You could buy Italy for the price of Obamacare.

Nope, he's not a college professor. Sorry.

Primary season has officially arrived in Illinois.  Even though early voting has been going on for a while now, and the actual voting is almost upon us (the 20th), I really didn’t feel the upcoming election until last night, when, as I was trying to find my remote control, I began being fed propaganda by Mitt Romney.  Many people hate these commercials.  Not me.  At least I’m not being forced to watch another advertisement about stuff I’ll never use; like tampons.  I’m not a woman, but I did marry one (SCORE), and I’ve never seen her do gymnastics during that time of the month.  Come to think of it, I’ve never seen her do gymnastics at any time of the month.

The point is, I like political commercials.  It was nice to see Mittens all up in Santorum’s grill during his thirty-second spots.  I didn’t see any for Santorum.  Do these commercials really impact how people vote?  It seems unlikely.  For example, I was on the fence for a while, between Mittens and Santorum.  But then Santorum said he’d heavily regulate internet pornography, which caused me to immediately fall/jump off the fence onto Romney’s well-manicured lawn. Santorum’s porn position was not mentioned in Romney’s commercial.

Truth is, I’m voting for Romney because he can win…I’m not convinced Santorum can.  And winning matters.  I like being part of a winning team, even if I sat on the end of the bench.  Winning increases self-esteem, and chicks don’t dig losers.  Also, Obama’s a friggin’ train wreck, and not the kind you can’t look away from.  Problem is, the wreck is everywhere.

Take his monumental health care plan, for example.  Obamacare is right up there with shooting an unarmed man in the face in terms of Barry’s Greatest Hits.  Of course, all of us with an ounce of common sense (and by “common sense,” I mean the realization that stuff costs money), knew that the healthcare bill would cost way more than the administration was claiming.  Why?  Because you can’t subsidize the health care of millions without it costing lots of money.

Well, the CBO just updated its cost estimates for the kindler, gentler version of single-payer healthcare, and those estimates have provided strong support for Nancy Pelosi’s immortal words: “We need to pass it to know what’s in it.”  What’s in it happens to be slightly more than the gross domestic product of Italy, circa 2010:

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Want more?

President Obama’s proposed budget would add $6.4 trillion to the nation’s deficits over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

And this is before the thing even gets implemented (coming in 2014).  I can hear the liberals now…actually I can’t.  My guess is we won’t hear anything from the left on this.  All we heard from the left during the debate about Obamacare was that it would be deficit neutral.  That they’d find the savings by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in Medicare.  That they’d lower health care costs.  Well, those things all turned out to be inaccurate.  So, either the administration was criminally negligent in the quality of accountants it hired, or it simply lied.  I’ll let you decide which.

All of this leads me back to the beginning.  I’m voting for Romney because he can win (and he hasn’t mentioned regulating porn).  In fact, I think he will win.  Don’t look at national polls; look at local polls in the swing states.  And don’t look at them now, because Obama is currently running against himself; even he can’t lose that race.  Once Romney gets the nomination though, he’ll (hopefully) start pointing out Obama’s many large and distinguished warts.  Does Romney have some of his own?  Sure (see: Romneycare).  But at the end of the day, we’ll have a very successful businessman up against a college professor who has presided over the worst economic recovery since our last little-dictator shoved the New Deal disaster down America’s collective throat.

Enough already with the stupid trains

Look, it's Percy!

My son loved Thomas the train when he was younger.  For my wife, the love was annoying, because it resulted in Thomas movies being played on continuous loops and those little die-cast metal toys lying around the house.  For me, the love was helpful, because buying the Boy toys for his birthday was easy.  

It’s common knowledge that the Boy’s infatuation with trains is shared by our Vice President Joe “this is a big f’in deal” Biden.  In fact, I picture Joe-Joe in his mom’s basement, wearing his overalls and train conductor hat, watching his trains travel all around his magical miniature town. 

