The blame game

For years now I've heard the complaints that President Obama blames President Bush for everything. Perhaps Bush is to blame for all of our problems or perhaps he isn't, but if blaming the President for all that is wrong with the world is one of your pet peeves then you should pay close attention to the 2012 Presidential race rhetoric.

Like when Mitt Romney blamed Obama for:

The poor economy

The super committee failure.

Issues with the deficit talks.

The US credit downgrade.

GM layoffs.



Or like when Rick Santorum blamed Obama for:

High gas prices.

Bombings in Afghanistan.

High unemployment

Declining marriage rates.

Increased number of people on welfare.



Or like when Mitch McConnell blamed Obama for:

Congressional gridlock.

The BP oil spill.



Or like when Eric Cantor blamed Obama for:

The Occupy Wall Street protests.

Slow job growth.


So will anyone be surprised if any of the Republican candidates for President beats Obama and then spends their first three years blaming all of their failures on the former President?

The reality is that Americans love to blame everyone else for their problems. Unfortunately the only thing placing blame is good for is raising campaign funds not fixing problems.

We don't have a tax problem?

It may just be the upcoming elections or they may actually believe it but among conservatives there is an oft used phrase which goes something like this: "we don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem."

While our government may be spending more than it needs to, it is also true that tax rates are at or near historic lows. What tax rate is just right? Maybe the tax rates under Reagan were the ideal tax rates for growth and job creation. If that is the case then our current rates would be problematic.

Regardless, there are certainly other issues with our current tax system that should be considered a "tax problem". First, it should be noted that included in the 47% of American's that "pay no taxes" are 1.5% of millionaires, 2% of Americans making between $200,000 and $1 million, and 3.5% of Americans making between $100,000 and $200,000.

Second, as the graph below from this year's Economic Report of the President shows, our tax system allows for many of the "rich" to pay lower taxes than some of the middle class.

This rhetoric about not having a tax problem is perpetuated by people like Mitt Romney who hides behind that fallacy that he is a job creator while spending his own money to secure the tax loopholes that allow him to pay a tax rate similar to that of the average American.

If we could close all of the tax loopholes and level the playing field then we might not have a tax problem anymore but when some of the poorest American's pay higher rates than some of the richest Americans, I don't know what else you can call it.

The infrastructure spending that ruled the world

Late last year when the President introduced his jobs bill Republican legislators killed it because they were not interested in increasing taxes or adding to the national debt. Additionally they stood by their long held belief by Republicans that the government can't create jobs.

At the same time we have a group of people who are very concerned about China and their recent ascent to the worlds number 2 economy. Some even believe that China will soon own the US.

The irony is that the recent surge in the Chinese economy is in large part thanks to the increased spending on infrastructure projects which also happens to be one of President Obama's key components to creating jobs.

It should also be noted that various estimates have China amassing a large national debt (China 89% of GDP - US 93% of GDP) to continue investing in infrastructure projects.

If you really think governments can't create jobs and increasing the national debt to create jobs will ruin the country then there is absolutely no reason to fear the current growth of China.

If, on the other hand, you believe China will soon take over the US then it must also be true that the government can create jobs and that adding to the national debt to create those jobs is a smart move.

But why let reality get in the way of some good old jingoistic rhetoric.

To Paraphrase Voltaire

Voltaire is credited with the quote:

If God did not exist, it would necessary to invent him.

Well, if YouTube did not exist, it would be necessary to create it so people could see this video. Enjoy!

Tax climate not related to jobs

In recent days there has been a lot of talk and back patting by Governor Snyder and the media about Michigan's ascent in the Tax Foundation's rankings of State Business Tax Climate. The only real increase was in the area of Corporate Income Tax where Michigan moved from the 49th best state in the nation to 7th after the changes that the Governor implemented last year. What I don't understand is why this ranking is generating such excitement.

