I simply cannot get a handle on current NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Now it seems that he's making some moves towards a run as an independent candidate for President. These moves include...
- Interviewing and contacting various advertising companies.
- Contact with previous campaign aides and advisors about an '08 bid
- Contacting various political consultants about a possible presidential run.
I don't know who Bloomberg would appeal to, he was a lifelong Democrat who became a Republican in 2001 (just in time to run for Mayor), then declared himself an Independent in June of this year "in response" to the current political climate in our nation's capital.
However, he has the personal coffers to win, having noted that he would spend up to $1 Billion of his own money to self-finance his own campaign. Other speculation has him self-financing a campaign from the slot of a VP candidate.
Nonetheless, I don't think Bloomberg could win a presidential run. He would, however, pull in most of the Independents, which leaves the party-affiliated voters left. We may see a candidate win the presidency with only 37-38% of the vote if that happened.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Omnibus Spending Bill Passes in House
Two separate votes took place on this bill. The first was a 253-154 vote in favor of clearing the actual spending measure, the second was a 206-201 vote in favor of allocating an extra $31 billion to the troops in Afghanistan (good job).
Republicans aren't exactly thrilled about this bill, though.
Republicans attacked the omnibus package, pointing out that many earmarks were “airdropped” into the bill at the last moment. They also were critical of Democratic leadership’s decision not to include Iraq war funding in the measure. Those funds are expected to be added by the Senate.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a vocal critic of earmarks, said a few of the airdropped earmarks simply seek to allocate money to cities without explanation.
Flake rattled off the names of cities and how much the bill will allocate to those locales.
“For what?” Flake asked. “We have no idea.”
Which is why we need to start seriously busting the pork barrel projects and wasteful spending with more transparency in government and by forcing justifcation for these earmarks before shoving them into bills at the last minute.
(h/t The Hill)
Republicans aren't exactly thrilled about this bill, though.
Republicans attacked the omnibus package, pointing out that many earmarks were “airdropped” into the bill at the last moment. They also were critical of Democratic leadership’s decision not to include Iraq war funding in the measure. Those funds are expected to be added by the Senate.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a vocal critic of earmarks, said a few of the airdropped earmarks simply seek to allocate money to cities without explanation.
Flake rattled off the names of cities and how much the bill will allocate to those locales.
“For what?” Flake asked. “We have no idea.”
Which is why we need to start seriously busting the pork barrel projects and wasteful spending with more transparency in government and by forcing justifcation for these earmarks before shoving them into bills at the last minute.
(h/t The Hill)
Gallup Poll: Congress Poll Numbers Low, Both Parties Suffering
I hear a lot of Democrats state that the sole reason for the extremely low poll numbers Congress has are the fault of the Republicans, who are "blocking" their agenda, which they believe America supports whole-heartedly.
I don't think that's the case.
According to the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, the two parties are within the 5 percent margin of error of each other. Republicans drawing an approval rate of 26 percent (68 percent disapproval), Democrats at 30 percent (64 percent disapproval).
Dems might want to start rethinking the blame game, because their overall ineffectiveness and the negative nature of their approach to legislation is turning on them quickly.
I don't think that's the case.
According to the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, the two parties are within the 5 percent margin of error of each other. Republicans drawing an approval rate of 26 percent (68 percent disapproval), Democrats at 30 percent (64 percent disapproval).
Dems might want to start rethinking the blame game, because their overall ineffectiveness and the negative nature of their approach to legislation is turning on them quickly.
Excuse Me, Could You Say That Into My Good Ear?
From CNN...
Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president — Bush's son, George W. Bush.
"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.
A spokesman for the George H.W. Bush was not immediately available to comment on whether the former president would chip in some diplomatic help after his son leaves office next year.
What in the blue hell...? Either Clinton is lying or Bush Sr. is going senile. The RNC replied to this with a disturbingly benign response.
"In 2009, a Republican president will be working with our friends and allies abroad to continue to keep our nation safe," said RNC spokesman Danny Diaz. "The American people expect our leaders — both current and former — to present serious solutions to the very real challenges confronting our nation."
Ugh...can we get beyond Bushes and Clintons after 2008?
UPDATE: Bush replies by nicely saying, "no chance, Bill."
Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president — Bush's son, George W. Bush.
"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.
A spokesman for the George H.W. Bush was not immediately available to comment on whether the former president would chip in some diplomatic help after his son leaves office next year.
What in the blue hell...? Either Clinton is lying or Bush Sr. is going senile. The RNC replied to this with a disturbingly benign response.
"In 2009, a Republican president will be working with our friends and allies abroad to continue to keep our nation safe," said RNC spokesman Danny Diaz. "The American people expect our leaders — both current and former — to present serious solutions to the very real challenges confronting our nation."
Ugh...can we get beyond Bushes and Clintons after 2008?