It’s also common knowledge that America’s primary passenger train, Amtrak, is a giant black-hole of suck when it comes to taking money out of the pockets of tax payers.  A 2008 study revealed the following,

Pew’s analysis indicates that the average loss per passenger on all 44 of Amtrak’s lines was $32.

In other words, taxpayers paid $32 for every ticket being sold for an Amtrak.  As much as some people may love trains, no one uses the friggin’ things.  Why?  Who knows.  Maybe because few people want to sit in close proximity to other people.  The point is, without taxpayer money, Amtrak would be bankrupt.    

Based upon the foregoing, subsidizing passenger trains would seem to be an easy place to start cutting the budget.  Not so, say the libs.  Instead, they’re doubling down.

The federal government is pumping nearly $200 million into high-speed passenger rail projects in Michigan.

[...]

About $195 million will be used to upgrade tracks and signals between Kalamazoo in southwestern Michigan to Dearborn, just outside Detroit. The work also will increase train speeds to 110 mph between Chicago and Detroit.

Another $2.8 million will be used for an analysis of a new station in Ann Arbor.

Is there really that big of a demand for Kalamazoo to Dearborn service?  I’m guessing not.  What possible justification is there for this nonsense?

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says Monday the funds are part of a $2 billion investment stretching from the country’s northeast corridor, through the Midwest and on to California.

Lahood says the investments will help create jobs and spur economic development.

Question: does anyone actually believe that investing billions of dollars to build high speed rail from the Midwest to California is going to “spur economic development?”  How is this going to happen?  Are people going to start communting from Kalamazoo, Michigan to Los Angeles everyday for work? 

One advocate for high speed rail recently offered the following liberal-approved arguments in support of high speed rail:

High-speed trains cost more to build (to truly run at 150 mph, you need a dedicated, grade-separated track like the one that California has proposed), but they can charge more per ticket and can displace airport congestion, saving taxpayer dollars. In many parts of the world, these systems pay for themselves and boost local economies.

There are two main problems with these assertions.  First, there is no truth to the “it will improve the economy” argument.  If there was any money to be made in high speed rail, we wouldn’t need the government to build it.  Instead, a private company would do it.  That’s what happened with most of the railway lines currently in use today.  For example, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railway lines were largely built by private companies seeking to make a profit. 

The second problem is in the assertion that the cost of the high speed rail can somehow be offset by charging higher ticket prices.  In other words, these trains will pay for themselves.  While I appreciate the optimism, I find it slighly absurd to argue that high speed rail, with higher ticket prices, will not require subsidies, when Amtrak, at a lower cost, does require them. 

Simpy put, high speed rail is even more of a boondoggle than FDR’s New Deal programs were.  Building the infrastructure will cost loads of taxpayer money that we don’t have, with contracts being given to those companies with political connections.  And after it’s completed, more taxpayer money will be needed to subsidize the operating of the trains, because no one will ride them. 

 

Good thing the Prez wasn’t under oath last night

Saving the world, or something.

Barry’s speech last night was astounding.  He outlined the ‘Obama Doctrine,’ which basically says the U.S. will use military force in any country where we think civilians might be killed, or something like that.  He criticized the Iraq War for implementing a regime change, when that is exactly what the mission is in Libya.  Finally, he blatantly lied to the American people when he stated our involvement is ratcheting down, because we’re handing the  mission over to NATO; as if NATO has its own military sitting around somewhere.

Libya is a disaster in a myriad of ways.  First, it sets a precedent that will be used for every humanitarian crisis of the month.  I can hear it now, “if we went into Libya for humanitarian reasons, why not the Ivory Coast?  Or Bahrain?  Or Haiti?”  Second, it’s a mission that will take months to complete…although we’re not exactly sure what will constitute completion.  Obama says regime change is not what we’re about…although we’ve sided with the rebels, and regime change is most certainly what they’re about.  This isn’t a peace-keeping, or humanitarian mission; it’s a military action.  What’s happening in Libya is a civil war, and we will be providing military support for the rebels.  If their goal is regime change, doesn’t that make it our goal by proxy?  Our government is even considering arming the rebels.  The rebels consist, at least in part, of members of Al Qaeda!  We’re actually contemplating arming our enemy.  Do we learn absolutely nothing from the past?