Like any ranking the methods used to determine the order are certainly debatable but it should be noted that the Tax Foundation is a conservative leaning organization with recent board of director members including the following group:

Koch Industries Dir. of Federal Affairs, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Americans for Prosperity

Citizens for a Sound Economy; Director of OMB under Pres. Regan

Exxon Mobil, VP Tax

Mobil, VP Tax

Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers

American Action Forum; chief economic adviser to Presidential candidate John McCain in 2008

Skadden, Arps; senior economic adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign and formerly Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Tax Policy under Pres. Bush

While just being conservative leaning or having a board of directors who are inclined to glorify low corporate tax rates doesn't mean that their data is inaccurate or that their rankings are wrong but it certainly is worth questioning if the method for ranking states might rely too heavily on the Corporate tax component over areas like Sales tax, Income tax, Property tax, and Unemployment Insurance tax.

Having said that these rankings are really only important if they show some correlation to unemployment or job creation and unfortunately for the Tax Foundation and Governor Snyder there is no correlation. Below are graphs showing the rankings on the Tax Climate index and the unemployment levels and job creation for the corresponding state.

The reality is there is no more correlation between Unemployment and the Tax Foundation rankings than Unemployment and what letter of the alphabet a states name starts with. Conversely, a study by the Kauffman Foundation last year found that there is a correlation between the age of a business and job creation. Unfortunately the Corporate tax breaks that the governor implemented benefit large old companies more than small new businesses.

Perhaps hollow accomplishments are the goal of Governor Snyder. I imagine they are good for his reelection. But I'm guessing the residents of Michigan would value jobs over corporate sponsored rankings.

So before we put together a ticker tape parade extolling the virtues of Snyder’s policies we should ask the question - if having a good tax climate doesn't create jobs are lower unemployment then why celebrate the loss of revenue for the state which ironically cost the state jobs?

Politicans having it both ways

It seems to be a common belief among conservatives that President Obama is not doing enough to work with Republicans. While I disagree with this opinion it should be noted the Dick Armey the former House Majority Leader believes that Democrats are the "mortal enemy" of the Republicans. Additionally when the President was first elected Rush Limbaugh said he hopes the President fails and Mitch McConnell, one of the guys the President is supposed to be working with to solve America's problems, has made it his goal to make sure Barack Obama is a one term President. If this mentality is common place among Republican legislatures it should come as no surprise that Obama or the Democrats in Congress are having trouble finding common ground. Why would you want to work across the aisle with your mortal enemy or someone whose stated goal is to see you fail and make you a one term President?

The reality is we are not a country full of Nazi's and Communists. We are a country of patriots who have different methods for solving the same problem and continuing to use inflammatory rhetoric to whip of the base does not lead to good solutions.

Mitt Romney is also using this same tactic of having it both ways now that the Republican primaries have become a real race. To bolster his brand Romney has taken to bashing Washington DC. Romney is now calling his opponents and the President "insiders" and recently stated that the people he is running against are “those who have been compromised by the culture of Washington,” and whose “soul is corrupted by a Washington culture.”

What I don't get is why this line of thinking would resonate among conservatives. Why would a group who believes so whole heartedly in the idea of personal responsibility believe that anyone who works in Washington DC is powerless to resist the corrupting influence of working in federal government. Additionally if the corrupting powers are so unavoidable then why should anyone believe that Mitt Romney will be the first to remain pure?

I also wonder why Romney thinks that his experience of being a businessman is important in the task of creating jobs but the experience of working in the Federal Government is a bad thing when applying for the job of running the Federal Government. Either experience is valuable or it isn't. Mitt doesn't get to pick and choose.

In the end this policy of having your cake and eating it too maybe good for getting elected but it is bad for this country.

The Not For You Caucus

One thing about blogging is that you kind of have to do research to make sure you have some idea of what you're talking about. This is what explains all the time I've spent looking up Kelly Brook pictures on the internet; if I am going to make the claim that she is "the hottest woman on the planet", I kind of have to research it to make sure. (Was it confirmed? Not yet... more research is required.)

Anyway, some research I did yesterday indicated that while the House of Representatives always has a plethora of official caucuses (i.e. Congressional Black Caucus, Progressive Caucus, Tea Party Caucus, Liberty Caucus, etc.), the Senate actually only has one official caucus - the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control which was established by law in 1985.