UPDATE: Bush replies by nicely saying, "no chance, Bill."
Cents and Sensibility, A Look at Tim Kaine's Proposed Budget
Let's take a look at some of the highlights (and lowlights) of Governor Kaine's proposed budget...
THE SAVINGS...
- The current $641 million shortfall will be taken care of by using $261 million from the "Rainy Day fund", overall cuts of $300 million, and $96 million will come from agency savings (i.e. unspent money).
- The 2008-2010 budget...is projected to be a little over $78 billion, which is the smallest increase in 12 years, only $4 billion more over the last biennial budget. Projected revenues are about $81 billion, so we might come out of this with a surplus.
- No new taxes, but an increase in the license renewal fee from $5 to $15. However, the once-a-year car inspections will now be once-every-2-years, and that price goes from $16 to $20. Ok, we're not saving on the renewal fee, but we'll actually save a whole $6 a year with the change in car inspect
- No government pay raises in 2008. However, state employees get a 3% pay increase, and teachers get a 3.5% pay increase, in 2009. I'm going to put this under savings, but I'm not sure why Kaine is using Daniel Snyder-esque "back end loading" of spending increases.
The explanation I've heard about why these increases are being structured this way is because of the "hope" that the economy improves by 2009, so the state will "hopefully" exceed revenue projections. "Hope"? That's the same platform Barack Obama runs on, so I'm guessing that's why Tim Kaine supports Obama.
So that's the "Politics of Hope", simply "hoping" things get better. That explains a lot...
THE INCREASED SPENDING...
- Education: $56 million to expand public preschool programs, $44.3 million in increased operating costs for colleges and universities (didn't I talk about how this could be a place to cut funds in an earlier post?), $1.6 billion in bonds for college/university campus construction projects (buy now, pay later...?), $36.4 million increase in student financial aid. $1 billion to upgrade education requirements for K-12 ("education requirements"? Like, the standard curriculum? That should only require a few pieces of paper).
- Business: $68 million to recruit businesses to Virginia. This should be spent wisely...although, isn't the state already a magnet in and of itself for business? The $7 million in subsidies allocated for small businesses to provide health insurance to lower-income employees is agreeable, as it would help take people off of medicaid, etc...
- Juvenile Delinquents: $159 million to provide special schooling and foster care for juvenile delinquents. If they're in foster care, shouldn't they be going to a real school?
- $46 million to repair "gaps" in the mental health care system, including $14.6 million for crisis mental health care. $14.6 million for "crisis" mental health care? We have to have funds on hand in case of a "crisis". Shouldn't our money go towards averting a crisis in the future?
THE INEXPLICABLE
- $180 million in transportation funds reverted back to the general budget for this biennium. Wait, didn't we have a BIG debate over the abuser fees that were supposed to pay for the supposed transportation needs? And now Kaine, who supported the fees and wanted them imposed on Virginia drivers only, wants to take money AWAY from the transportation fund?
There has been a lot of negative reaction on the blogs...some of it warranted, some of it not.
- On The Spot is not happy with this. In fact, there is a lot of sarcastic commentary about the budget.
- Right-Wing Liberal sees this as a very "Clintonian" way of expanding government without necessarily increasing spending. Decrease the amount of money spent and number of government employees, but no decrease in the actual size and scope of governmental power.
- Spank That Donkey notes that Kaine made a promise during his 2005 campaign not to touch the transportation fund for other purposes...oops. He also makes an excellent point that when you're looking at a possible recession, "the most prudent action of the government should be to trim spending, and provide a stimulus to the people."
- The GOP has their own doubts about this budget.
- Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is "very disappointed."
Personally, I think Kaine's overall budget keeps the size of the actual "meat and potatoes" of the government's spending the same...but has some back-end increases in areas that don't necessarily need the increases. That's where the disappointment lies. Why increase spending on projects like Kaine's attempt at gradually implementing universal pre-K? We're not in a financial position to consider such a project, which is not even a good idea in the first place.
Kaine is to be commended on keeping his spending increase down...but if you're going to increase spending, do it to the areas that need it (infrastructure, transportation, commerce) and stop increasing it in less-important areas (universal pre-K, non-justified increases in secondary education spending).
THE SAVINGS...
- The current $641 million shortfall will be taken care of by using $261 million from the "Rainy Day fund", overall cuts of $300 million, and $96 million will come from agency savings (i.e. unspent money).
- The 2008-2010 budget...is projected to be a little over $78 billion, which is the smallest increase in 12 years, only $4 billion more over the last biennial budget. Projected revenues are about $81 billion, so we might come out of this with a surplus.