And who is NATO?  Well, it’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it was primarily created as an allegiance against the Soviet Union.  It’s members consist of us, France, England, and then some other countries with the military equivalent of catapults.  Simply removing the American flag patch from our uniforms and replacing it with a NATO patch doesn’t change the fact that it’s our troops being shot at.  Just as an example, 2200 Marines are being shipped out for a 10 month tour of duty off the Libyan coast.   And for what?  To protect armed rebels?  Armed rebels that choose to hide out within a civilian population?  Why do you think Q was sending his troops to Benghazi?  It wasn’t to check out the scenery; the rebels selected the city, with all those human shields, as their base of operation.

If this is a humanitarian mission, then why the hell is our secretary of state meeting with a rebel representative, to “determine Libya’s future?”  If this doesn’t constitute regime change, than I don’t know what does.  And of course, the reason for all of this has already come to pass for Western Europe: the rebels are going to start selling oil again. 

It’s official: America is full of stupid people.

 

This doesn't make sense either

Ok, maybe I’m going a bit overboard here with this USA/Gallup poll, but if I’m not, I’m buying a cabin in the woods.

I would post the actual poll, but I can’t figure out how to do it on my wife’s Mac.  So, here goes:

The poll asked people how they would prefer to tackle state budget deficits:

Cutting state program?  48% oppose, while 47% are in favor.

Cutting pay or benefits for govt. workers? 53% oppose, while 44% are in favor.

Raising taxes?  71% oppose, while 27% are in favor.

Hmmmm…either the people responding to this poll are in on some super-secret way to take care of budget deficits or they have trouble with anything more complicated than sleeping.  There are no other options than those offered folks.  Now I understand why cutting spending isn’t as easy as it should be.  Oh, if you want the pretty graph, along with some others, here you go.

Krugman chimes in on Wisconsin

Image by Taekwonweirdo via Flickr

Why am I continuing with this?  Because it is, without question, the most important event out there right now.  In fact, it’s approaching ”day of reckoning”  status for the left.  Whether you believe it or not, we’re in a financial mess that can’t simply be kicked down the road anymore.  The Republicans in Congress lack the political will to do what is necessary.  They will follow the lead of the states, where Republicans are far more likely to get things done, simply because they can’t print their own money.

It’s pretty rare to see a local budgetary issue become the national phenomenon that is now Wisconsin.  And the liberals are out in force.  A good summary of their position is offered by Paul Krugman in the New York Times.  Because it’s full of unsupported nonsense, we will address it.

For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power.

Krugman is right.  It is about power.  But not the kind he’s referring to. 

What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. 

Krugman asserts a common liberal theme here–that big corporations bought the most recent election for the Republicans, and are now attempting to take over America by destroying the middle class.  Except what’s happening in Wisconsin has nothing to do with big business.  It has to do with the people of Wisconsin deciding that they are the ones who pay the bills, which include the salaries and benefits of the public employees who are massing in Madison.  And those bills are continuing to increase.  Krugman’s response: it has nothing to do with the budget.

Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state’s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there’s not much room for further pay squeezes.

Note Krugman’s use of vague phrases like “comparable qualifications” and his failure to cite to any authority for his general assertion.  Those are the signs of fibbers.  Well, others have done the research, and not surprisingly, Krugman is full of beans.  According to the MacIver Institute for Public Policy, a Wisconsin-based think tank, the median income of a Milwaukee Public School teacher is $56,500.00.  With benefits, the total income goes up to $100,005.00/year.  The Milwaukee per capita income is just over $19,000.00, and the median family income is $43,000.00.  With these figures  in mind, and the attitude of the Wisconsin people, it’s little wonder that the public employee unions have recently offered concessions.  The Governor isn’t interested.  Krugman’s view:

But Mr. Walker isn’t interested in making a deal. Partly that’s because he doesn’t want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers’ ability to bargain.