That, arguably, ruined my clever idea for this post about the new caucuses established in light of a vote that took place on an amendment offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). The (official) purpose of his amendment was:

To express the sense of the Senate that the Senate should pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution that limits the number of terms a Member of Congress may serve.

It failed. Miserably. It was voted down 75-24.

More interesting was the breakdown of who voted for it.

The most prominent group could be clumsily referred to as the Voters Will Not Remember This in 10 Years, Right? Caucus. These are the Senators who just won their seats in 2010. They are:

Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Scott Brown (R-MA)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Joe Manchin ("D"-WV)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)

So, of the 24 votes YAY votes, 13 were cast by essentially brand new members. This group clearly felt safe voting this way because they will not be proven to be hypocrites for a full 10 years (assuming a term limit of 2 terms). Most are counting on no one remembering this vote in 10 years when I would be willing to bet several of them will be seeking a third term. Of course, at least one of these won't have to worry about that. I'm looking at you, Scott Brown!

The second group is a grab bag of Republicans currently serving their second terms. I think all of which are popular in their home states and could easily seek third terms. Will they? We'll see. Will they be hypocrites if they do? I say yes, absolutely. Will they find a way to justify their actions? Well, they will make the argument and I suspect their constituents will believe them - because they want to believe them. Anyways, this group (which I will not snarkily name) is:

Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA) -- it's "The Hooker Guy"!

Watch these guys in the future. Graham's second term ends in 2014. Coburn, DeMint, Thune and Vitter all see their second term end in 2016. (It should be said that Tom Coburn has already indicated that he will not seek a third term. I will take him at his word.)

The most appalling new "Caucus" I have dubbed The Not For You Caucus. It is named in honor of the great contemporary life coach, Edward Vedder, who wrote:

If you hate something, do you do it too

This caucus of hypocrites consists of:

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) -- has been in the Senate since 1997.
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) -- has been in the Senate since 1993.
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) -- has been in the Senate since 1981.
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- has been in the Senate since 1977!

Wow! Grassley and Hatch in particular have some cajones saying they are in favor of term limits! In fact, Orrin Hatch has been in the Senate longer than Kelly Brook has been alive! In case you've forgotten, this is what Kelly Brook looks like:



Sorry, I have to end this post. I have important research to do.

Hoekstra Ad May Be offensive, But Is Certainly Inaccurate

You’ve probably seen or read about the ad that former Rep. Pete Hoekstra ran during the Super Bowl yesterday. Our own Mako Yamakura sure has gotten a burr in this saddle regarding this one – or, as Pete might say, a tack on his rickshaw seat.

Allow me to expand upon what Mako only slightly alluded to his second post regarding Mr. Hoekstra.

Whether the ad is or is not racist or offensive can be a matter of opinion.

What is a FACT is that Mr. Hoekstra’s premise is total rubbish. Check out “the chart that should accompany every discussion of deficits” and consider:

Do you know who voted for Medicare Part D (often described as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies)? And whether you believe that or not – it is an absolute fact that it was not paid for and has been projected by the CBO to add $558 billion to the deficit over the first ten years.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra

Do you know who did not vote for this deficit ballooning program?

Sen. Debbie Stabenow

Do you know who voted for the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001?

Pete Hoekstra.

Who voted against those tax cuts?

Debbie Stabenow

Who voted for the additional Bush Tax Cuts in 2003?

Pete Hoekstra

Who voted against the Tax Cuts in 2003?

Debbie Stabenow

Who voted for going to war in Iraq, ultimately costing approximately $1 trillion, thousands of American soldiers lives, as well as the untold sacrifices of American servicemen and women and their families?

Pete Hoekstra

Who voted against the authorization?

Debbie Stabenow

Who voted for TARP in 2008?

Pete Hoekstra

Who voted against TARP?

Debbie Stabenow!

So regardless of whether or not you think the ad is racist or offensive – do not miss the fact of Pete Hoekstra’s voting record as it pertains to spending/the deficit.

