thinking that Senator Specter voted against the TARP Act. Of course, you would be wrong. He not only voted for the TARP bill, but provided this response on 10/02/08 as his justification.
"I reluctantly supported this package because the failure of Congress to act would run the risk of dire consequences, including an economic downturn which could cause more foreclosures, jeopardize retirement accounts, and further restrict credit which is necessary for small businesses to operate. I am philosophically opposed to bailouts. I think that when you have Wall Street entrepreneurs who take big risks to make big profits and they go sour, they ought to sustain the loss themselves and not look to the government for a bailout which ends up in the laps of the taxpayers. However, I supported the plan to avoid economic disaster that would extend well beyond Wall Street."

Then after voting for the Economic Stimulus Package, Senator Specter wrote this as an opinion piece for the Washington Post (Why I Support the Stimulus 02/09/09):
"I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater -- or it may be too late."

It seems as though when the Senator is voting for the bailouts, he doesn't have time to think about his vote; he just acts from his gut to prevent any further economic damage, because as he puts it so succinctly, failure to act would be worse than the alternative.

Now that the Senator has seen the error of his ways, he decides to use his political power to write a letter in the Inquirer criticizing the current Administration for its lack of partisanship. I'm sorry Senator, but deflecting your culpability isn't acceptable, nor is it very becoming. Taking personal responsibility is something that everyone in Washington seems to have forgotten, but I can assure you that many people in Pennsylvania, myself included, will not forget your role in the economic catastrophe that we now are burdened with.

I've already apologized to my children for your lack of forethought when it comes to the future of our economy and our country for that matter; I just hope that someday soon I can tell my children that you are no longer representing this great state of Pennsylvania, and that we are on our way to economic recovery.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Why Isn't The Media Talking About The War?

Chuck Norris' view on the media coverage of the war:

I read this article, and initially thought, "How typical. I'm not surprised that the media would not be giving credit to the current administration for anything positive". Then I thought about it, and wondered if what this article is stating is true. I did some research, and found out the following information about the number of US casualties in Iraq over the last two twelve month periods.

Dec. '07 thru Nov. '08: 317 total deaths, an average of less than 27 per month.

Dec. '06 thru Nov. '07: 952 total deaths, an average of just over 79 per month.


I don't know a lot about war, but this certainly would seem like a positive story, and something that the media would want to celebrate. Of course I am not implying that the deaths of 317 soldiers is something that anyone should celebrate, but reducing the amount to one-third of what is was just 12 months ago is a move in the right direction. Even those completely opposed to this war would have to agree.

You may not be a fan of Chuck Norris, but he certainly is making some sense in this article. Feel free to share your opinions below, I would love to hear what you have to say about this subject.