Krugman, like all liberals, believes tax increases are the first and last line of defense against, well, everything.  The problem is, the often-used, but never defined, “vulnerable” masses always seem to be exempted from the shared sacrifice of tax increases. 

Is this an attack on unions, as Krugman argues?  Certainly.  More specifically though, it’s an attack on public-sector unions.  Some ask why the Governor isn’t simply going after benefits and pensions, but also the union’s ability to collectively-bargain.  The likely answer is found in the significant difference between private-sector unions and public-sector unions when it comes to collective bargaining.  In a private-union scenario, there are actually two separate parties with competing interests entering into negotiations.  This relationship usually results in a mutually-beneficial result (ignoring the government bail-outs for the auto industry of course).  The same isn’t true in the public-sector scenario though.

Oftentimes, the public sector union ends up negotiating with the very same politicians it just helped get elected by way of significant campaign contributions.  At a time when the politicians are supposed to be negotiating on behalf of the taxpayer, they are instead negotiating on behalf of their political futures.  Because this relationship can never change, such negotiations should no longer exist.  A public-sector group wants a raise?  Ask the people of Wisconsin to give it to you.  It’s that simple.

Krugman then completes his piece by trying to scare you:

On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Obviously, corporations have more sway with politicians than the average Joe.  Why?  Because they contribute more money.  This works with both parties though, despite the left’s “we’re the people party” mantra, and largely cancels each other out.  Regardless of how much money is spent though, we continue to be a country where individuals vote.  And Microsoft doesn’t get any more votes than I do. 

Look, I have no problem with private-sector unions, and I would be against any effort to eliminate their opportunity to collectively-bargain.  Public-sector unions are a different animal though, for the reasons set forth above.  At the end of the day, I would be more concerned with my elected officials leaving the state to avoid a vote while talking about upholding democracy, than I would be about America becoming a third-world oligarchy.

Obama in tough spot with Egypt…but not that tough

Egypt is a “sticky-wicket,” as they say.  On the one hand, we are supposed to support movements for Democracy.  On the other hand, when the movement for Democracy is going to replace a moderate dictator in an important Middle Eastern country with a terrorist organization like the Muslim Brotherhood, there’s a lot more to think about then simply honoring the will of the people.  If I were Barry, I might be doing the same thing he’s currently doing: waiting to see what happens. 

However, it’s not that difficult to acknowledge that a long-time ally being taken over by hard-line Muslims, aka terrorists, is bad.  It’s even worse when the incoming leadership has expressed, in no uncertain terms, that war is coming to Israel:

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

At the end of the day, the job of our government isn’t to export Democracy; it’s to protect its citizens and, to a reasonable extent, its allies.  Obama should be offering support to the current Egyptian regime; not wavering on the people’s choice.   

I Can’t Think Up A Witty Title.

Well, it’s September.  I haven’t posted in a while because there’s been nothing going on.  August was hot.  Congress wasn’t in session.  The Tigers’ season has been over for a while now.  And I’ve been waiting for football to start.

But NOW, we’re officially into football and election season.  WOO-HOO!  While I could talk about football forever, this is not a football blog, and I’m not starting one now.  This is primarily a political blog, and it’s a political time of year.  And I can’t remember an election cycle that has been potentially more important than this one.  Let’s review:

The economy still sucks.  In fact, it’s worse then it was the last time I posted.  Unemployment is up to 9.6%; we’ve lost another 54,000 jobs; and Christina Romer, one of Barry’s chief economic “experts” who is leaving the administration, has recently let all of us know that they’ve had absolutely no idea what they’ve been doing re: the economy.

She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn’t understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn’t have much of an idea about how to fix things.