And, by the way, if you look at those votes for the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 & 2003 as a positive and don’t consider it “spending”, then you must make sure you never say that The Stimulus signed by President Obama in early 2009 was ~$787B in wasteful spending because greater than 1/3 of that amount was tax cuts and, therefore, not “spending” under your definition.

So I guess I am saying that Hoekstra’s IS offensive. It’s offensive to anyone who cares about facts.

Getting Her Beak Wet

Interesting story on Yahoo! News.

They are reporting that Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is paying his daughter (& her band) several thousand dollars per gig to play at his campaign appearances. (For the record, her band sucks.)

And there you go. That is the way politicians like to legally funnel campaign money to themselves and their associates. It reminds me of this story as another notable example. A little less recent was this one.

Okay, so you may be thinking/wondering: You're right again, Derek Anderson Fan... but why did you return to blogging to notify us of something that happens all the time?

Good question.

The answer is that I could not let this lousy reporting by Yahoo! News stand without comment. Their article states:

Earlier this week, 80's one-hit wonder band "Survivor" sued Newt Gingrich over his use of the song "Eye of the Tiger" at his rallies.

One hit wonder?!?! Excuse me, sir, but check their Wikipedia page. In addition to the #1 hit "Eye of the Tiger", they had other chart hits like "Burning Heart" (#2), "The Search is Over" (#4), "High on You (#8), and others. You can't ignore history, sir! Just because, in retrospect, those songs really suck doesn't mean they were not hits.

And deep down, you have to admit, "Burning Heart" is pretty cool.

The costs of litigation

During the early days of the health care reform debate there was some push to include tort reform in any legislation. The idea being that tort reform would have a significant impact on the cost of health care. The CBO estimated that these reforms would cut around $11 billion a year out of the health care system or 0.5% of the total cost of health care.

Perhaps $11 billion is a big enough number to make it valuable to pursue or perhaps it isn't. Regardless, the recent patent litigation between Apple and Samsung where Apple is suing for infringement and Samsung has counter sued should shine a spot light on another aspect of the legal system that should be examined.

If the belief is that consumers are hurt by the legal costs incurred in the health care industry then the same must be true of the consumer product industry. According to research done by the Boston University school of Law, patent litigation costs the economy around $25 billion a year.

While the America Invents Act does alter patent law it does little for the litigation costs. Some even argue the act makes litigation an even more likely outcome.

Why so much time an effort was focused on tort reform in the health care industry and so little on something like patent litigation is odd given the relative saving available.

The one part of both debates that you almost never hear about is the cost of lawyers. According to a elawforum paper by Harvard professor Clayton M. Christensen and Scott D. Anthony - "Law firms are among the most profitable and least risky businesses in the world. The profit margins of the top 100 U.S. law firms are at least twice those of America’s largest publicly traded corporations."

Perhaps the segment that we really need to consider a cap on is not "pain and suffering" or "patent troll awards" but lawyers profits. Just imagine the boom the economy would experience if law firms were forced to keep their profits in line with those companies they have been charged with defending.

Linking conservative rhetoric to conservative media

If you're the kind of person that truly believes that Democrats think Barack Obama is the Messiah you probably also believe these other talking points listed below. If you're also the kind of person that likes to hear both sides of the story but only believes non-liberal media sources, the links included might be of interest to you.

Barack Obama's decision regarding the Keystone XL pipeline proves "how little he cares for the plight of the American public" (Fox News contributor Bob Beauprez) - or maybe it doesn't.

Mitt Romney is a job creator - or maybe he isn't

Wanting to close the wealth gap is class warfare and envy - or maybe it isn't

Barack Obama is an avowed Muslim and not an American citizen - or maybe not.

“Barack Obama has failed America. When he took office, the economy was in recession. He made it worse.”(Mitt Romney) - or maybe not.

Illegal immigrants are ruining our economy- or maybe not.

I imagine if you are the kind of person that is inclined to believe these statements then the source of the rebuke may not matter but I'm the kind of person that believes a good debate starts with good information.