- No new taxes, but an increase in the license renewal fee from $5 to $15. However, the once-a-year car inspections will now be once-every-2-years, and that price goes from $16 to $20. Ok, we're not saving on the renewal fee, but we'll actually save a whole $6 a year with the change in car inspect
- No government pay raises in 2008. However, state employees get a 3% pay increase, and teachers get a 3.5% pay increase, in 2009. I'm going to put this under savings, but I'm not sure why Kaine is using Daniel Snyder-esque "back end loading" of spending increases.
The explanation I've heard about why these increases are being structured this way is because of the "hope" that the economy improves by 2009, so the state will "hopefully" exceed revenue projections. "Hope"? That's the same platform Barack Obama runs on, so I'm guessing that's why Tim Kaine supports Obama.
So that's the "Politics of Hope", simply "hoping" things get better. That explains a lot...
THE INCREASED SPENDING...
- Education: $56 million to expand public preschool programs, $44.3 million in increased operating costs for colleges and universities (didn't I talk about how this could be a place to cut funds in an earlier post?), $1.6 billion in bonds for college/university campus construction projects (buy now, pay later...?), $36.4 million increase in student financial aid. $1 billion to upgrade education requirements for K-12 ("education requirements"? Like, the standard curriculum? That should only require a few pieces of paper).
- Business: $68 million to recruit businesses to Virginia. This should be spent wisely...although, isn't the state already a magnet in and of itself for business? The $7 million in subsidies allocated for small businesses to provide health insurance to lower-income employees is agreeable, as it would help take people off of medicaid, etc...
- Juvenile Delinquents: $159 million to provide special schooling and foster care for juvenile delinquents. If they're in foster care, shouldn't they be going to a real school?
- $46 million to repair "gaps" in the mental health care system, including $14.6 million for crisis mental health care. $14.6 million for "crisis" mental health care? We have to have funds on hand in case of a "crisis". Shouldn't our money go towards averting a crisis in the future?
THE INEXPLICABLE
- $180 million in transportation funds reverted back to the general budget for this biennium. Wait, didn't we have a BIG debate over the abuser fees that were supposed to pay for the supposed transportation needs? And now Kaine, who supported the fees and wanted them imposed on Virginia drivers only, wants to take money AWAY from the transportation fund?
There has been a lot of negative reaction on the blogs...some of it warranted, some of it not.
- On The Spot is not happy with this. In fact, there is a lot of sarcastic commentary about the budget.
- Right-Wing Liberal sees this as a very "Clintonian" way of expanding government without necessarily increasing spending. Decrease the amount of money spent and number of government employees, but no decrease in the actual size and scope of governmental power.
- Spank That Donkey notes that Kaine made a promise during his 2005 campaign not to touch the transportation fund for other purposes...oops. He also makes an excellent point that when you're looking at a possible recession, "the most prudent action of the government should be to trim spending, and provide a stimulus to the people."
- The GOP has their own doubts about this budget.
- Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is "very disappointed."
Personally, I think Kaine's overall budget keeps the size of the actual "meat and potatoes" of the government's spending the same...but has some back-end increases in areas that don't necessarily need the increases. That's where the disappointment lies. Why increase spending on projects like Kaine's attempt at gradually implementing universal pre-K? We're not in a financial position to consider such a project, which is not even a good idea in the first place.
Kaine is to be commended on keeping his spending increase down...but if you're going to increase spending, do it to the areas that need it (infrastructure, transportation, commerce) and stop increasing it in less-important areas (universal pre-K, non-justified increases in secondary education spending).
Monday, December 17, 2007
Bill the Revisionist
From an AP article today...
Bill Clinton says Sen. Barack Obama is a callow, highly ambitious political prodigy who is asking voters to "roll the dice" and elect him president.
He should know — that's a fair description of Clinton when he sought the presidency in 1992.
The fact that the former president is stealing a page from the same Republican playbook used against him 15 years ago underscores the threat Obama poses to the candidacy of Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
It also illustrates Clinton's penchant for rewriting history.
Actually, that is a pretty accurate description of Clinton in 1992. But, it goes on...
As a first-time presidential candidate, Clinton cast himself as an "agent of change" in troubled times, and faced criticism from Republicans about his youth and inexperience.
Obama finds himself in the same boat, with Clinton manning the torpedoes.
Well, Clinton had been Governor of Arkansas for a decade or so by the time he started his run at the White House. However, he still was a relatively unknown political figure outside of Little Rock and Democratic pundit circles in 1991, when he started building towards his candidacy.
However, this statement from Clinton makes me laugh.
"Even when I was a governor and young and thought I was the best politician in the Democratic Party, I didn't run the first time. I could have," Clinton said on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show," referring to the 1988 presidential campaign.
"And I had lots of Democratic governors encouraging me to. I knew in my bones I shouldn't run — that I was a good enough politician to win, but I didn't think I was ready to be president," Clinton said.