That’s disheartening…and also completely obvious.  Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has taken to authoring op-eds in the USA Today to try and convince America that the Democrat’s handling of the economy doesn’t resemble a monkey with a rubic’s cube. 

The Recovery Act saved millions of American jobs — keeping health care providers in hospitals, teachers in classrooms, and police and firefighters on the beat. But the benefits weren’t just in the public sector. During the past eight months, the economy has averaged 95,000 new private sector jobs.

While I’d love to see her support for that last sentence, it doesn’t really matter.  Unemployment will continue to go up until new jobs exceed 120,000/month (population increase).  More importantly, there is no doubt that the economy is slowly getting worse.  

The ”summer of recovery” is followed by the ”autumn of reality.”  Let’s face it: if the Dems had any idea what to do about the economy, they would have done it by now.

B.O. has recently begun getting rid of the “drove it into a ditch” meme, and replaced it with “it’s taken us 10 years to get into this mess, so it’s unreasonable to think we could get out of the mess in 18 months” nonsense.  Did it take us 10 years to get into this?  I don’t know.  I suppose one could reasonably argue it took one year, or even thirty-three years (the Community Reinvestment Act, which gave birth to the housing boom and bust, was enacted in 1977).  I also don’t care how long it took us to get here.  What I do care about is what is the current Administration doing about it?  Well, it’s been 18 months and the answer is: spent a lot of money for nothing.  Things haven’t improved, and the Dems are out of ideas.

So what should be done?  Well, first and foremost, vote against the Dems in November.  I know, I know…you don’t like the republicans either!  O.k.  Then go vote for the Green Party and pat yourself on the back for being ”principled.”  After that you can have your juice box and sandwich with the crusts cut off and take a nap.  For the rest of us adults, we’ll choose a candidate with a chance of winning. 

Simply put, there is job-creating capital out there waiting to be invested.  It’s not being invested because no one has any idea what’s coming from this administration.  For example, if you were a business owner with money, would you be spending it to reinvest or hire new employees if you thought your taxes were going to go up in January?  Of course not.  Doing something as simple as throwing the Dems out of the House would improve the fragile psyche of the economy.

But simply voting Republican isn’t enough.  Pressure needs to be applied to those we vote for to do things like extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone.  Other taxes need to be cut…payroll and capital gains, for example.  Enact legislation which gives people the option to opt out of the slush fund that is Social Security.  Limit Medicare to those that need it; not simply those that are old enough to get it.  Significantly amend Obamacare and gut Fannie and Freddie. 

Until we get the economy back on-track, nothing else matters.  And there’s a lot going on that needs to be addressed beyond the economy…like why we’re ignoring Iran’s getting all nuclear and stuff.

It’s September…the kids are back in school, I get to drink new seasonal beer, and I get to watch football.  More important, however, is the election coming up.  We need to vote the Dems out…and then get ready for 2012, when we can vote out the guy who looks silly riding his bike.  And don’t worry…I’ll be posting a lot more than I did in August in an effort to get you through these tough times.

If Congressional Report True, Jones Act the Least of Obama’s Worries

Maybe if I stare at this net long enough, they'll think I care.

Granted, the allegations are coming from Republicans.  But considering the Democrats’ large-scale refusal to oversee the Obama Administration’s activities, they should, at least, be  considered.  And if they turn out to be true, the oil spill will do more damage to Obama than Katrina ever did to Bush.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R – Cal.), the ranking member on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, has announced that he will be releasing a report later today on the federal government’s response to the oil spill, and early reports aren’t pretty.  Excerpts from the report reveal conduct spanning from bumbling to flat-out impeachable behavior on the part of the White House.