Support the troops - listen to country?

For some reason there seems to be a belief among conservatives that they are the only American who "support the troops". I assume this is based on the belief that by-in-large conservatives supported the war in Iraq while liberals tended to make up the bulk of those who opposed the war. Unfortunately for those in the "support the troops" elite, there is almost no correlation between supporting a war and supporting the American men and women sent to fight that war.

Beyond that I fail to understand the need to politicize the lives of our men and women who serve this country but a recent song by country singer Brad Paisley contains a phrase that I think epitomizes the ignorance of this line of thinking.

"if there’s anyone that still has pride
In the memory of those
That died defending
The ol’ red, white and blue,
This is country music,
And we do."

If you want to think you hold the lives of our service men and women in higher regard than some know nothing liberal blogger, I think that is great - inaccurate and completely impossible to prove - but great. Perhaps I need to be more like my conservative brethren and start booing American servicemen for being gay to show my support.

Where I really take issue with this line of thinking is when you decide that some arbitrary group of people, of which you happen to belong, somehow holds the patent on pride for our fallen soldiers.

I highly doubt that "country music" puts a higher value on the lives of those who died for this country than the mothers and fathers or brothers and sisters or grandparents or aunts and uncles or cousins or friends of American G.I.'s.

Maybe Brad Paisley fits into one of these categories but "country music" most certainly does not and this claim is either arrogant or ignorant but above all else it is completely and utterly insulting and un-American.

Entitlment of election year rhetoric

In response to a recent post regarding Mitt Romney and his opinion on how best to make America an "Opportunity Society" I received the following comment from Jo Dick Harris:

If a person believes Dale Hansen why go to school. Somebody in the Democratic Party will take care of them and their family if they marry and have children. Work is for suckers.

I'm not sure which statement of mine led Jo Dick to believe that I support some sort of extreme view of America where this description makes any sense but maybe that is how it came off.

With that in mind I wanted to clarify my beliefs since I think this sort of rhetoric permeates what should be a rational debate. Polls show that most Americans believe that there are some people who truly need and benefit from welfare and some people who truly don't need assistance and are just milking the system. If that is the case then the real debate is how many people should really be on welfare not should we offer any welfare.

What I never hear from commenter’s or politicians are practical solutions that assure that those in need don't lose this assistance while eliminating the rest. If you want the states to decide where the money should go - this has been done. If you want less impoverished people to receive assistance - this has been done. If you want less money spent on welfare - this has been done. If you want to limit the amount of welfare people can receive - this has been done. If you want to have better control of what food stamps buy - this has been done. If you want to require people to get job training in order to receive assistance - this has been done.

It should be noted that around 75% of all the money spent on welfare goes to children and subsequently the reductions that we have seen over the past 15 years have affected children the most. Have we really reached the point where we put something like corporate tax breaks or tax cuts for the rich ahead of giving underprivileged kids an opportunity to succeed because that is what will happen if we continuing to arbitrarily attack the welfare system.

I imagine there are some viable solutions to cut the waste out of welfare but you can't crack down on fraud without spending more tax payer dollars and hiring additional government employees - two things that Republican legislators seem to hate even more than welfare. But if we're being honest, this "debate" isn't really about finding solutions is it?

Romney Family Homes

Photos by - CA , MA , NH , CI

Voter ID requirements - a Republican contradiction

One of the big ideas that Republicans are pushing is voter ID laws. The implication being that voter ID's would somehow solve all of the election fraud in the US. Unfortunately voter ID cards would only solve one form of election fraud which also happens to be one of the least prevalent. Additionally the fervor over election fraud is extraordinary given the lack of evidence that this is actually a problem.

The argument from the left on this topic always focuses on voter suppression. Much like the Republican arguments for voter ID laws there is little evidence that proves this would cause widespread voter suppression. That doesn't mean if implemented there won't be a problem of American citizens not being allowed to vote, but at this point this is more speculation than fact.

