|
Thanks for visiting Gem State Politics. This site is in the beginning stages of construction. Check back often as I add more content & the format become settled.
Feel free to leave any feedback.
Otter right on Katrina relief spending.
Wednesday, July 5, 2006 9:49 AM.
Back in September 2005 the House of Representative voted 410 11 in favor of $51.8 billion in supplemental funding bill to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Congressman C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) was one of 11 representatives to vote against the bill (H.R. 3673 vote results). The media and left side of the blogosphere attacked Congressman Otter and the other 11 representatives for their votes, calling them "horrible human beings" and questioned the rational of his vote.
In a press release regarding his vote, Congressman Otter questioned the logic of spending billions with out proper accountability for funds or an understanding of how best to address the needs of Katrinas victims.
Now, more than eight months after that, vote we can look back on that Katrina relief spending and see that Congressman Otters concerns were well-founded. First, the government spent millions on trailers for Katrina victims, thousands of which went unused. Now we learn that, in addition to the millions spent on the unused trailers, the government lost more than $2 billion to fraud, theft and a lack of bureaucratic oversight.
There are two lessons to be learned from this.
One, when rapid response, skilled management, and nimble thinking is required, putting a large bureaucracy in charge (to say nothing of a large government bureaucracy) is not a recipe for success. The deficiencies seen in the emergency response to Katrina, and in the distribution of aid in the nine plus months since, are and will always be hallmarks of any government agency-managed response. Government bureaucracies are slow, wasteful, and concerned primarily with their own survival (which is why the proposed fix is always to add more bureaucracy and oversight).
The second lesson is this: if good intentions alone meant that the less fortunate would be cared for and their lives improved, the world would be a wonderful place. The reality, however, is results mean more than warm and fuzzy thoughts. What would have been the beneficial effect of the lost $2 billion on Katrina victims if it had been appropriated and managed thoughtfully and patiently? Instead, it was spent quickly and recklessly so that those in Congress could properly convey their deep concern and compassion for the Katrina victims.
ACLU Gets chance to Play in the Liberal "Get Bush" Game
Once again the ACLU and the American left have put politics and their "Get Bush" agenda above the security of our Nation. The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) have filed law suits to stop the surveillance of individuals (individuals who call suspected terrorists!) within the United States.
This is just the "flavor of the month" in the non-stop attack on the Bush Administration, the "stolen" election of 2000, the forged National Guard documents, the 9/11 attacks, the Valerie Plame leak case, Abu Grab prison abuse scandal, the Guantanamo detainees, the Hurricane Katrina response, the horrible economy . . . I could go on and on and on. At the end of the day this is just another baseless attack on the President by the left deu to a lack of anything better to offer.
Some people in the blog-o-shpere have even suggested that the left is secretly wishing for another 9/11 type attack in the hope that it will provide the fatal blow to the Bush Administration they have tried so hard to fabricate. This claim is often dismissed as outrageous or baseless, however the actions taken by the likes of the ACLU and the CCR seem to support the notion that the left cares less about National Security and more about partisan politics.
Cell phone control
Friday, January 13, 2006 10:44 AM
Based on this report, I'm certain that it's only a matter of time until those helpful people who advocate strict gun control in order to stop gun crime start agitating for cell phone control to stop terrorism.
That's the only logical step, right?
(Hat tip: Little Green Footballs)
We don't like THAT kind of dissent
Monday, December 19, 2005 9:12 AM
This is what you get if don't follow DNC talking points.
This is quite the curious reaction from a party that allegedly values discussion of the issues, and believes dissent is patriotic.
You think Democrats would hold Sen. Lieberman in the same regard that they do John McCain for daring to oppose his party's leadership and base on an issue.
A weasel by any other name. . . .
Monday, December 5, 2005 7:07 PM
Another marvelous example of why Howard Dean is the greatest thing to happen to the GOP since Ronald Reagan switched sides. Every silly idea that sprouts in his head eventually comes spilling out of his piehole, it seems.
Amongst the many foolish thoughts to escape Dean's lips, two stand out as particularly absurd:
1) He suggested that US forces should undergo a 'strategic re-deployment' (immediate withdrawal for those who speak don't speak gutless coward) to a 'friendly' nation neighboring Iraq. Then, based in the 'country-to-be-named-later', we would fight Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq. This move would "get the target of the backs of American troops," according to Dean.
Dean did not explain how we'd fight Zarqawi and his terrorists without re-entering Iraq, which would presumably return the targets to the backs of US troops. He also did not reveal whether or not Zarqawi offered to 'pinky swear' that he'd stay in Iraq once we left.
2) As part of the plan for surrender strategic re-deployment, Dean advises sending 20,000 troops to Afghanistan, a place "where we (American troops) are welcome."