Some examples include,

Phantom Assets

“The number of assets claimed [by the White House], however, does not appear to match what is actually in the field. This is corroborated by Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who shared a similar story with investigators. BP and Coast Guard provided Mr. Nungesser with a map of the Gulf allegedly pinpointing the exact locations of 140 skimmers cleaning up oil. Sensing that the chart may have been somewhat inaccurate, Mr. Nungesser requested a flyover of the assets for verification. After three cancelled trips, officials admitted to Mr. Nungesser that only 31 of the 140 skimmers were ever deployed. The rest were sitting at the docks. According to Mr. Nungesser, the chart appeared to have been fabricated.”

This alleged fabrication is significant, especially given the Administration’s recent attempts to refute claims that they’re refusing international help.  We addressed Obama’s failure to waive the Jones Act here recently, and responded to a commentator who asserted, with dubious support, that those criticisms were unfounded.  Well, if Issa is correct, it’s not just foreign aid being denied; Barry’s not providing domestic assistance either.  The allegation would also provide an explanation as to why the air space above the spill is largely closed, with very few fly-overs permitted.

Resources Used as Bargaining Chip to Mute Criticism

“In some instances, it appears that equipment is provided simply to quiet public criticism. Mr. Nungesser, who has frequently appeared on local and national television, was apparently visited by two White House officials at his office on Fathers’ Day.  According to Mr. Nungesser, the purpose of their visit was to find a way to keep him from calling attention to the lack of equipment. Specifically, they asked him, “What do we have to do to keep you off tv?” He simply replied, “give me what I need.”  On another occasion, Placquemines Parish officials requested 20 skimmers at a town hall meeting held by the Coast Guard. According to Mr. Nungesser, “They gave us two skimmers to shut us up.” These accounts raise serious questions about whether the Administration is more concerned with fighting a public relations battle than combating the oil spill.”

This is a damning allegation, but one that shouldn’t shock anyone, considering the Chicago-style politics running rampant at the White House.  If the two aforementioned allegations (and there are more if you read the linked article) turn out to be true, and I have little reason to question local officials at this point, I would argue that they amount to an impeachable offense.  In fact, if the president is not making damn sure every available ship is down there, and even goes so far as to use Coast Guard vessels as bargaining chips, then he shouldn’t just be impeached, he should be in prison.

Rep. Issa is apparently releasing the full report later today.  I have no doubt that the Administration will deny all of its contents, and blame its existence on partisanship.  When Barry makes these claims however, ask yourself whether he provides any actual proof that the report is false; don’t simply take his word for it.

Issa hopes to actually investigate stuff

California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa has big plans for the Obama Administration in the event the Republicans win back the House in November.  Issa would likely become the head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee should the House turn red this fall.  His plan?  Air the President’s dirty laundry:

“I won’t use it to have corporate America live in fear that we’re going to subpoena everything. I will use it to get the very information that today the White House is either shredding or not producing.”

By taking over the Oversight Committee, Rep. Issa would then have authority to issue subpoenas to the White House (since the Committee is currently in Democratic hands, the Obama Administration obviously isn’t being asked to produce anything that could be potentially damaging).  Rep. Issa has been particularly boisterous with respect to the job offered to Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak, in exchange for him not running against Arlen Specter in the Senate primary.

After calling the White House “corrupt” and Obama’s presidency “failed,” Issa reiterated his claims that — despite a contrary assessment from most experts — the administration violated federal law with the Sestak imbroglio.

The Politico is wrong here.  I have yet to hear anyone outside of the Administration argue the Sestak job offer didn’t violate federal law.  In fact, offering Sestak anything in exchange for him dropping out of the race clearly ran afoul of the express language of the law.  Now, I’ve heard lots of people in Washington say things like it happen all the time, it’s no big deal, yada yada yada.  That it happens all the time doesn’t make it any less illegal however.

The Committee, as the investigative arm of the House of Representatives, has broad discretion to investigate, well, just about anything.  Included within the list of “just about anything,” is the propriety of the Sestak issue.  In fact, the Committee should be investigating it now.  With Issa in charge, the investigation would certainly heat up.