Having said that, Republican support of voter ID laws is baffling. If enacted voter ID requirements does a number of things that Republicans claim to be against. It would add more unnecessary regulation to the books, which as we all know kills jobs. It would add costs to the election process, which would have to paid for by the American tax payer. It would require additional government employees, which is just more big government. And in some cases if would violate the 24th amendment of the constitution.

For a group that hell-bent on replacing President Obama because they believe he is a big spending, big government President that is killing jobs with unnecessary regulations and occasionally acts unconstitutionally; supporting voter ID requirements must result in a lot of self loathing.

The American entitlement problem

Mitt Romney has decided that inequality in America isn't a real problem. It's just envy. There a plenty of facts that would suggest income inequality is not a good thing for this country but why debate data when you can just throw out a talking point for simpletons to latch on to.

On top of that Mr. Romney believes we have an entitlement problem and he wants America to become and "Opportuntiy Society". This should come as no surprise since growing up privileged Mitt Romney was given every opportunity to succeed. Would he have achieved the same grades in the Detroit public school as he did in his private school in Bloomfield Hills? Would he have been as motivated to get good grades if he had to pitch in to put food on the table and keep the lights on? Would he have been able to pay for his 7 years of college and 30 months on a Mormon mission without his family's money?

What Democrats have been fighting for is a nation where everyone is entitled to a chance at success. Sometimes this means some people need assistance from the government. Unfortunately for most Americans an Opportunity Society favors those like Mitt Romney.

If not would Paris Hilton have been given a chance to have a reality television show or release a record? Would Dale Earnhardt JR. be a NASCAR driver? Would Joe Buck be a big time sports caster? Would Jay Paterno have been the Quarterbacks coach for Penn State for the past 12 years?

Mitt Romney would have you believe that he can help this country create jobs because he has run a business. The idea being that his knowledge of business will be an asset that makes his views better than those who do not have business experience. If this is true then Mitt Romney's opinions on how to help people pull themselves up by their boot straps are completely irrelevant. Mitt didn't start at the bottom and work his way up. He took a limo to the corner of privilege and don't you know who my dad is and managed not to screw it up.

Barack Obama on the other hand, grew up in a house that needed government assistance to make ends meet. Contrary to the Republican rhetoric of "welfare dependency", Barack Obama, because of this assistance, was afforded the opportunity to succeed. If personal experience is the measuring stick Mitt Romney wants us to use then Barack Obama's opinion on how to successfully get Americans off of government assistance is far superior to Mr. Romney's.

In the end I agree with Mitt Romney - we have an entitlement problem. But the problem is with the entitlements that are given to the rich and famous not the impoverished. Perhaps it is just hard for Mitt to see how cutting government benefits might not be considered an "opportunity" by the poor from the Romney family ivory towers in California, and New Hampshire, and Massachusetts and Utah.

Fox News has it all figured out

Fox News contributor Liz Peek has it all figured out. It's simple. The problem with the economy is of course all Obama's fault. What in particular is the President doing to ruin the economy? He's not positive enough. According to Liz Peek "(The President) is not aware…that his pessimism...is bad for our economy".

I guess what the President needs to do is just be more upbeat about the state of the nation and the economy, like Republicans, and everything will magically be better.

So with that in mind here are some of the Republican examples of how to be positive and boost consumer confidence.

Ron Paul - "A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner."

Eric Cantor on his official government web page has an article with the following title: "The Obama Economy: 60% Say It's Getting Worse"

Mitt Romney - "Barack Obama has failed America. When he took office, the economy was in recession. He made it worse."

Rush Limbaugh - "The recession is twice as bad, economic growth two times as bad."

Mitch McConnell - "There’s no denying the fact that the policies of the past two and a half years have made a bad situation worse."

Herman Cain - "stupid people are running America.”

Newt Gingrich - "(Obama is) the most destructive president economically since Herbert Hoover.”

And even some of Liz Peek's colleagues at Fox News are getting in on the act.

Sean Hannity - "And tonight, more bad news on the state of the American economy which comes as no surprise to anybody except members of the Obama administration."