Dean offers an idea which is certain to revolutionize modern warfare. Troops should be deployed not where they will encounter and kill the enemy, but rather where they'll get the warmest reception. This will undoubtedly save US lives, the drawback being that it will do the same for terrorists. Dean did not elaborate on how we would win a war by avoiding the enemy.
From Crazy Howie's latest ravings, it is clear that Democrats believe they must help bring about American military defeat in Iraq (á la Vietnam) so as to regain political power. What isn't clear is whether or not they fully understand the catastrophic consequences if they succeed.
A disappointing decision
Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:28 PM
Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch announced today that he will not challenge Butch Otter for the Republican nomination for Governor of Idaho, ending months of speculation and political intrigue. The decision, while not surprising, is a disappointment. Otter's early entry into the race gave him a significant advantage in fundraising and endorsements.
The current reality of Idaho politics makes the Republican primary the only race where a meaningful discussion of Idaho's future will get the full attention of voters. Jerry Brady isn't a viable alternative in the eyes of many Idaho voters.
Despite the disappointment right now, my hope is that interested parties (Democrat, Republican and independent alike) will make the candidates address the issues facing Idaho, even if the election is not in doubt.
Talk is cheap (but your government isn't).
Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:13 PM
The House today rejected a spending bill that would have trimmed $142.5 billion from programs in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The 'cuts' in this bill were actually cuts, and not just reductions in the rate of growth.
This is yet another blow to common sense and fiscal sanity. We know that Democrats have nothing to offer on this or any other important issues of the day. What is truly infuriating are the moderate Republicans who continue to undermine any and all attempts at controlling federal spending, while offering no solutions of their own.
Idaho voters may find it curious who decided to vote against this modest (but very important) reduction in federal spending. Face-to-face with an opportunity to actually reduce the size of government, our very own big-talker on the subject seems to have blinked.
A definitive statement of truth and fact.
Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:32 AM
Norman Podhoretz, writing in Commentary magazine, has written a thorough and definitive recap of the statements, assessments and conclusions regarding Iraq's WMD program leading up to the war.
It is a long read, but well worth the time.
Congressional Republicans - now with spines!
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 10:46 AM
Via Drudge, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert are asking for an investigation into a leak of ACTUAL secret/covert information by Dana Priest of the Washington Post.
The story, published Nov. 2nd, revealed the existence of secret CIA prisons ("black sites' in intelligence parlance) in, among other places, two Eastern European democracies.
This development is, for myriad reasons, much needed. First, it addresses a serious breach of national security that hampers our efforts in the GWOT.
Second, it shows Republicans may finally be ready to counter the shoddy reporting of the MSM and campaign of misinformation by Democrats.
Third, it begins to turn the focus on the CIA, which is badly broken and in need of repair.
Put aside, for the moment, the badly flawed pre-Iraq War intelligence produced by the CIA. Since the war began, elements within the CIA have been attempting to damage and undermine the Bush Administration. These efforts are bourne, I believe, out of two things: one, the desire to distract attention from the Agency's failures and shortcomings and two, policy disagreements and changes in the CIA's traditional (and for them, comfortable) role in national security.
This investigation should serve as the first step in the long, but necessary, process of fixing the CIA.
Powerline (along with others) has been out in front on this topic for a while. Scott Johnson has another excellent post today.
Sen. Chappaquiddick Ethics 101 & the Litmus Test!
Monday, November 7th, 2005 12:46 AM
Every moon-bats favorite Senator, Edward "Ted" Kennedy of Massachusetts was on Meet the Press with Tim Russert this weekend. You can view the shows transcript here. While there were several noteworthy comments made by old Sen. Chappaquiddick I wanted to make note of a couple that struck me as . . . . funny . . . although Im not sure thats quite the right word (maybe hypocritical?).
The first is a comment made by the Mass. Senator in regards to President Bushs nomination to the Supreme Court, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. During a discussion of the confirmation process the moderator, Tim Russert, read a quote from Sen. Kennedy he made during the nomination process for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in which the Senator said
"It is even more offensive to suggest that a potential Justice must pass the litmus test of any single-issue interest group."
The Sen. continues with this statement made directly to Russert
"I am opposed to any litmus test for any nominee."
So it would seem that Sen. Kennedy has made his position very clear, there should NOT be a litmus test for ANY Supreme Court nominee. However, it would seem that the Senator is confused or doesnt really mean what he says as he continues on to say
"If they (SCOTUS nominee) have a particular issue, that position with regards to one position, they're going to undermine the whole issues of privacy, which is basically the reason that the Constitution was written, is because we are a country that want to preserve our--preserve our privacy and our individual rights and liberties. So the answer is, yes, I would--I couldn't support someone that had that . . ."