Who knows?  If the Republicans win the House, maybe the inquiries won’t stop at Sestak.  Perhaps we’ll even get answers to why this president refuses to release basic information that practically every other major political candidate has released to date, like his college transcripts, for example.

Republicans are lost in the wilderness on this BP escrow thing

Sigh.  Jobless claims have gone up again.  The White House continues to dither in the face of our biggest foreign threat.  The president still hasn’t waived the Jones Act.  There are so many options with which to legitimately attack the current administration, I am failing to understand the criticism over the BP escrow account.  Rush calls it a “shakedown.”  Others are calling it a slushfund.  I keep hearing that it’s unconstitutional.  People, if there’s one thing that we can’t do right now, it’s lose credibility by going after the president for the good things he’s doing.  Saying no to something simply because Barry came up with it is stupid.  In fact, it’s so stupid, it causes idiots like Texas Republican Joe Barton to issue apologies to BP!  Thanks Joe.  Can everyone on the right just shut up for five friggin’ minutes and use the heads you used to have before you became politicians and pundits?

Okay, rant over.  Let’s first examine the realities of the BP esrow fund.  First, it’s not unconstitutional.  Why?  Because it’s a simple agreement between parties.  It would have been unconstitutional if the President had forced BP to give $20 billion before it was found liable under one of any number of laws (plus the liability cap issue).  Now, Limbaugh is probably correct to a certain extent: BP was probably threatened with something if it didn’t agree to the $20 billion.  I’m sure we’ll learn about the identity of the super-secret bargaining chip in the next few days when it’s leaked to the press.

With respect to those who complain the $20 billion is a slushfund, i.e., a fund for whatever the President wants to use it for, you’re absolutely correct!  It is a pot of money being administered by one person over whom only Barry has authority.  You can be certain that a whole lotta’ pet projects and/or bailouts will be getting their hands on some of that money.  How do I know?  Well look at the bank bailout. Lest we forget, Congress passed TARP for the sole purpose of purchasing toxic assets, i.e. bad mortgages.  Never happened.  Not even once.  Instead, the banks and auto companies were simply given the money to do with what they wanted.  And TARP was at least passed by Congress.  The terms of the BP fund were probably written down on a cocktail napkin.

Now, the slushfund can be good or bad, depending upon your perspective.  It’s good if your only goal is to destroy the White House.  If history is any indication, while legitimate claims are being denied due to red tape, the funds will be siphoned off for other purposes.  And when word leaks out that it’s happening, the White House will be blamed.  This is why I don’t understand why the talking heads on the right are so upset about this.  In one ill-conceived move, Barry has now taken on the sole responsibility for helping every man, woman and child in the entire Gulf region.  I say good luck to you sir.  Now, on the other hand, the slushfund is bad because chances are, very little of the money will actually get to those who need it.

Allahpundit at Hot Air offers a different criticism, via a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed.

[A] government-administered fund more or less guarantees a more politicized payment process. The escrow administrator will be chosen by the White House, and as such would be influenced by the Administration’s political goals. Those goals would include payments to those harmed by the Administration’s own six-month deep water drilling ban. That reckless policy will soon put thousands of Gulf Coast residents out of work, but the White House knows that BP isn’t liable under current law for those claims. The escrow account is an attempt to tap BP’s funds by other means to pay the costs of Mr. Obama’s own policy blunder.

The op-ed is mostly correct, but also slightly wrong.  I have no doubt that the pay-out process will become more politicized and will be pushed in certain directions by the White House.  However, monies going to those put out of work by the moratorium will be paid out of a separate $100 million fund created by BP (at least the funds were separate as of yesterday.  It’s possible that $100 million will be rolled into the $20 billion fund, but really, does it matter?).

The bottom line is this: Obama securing $20 billion from BP is not a bad thing in and of itself.  It theoretically provides a source of money to start cleaning up BP’s mess.  But securing the money is just the beginning.  Obama had better make sure it’s actually distributed to the right people.  If it’s not, we might just be witnessing the last nail in the president’s political coffin.