No, Bill...you might've won the nomination, but I know you would not have won the Presidency in 1988. Ronald Reagan was still popular, George H. W. Bush was the Veep and the "heir apparent", and America was going well with the Republicans in the White House. There is no chance in hell that Bill Clinton would have won in 1988. Hey Bill, it's the economy, stupid...and the economy was going along very well in 1988, which means your campaign theme would've been shot.
Bill Clinton says Sen. Barack Obama is a callow, highly ambitious political prodigy who is asking voters to "roll the dice" and elect him president.
He should know — that's a fair description of Clinton when he sought the presidency in 1992.
The fact that the former president is stealing a page from the same Republican playbook used against him 15 years ago underscores the threat Obama poses to the candidacy of Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
It also illustrates Clinton's penchant for rewriting history.
Actually, that is a pretty accurate description of Clinton in 1992. But, it goes on...
As a first-time presidential candidate, Clinton cast himself as an "agent of change" in troubled times, and faced criticism from Republicans about his youth and inexperience.
Obama finds himself in the same boat, with Clinton manning the torpedoes.
Well, Clinton had been Governor of Arkansas for a decade or so by the time he started his run at the White House. However, he still was a relatively unknown political figure outside of Little Rock and Democratic pundit circles in 1991, when he started building towards his candidacy.
However, this statement from Clinton makes me laugh.
"Even when I was a governor and young and thought I was the best politician in the Democratic Party, I didn't run the first time. I could have," Clinton said on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show," referring to the 1988 presidential campaign.
"And I had lots of Democratic governors encouraging me to. I knew in my bones I shouldn't run — that I was a good enough politician to win, but I didn't think I was ready to be president," Clinton said.
No, Bill...you might've won the nomination, but I know you would not have won the Presidency in 1988. Ronald Reagan was still popular, George H. W. Bush was the Veep and the "heir apparent", and America was going well with the Republicans in the White House. There is no chance in hell that Bill Clinton would have won in 1988. Hey Bill, it's the economy, stupid...and the economy was going along very well in 1988, which means your campaign theme would've been shot.
Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich May Not Make It To Virginia
According to Jack Landers at Rule .303, John Edwards managed to submit 10,081 signatures to get onto the Virginia primary ballot...while Richardson and Kucinich each slid in with 10,000 signatures even. However, since there is bound to be a variable amount of invalid/disqualified signatures, none of those 3 may actually make it onto the ballot if the signatures are challenged. If any candidate challenges the signatures, they are reviewed one-by-one.
As Jack also points out, it would be in Barack Obama's best interests to challenge the signatures, because if he knocks Edwards off of the ballot, the race boils down to a two-candidate race in Virginia, and Obama will take all of the support he can get (most Edwards supporters, in my estimation, would prefer Obama to Clinton).
Richardson and Kucinich are pretty far down on the ladder, support-wise. However, John Edwards is polling a solid 3rd in all reputable Dem polls and is still considered to be a potential "Hillary spoiler".
As Jack also points out, it would be in Barack Obama's best interests to challenge the signatures, because if he knocks Edwards off of the ballot, the race boils down to a two-candidate race in Virginia, and Obama will take all of the support he can get (most Edwards supporters, in my estimation, would prefer Obama to Clinton).
Richardson and Kucinich are pretty far down on the ladder, support-wise. However, John Edwards is polling a solid 3rd in all reputable Dem polls and is still considered to be a potential "Hillary spoiler".
A Contested Convention...?
A column in the Washington Times anticipates the possible spectacle of a contested Republican Convention. This being based upon the fact that there doesn't seem to be a real frontrunner, and each of the candidates could carry large numbers of delegates into the convention.
There has not been a contested presidential nomination at a convention since 1948's Republican National Convention, when Thomas Dewey finally triumphed over "The Boy Wonder of Politics" Harold E. Stassen and Robert Taft right before the 3rd ballot due to Taft's concession.
It would be interesting to see such an event, although it may mean more fragmentation within the GOP. However, having the national convention be more than a glorified coronation would be a lesson in politics for the current generation, and it would also provide infinite amounts of topics and events for us pundits.
It would also be interesting to see Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and even Ron Paul duke it out in a convention, especially once a candidate was eliminated...it would be very interesting to see who those delegates would support.
There has not been a contested presidential nomination at a convention since 1948's Republican National Convention, when Thomas Dewey finally triumphed over "The Boy Wonder of Politics" Harold E. Stassen and Robert Taft right before the 3rd ballot due to Taft's concession.
It would be interesting to see such an event, although it may mean more fragmentation within the GOP. However, having the national convention be more than a glorified coronation would be a lesson in politics for the current generation, and it would also provide infinite amounts of topics and events for us pundits.
It would also be interesting to see Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and even Ron Paul duke it out in a convention, especially once a candidate was eliminated...it would be very interesting to see who those delegates would support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