Bill O'Reilly - "As we all know, the U.S. economy is bad and getting worse"

Nothing quite like that warm fuzzy feeling you get from all that positive energy eh?

I wonder if Mrs. Peek gets the irony of how writing an article complaining about everything the President is doing wrong might also be one of those things that contributes to a low consumer confidence number.

The never ending welfare state

In what is clearly a referendum on the Obama administrations job killing obsession with climate change; it snowed in Cordova, Alaska. If that doesn't prove climate change is a hoax I don't know what will.

What's more, thanks to this dusting of snow the mayor of Cordova, Alaska has declared a disaster emergency and has enlisted the help of the National Guard, the Coast Guard, and even Homeland Security to get the snow removed. Who is going to pay for all this government assistance? The American tax payer, that's who. If we send in the National Guard every time a little snow falls in Alaska we create a situation where these people will come dependent on the assistance and will never learn to shovel snow on their own. Lazy freeloaders like this are the reason we have such massive deficits. Just think of the money we could save if these people just demonstrated a little personal responsibility.

To make matters worse the town of Cordova wasted more tax payer money on infrastructure improvements which put their power lines underground preventing them from losing power during storms like this. This money could have been used to lower the tax burden on the valuable job creators in Cordova instead of continuing the welfare state.

This is just more proof of how President Obama is turning us into a nation of socialists by forcing emergency assistance down our throats rather than letting the free market take its course.

Recess appointment hysteria

It has become common place for conservative "news" sources like Fox News to over react to everything that President Obama does. The most recent example of this is the hysteria over his recent recess appointments which Fox News reported might be an impeachable offense.

First it should be noted that not only is Obama not the first President use recess appointments but he uses them half as much as George W. Bush while Ronald Reagan had three times a many recess appointments per year as President Obama. Additionally with a Democrat controlled Congress 75% of George W. Bush's nominees were confirmed while only 57% of Obama's nominees have been confirmed thanks to a litany of delaying tactics used by Republicans.

Having said that, these recess appointments are slightly different due to another delaying tactic known as pro forma developed by Senator Robert C. Byrd and later implemented by Harry Reid. Back when Harry Reid first implemented the pro form sessions some on the right as termed this tactic never ending obstructionism, now that Obama is challenging the blocking of recess appointments the right is defending the practice and claiming Obama's actions are unconstitutional. Which is it? Is pro forma a vital senatorial procedure or an obstructionist tactic? According to lawyers in the Bush administration there were examples of other Presidents (Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman) taking similar actions and these lawyers urged President Bush to ignore pro forma.

Based on this information it seems that both the Bush and Obama administrations have determined this action to not be unconstitutional. The good news is we have a system in place to shine a light on these grey areas of the law and it doesn't rely on talking heads from the media.

Putting facts above ideology

Recently there has been some debate about the value of a federally funded transit center in Troy. While it seems this particular project may not have a broad consensus the idea behind the transit center should.

In these difficult times we should be looking for the best return on investment of our tax dollars. If cutting public sector jobs shows a great return then do it. If increasing taxes tops the list of ROI then it should be done. In this case, infrastructure spending just happens to have some of the best return possible for government spending. It is better than tax rebates, better than payroll tax holiday, and far superior to business or capital gains tax cuts. Ask any business and they will happily go into debt to invest in a product that if can increase their profit margin from $0.30 per dollar spent to $1.59 per dollar spent.

Part of the reason infrastructure spending has such a high ROI is that the money is spend here in America. Tax cuts can be used to buy goods but there is no guarantee that ultimate benefactor of that money is domestic. Spending a little bit more on Christmas presents this year may help Wal-Mart a little but some of that money also goes to the Chinese company that manufactured the product. Infrastructure spending puts Americans to work improving America.

It also turns out that good infrastructure is important to corporations. This means improving infrastructure could bring more business to an area.

So maybe the transit center in Troy is a good idea or maybe it isn't, but making statements like "I don't believe..." or "I don't think..." adds no facts to the debate. In the end if you can't find statistical data that backs up your ideology then maybe the problem isn't with the project but with your ideology.