In this case it would seem that either Sen. Kennedy doesnt understand what the term litmus test means, or perhaps this stance on the nomination process only applies when there is a Democratic in the White House and a left-wing liberal nominated to the Supreme Court. To address the additional contradictory statements or point out the utter hypocrisy of the Senators statements would take more time than I have for this post.
The second statement made by the Senator (this is the funny one) that struck me was in response to a question form Russert regarding the White Houses announcement that it has asked some of its top officials to take an ethic course on how to handle classified information as reported here in the Washington Post. When asked about the announcement Sen. Kennedy made the following comment,
"Well, first of all, I think ethics has to be more than a class, doesn't it? This starts at a very important part of your life."
Now, I have to say, I whole heartedly agree with the Senator on this point, ethics are more than just a class and they are a very important part of you life. As I reflected on the statements I wondered to myself when those all important ethics "started" for Senator Kennedy? Perhaps they started when the Senator was suspended from Harvard for arranging for another student to take a final exam in Spanish for him (us common, non-Harvard educated folk call this cheating!) or perhaps the Senators ethics started after that fateful night in July 1969 that left Mary Jo Kopechne dead, an incident that has subsequently become known simply as Chappaquiddick.
But leisure suits are OK!
Monday, October 24, 2005 11:12 AM
As part of the evil United States’ ongoing imperialist psychological war against the peaceful and friendly nation of North Korea, the newest weapon in the arsenal is apparently . . . . women’s pants.
North Korea is encouraging women to dress traditionally, so as to counter the 'rotten' American influence. This latest effort to counter a threat to the People’s Revolution follows last month’s campaign against men with long hair, which the North Korean government says is anti-socialist. (Someone should get a message to some of these fine gentlemen – I’m sure they want to stay true to the movement, but just haven’t gotten the word yet.)
The final paragraph of the story caused me to do a double-take:
|
The North, which demands unquestioning allegiance of its citizens and controls all media, has stepped up the ideological education of its people to counter outside influences. However, the country's loosely controlled border with China has led recently to increased traffic in smuggled recordings of music and videos from the outside. |
What does it say about a country and its freedom when CHINA is a source of courrupting Western, capitalist influence?
A tote board would be tacky, even for them.
Monday, October 24, 2005 11:12 AM
The anti-war, anti-America left is feverishly preparing to celebrate the 2,000th American combat death in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan, with her 15 minutes long ago expired, is trying to get a few seconds added to the clock by promising to tie herself to the White House fence until the troops are brought home.
Any sane, rational person should by now be questioning the mantra of "We support our troops, but not the war," repeated ad infinitum by peaceniks, un-reformed hippies, anti-American socialist/communists, and Congressional Democrats.
Support for the troops, in their minds, includes (amongst other things):
- likening them to Nazis (Sen. Dick Durbin)
- protesting injured soldiers at the hospital (Code Pink @ Walter Reed)
- labeling them terrorists, occupiers, and war criminals (numerous, including the aforementioned Cindy Sheehan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi)
- declaring their efforts a failure (every Democrat except for Sen. Joe Lieberman)
- trying to cut off funding for their work (almost every Senate Democrat, except, again, for Sen. Joe Lieberman)
The American left has, for the better part of 70 years, asked everyone to look at their words and intentions, rather than their actions and outcomes. The thinly-veiled glee over the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq clearly demonstrates how their real sentiments contradict their stated positions.
Senators Craig and Crapo on Wrong side of Anti-Pork Amendment.
Friday, October 21, 2005 10:20 am
Idaho Senators Larry Craig and Mike Crapo voted against three anti-pork spending amendments proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). In all 86 senators voted against the amendments.
With soaring budget deficits, the war in Iraq and a pledge by the President to rebuild New Orleans at a cost that could reach $200 billion one might think the Senate would look to curtail spending on non-necessary projects like sculpture parks, animal shelters, parking lots and lets not forget the bridge to no where.
Less than a month ago, the Senate voted in favor of an amendment, also proposed by Sen. Coburn, which will serve to "lift the veil of secrecy that conceals the process of inserting special projects or pork into appropriations bills." However, when it came time to vote in favor of an anti-pork amendment such as this one Idahos Senators Craig and Crapo couldn't come through with the sort of fiscal responsibility people in the State of Idaho expect. Or, perhaps they were scared by the threat from Washington State Senator, Patty Murray, who promised to take a "long, hard look" at projects in states of those Senators voting in favor of the amendments.
Investigate BEFORE the trial? You've got my attention.
Thursday, September 1, 2005 10:11 AM
All that was missing from this trial was a lion tamer and a ringmaster.
How do four people give the same or similar false testimony and have it hold up under police scrutiny during a murder investigation? Unless, of course, there was no actual investigating done . . . .
I'm not a prosecutor, and I don't even play one on TV, but figuring out that your case has no reliable witnesses is not something to find out AFTER jeopardy has attached.
And they're off!
Wednesday, August 31st, 5:08 PM
The Republican race for the nomination in Idaho's 1st Congressional District is off to a pleasant start. Former state senator Sheila Sorenson took a thinly veiled swipe at Canyon County Commissioner and fellow 1st District Congressional candidate Robert Vasquez in a guest opinion in today's Idaho Press-Tribune (opinion not available online, apparently).
Sorenson criticized Canyon County's lawsuit (spearheaded by Vasquez) against four major local ag companies, under federal RICO statutes, for hiring undocumented workers (what we once called illegal aliens). Vasquez's anti-illegal immigration stance is a central theme of his candidacy (and the only theme I'm aware of, at this point). Sorenson offered her own ho-hum four-point plan in the editorial (which I'd offer full comment on if I could see the complete editorial).
Sorenson argues that the suing employers won't fix the problem, but rather will cause only lost jobs and a damaged Canyon Country economy. In the short-term, she is correct. Canyon County's actions will have little impact if employers can simply relocate to Ada, Owyhee, Payette, or Gem County and continue violating the law without fear of consequences.
In the long-term however, holding businesses accountable when they employ undocumented workers must be a major component of any policy aimed at actually curbing illegal immigration. If you remove or greatly reduce the primary incentive for coming here illegally, how many people will continue to take the risk?
One final thought: count on more exchanges like this between the six declared candidates for Clement L. Otters House seat. Unless a dynamic Democrat emerges (quick note: Larry Grant is not that Democrat), the Republicans realize that their primary is whole shooting match. With no clear frontrunner right now, expect them to attack and bloody each other accordingly.
I'll be posting more thoughts on the 1st Congressional District race as it progresses.
Wal-Mart: Now the root of all evil in Idaho, too!
Wednesday, August 31st, 2:02PM
The anti-Wal-Mart bandwagon now has riders from Idaho.
House Speaker Bruce Newcombe (R-Burley) is considering the introduction of legislation to require large employers (read: Wal-Mart) to spend a certain percentage of their total wages on health insurance for their employees, or pay the difference into the states Medicaid fund. The idea comes from a Maryland bill introduced earlier this year (Gov. Bob Ehrlich vetoed the measure in May). The idea has support from Senate Minority Leader Clint Stennett (D-Ketchum), who has introduced legislation previously to mandate business-provided health care.
The kerfuffle is based on the premise that Wal-Mart underpays its employees, refuses to provide them health care benefits, then coaches them on to apply for government assistance. Combine that idea with jumpy state legislators whove seen Medicaid costs spiral upward the past several years, and you get an urgent issue that government must fix.
These documents leaked by a Wal-Mart employee allegedly show how Wal-Mart encourages employees to seek benefits and shift employment costs to the state. In reality, they appear to be standard HR fair designed to answer questions commonly asked by employees. If you have the preconceived notion that Wal-Mart is Satan's Superstore, then the leap to the conclusion that Wal-Mart is trying to stick it to taxpayers is a small one. There appears to be little evidence to support the accusation here. My favorite quote in the above article is this one:
"Rather than taxpayers subsidizing the wealthiest family in the world, maybe the wealthiest family in the world ought to reimburse Medicaid."
Speaker Bruce Newcomb (R-Burley) |
Thats some high-quality demagoguery.
The story also recounts the "often fatal competitions with mom-and-pop shops," that Wal-Mart has won in Idaho, and the difficulties that Wal-Mart has caused Boise-based Albertson's. These are interesting points to appear in the article, given that the concern was the shifting of labor costs to taxpayers.
Proponents of this silly idea are looking to assault the easiest target rather than the real problems. Medicaid costs are high because the program is broken and in need of a serious overhaul. Health care costs continue to skyrocket while politicians fail to address root causes (tort reform & malpractice insurance, lack of market forces in health care, overused medical system), choosing instead to hide and shift costs and demonize insurance companies.
Any law requiring Wal-Mart spend more per employee will harm the very people its intended to help. Increased labor costs means an employer can afford to fill fewer positions (unless the law also requires people shop at Wal-Mart, and we know that aint gonna happen). The people most likely to lose jobs are those with few skills and little experience, people whose productivity is low compared to the cost of employing them. Once they've lost their jobs, what will it cost the state to provide unemployment and complete social service benefits? People working on the bottom rung arent simply earning a paycheck. Theyre also gaining skills and experience to move up the ladder and on to better jobs.
I expect sloppy economic thinking like this in larger states with large blocks of anti-business liberals can get away with it. This is an new phenomenon for Idaho.
Some other great sites to check out.
Right Wing News
Drudge Report
Michelle Malkin
Sound Politics
Protest Warriors | 
