For those who assume the folks at Breitbart.com spend all-day picking on President Obama and the Democratic Party in general, here is a slight change of pace for ya.
Revealed: Darin LaHood's Crony Capitalism Deals Funnels Millions of Taxpayer Dollars to Campaign Donors
Showing posts with label government spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government spending. Show all posts
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Liberals vs Conservatives: Response to the State of the Union
In a change of pace, instead of me commenting on the President's State of the Union speech tonight, I instead want to give you folks an idea of how the two ends of the American political spectrum look at the same speech..(and then give my thoughts on the speech).
First, in the "liberal" corner, we have Ezra Klein of Vox.com:
The most important sentence in Obama's 2015 State of the Union- Vox
And in the "conservative" corner, we have Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard:
Obama's Defiant Speech- The Weekly Standard
Interestingly enough, both writers do seem to agree on one thing: The President's speech tonight was NOT one of concession or much compromise. The speech gave the impression of a President who is looking to advance a "new" agenda and be damned what happened last November...
For me, I do have to respect the President's defiance of last November's loss for his party and still propose a wide new agenda that he has to know will likely never be passed before he leaves office. He could talked more compromise given his party's weakened position, but not this President.
That being said, one does have to wonder why real purpose the President thinks this speech will serve, if any, in the long run.
A defiant speech in the face of recent political defeat is great for rallying the troops but could eventually end up wreak of pointless "political theater" to the average voter, who will then be wondering if you he/she will ever get those 90 minutes of their lives back...
On a final note, you may be surprised to hear that I don't really have much to say about my home state's new senator, Joni Ernst, having her shot at the GOP response to the SOTU. I generally don't have anything "nasty" to say about Senator Ernst, except maybe this: The fact she seems to rarely start a speech without mentioning that she is a "mother" and a "soldier" honestly bothers me. I can't really put my finger on it, but something about how she says it and the frequency in which she thinks we need to be reminded of it strikes me as run-of-the-mill campaign catch-phrase for selling political ads. I actually like her stories about growing up in rural Iowa (I can somewhat relate), but that other bit just doesn't come off as being as genuine...
Rant over, have a great week ya'll!
First, in the "liberal" corner, we have Ezra Klein of Vox.com:
The most important sentence in Obama's 2015 State of the Union- Vox
And in the "conservative" corner, we have Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard:
Obama's Defiant Speech- The Weekly Standard
Interestingly enough, both writers do seem to agree on one thing: The President's speech tonight was NOT one of concession or much compromise. The speech gave the impression of a President who is looking to advance a "new" agenda and be damned what happened last November...
For me, I do have to respect the President's defiance of last November's loss for his party and still propose a wide new agenda that he has to know will likely never be passed before he leaves office. He could talked more compromise given his party's weakened position, but not this President.
That being said, one does have to wonder why real purpose the President thinks this speech will serve, if any, in the long run.
A defiant speech in the face of recent political defeat is great for rallying the troops but could eventually end up wreak of pointless "political theater" to the average voter, who will then be wondering if you he/she will ever get those 90 minutes of their lives back...
On a final note, you may be surprised to hear that I don't really have much to say about my home state's new senator, Joni Ernst, having her shot at the GOP response to the SOTU. I generally don't have anything "nasty" to say about Senator Ernst, except maybe this: The fact she seems to rarely start a speech without mentioning that she is a "mother" and a "soldier" honestly bothers me. I can't really put my finger on it, but something about how she says it and the frequency in which she thinks we need to be reminded of it strikes me as run-of-the-mill campaign catch-phrase for selling political ads. I actually like her stories about growing up in rural Iowa (I can somewhat relate), but that other bit just doesn't come off as being as genuine...
Rant over, have a great week ya'll!
DISCLAIMER:
All comments and/or opinions expressed in the above work are purely those of the author unless otherwise noted and do not represent that opinions/positions of any political or non-political organization or the Department of the Defense. Any/all distribution of this work MUST contain this disclaimer.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Who Voted How on 'Cromnibus' Bill? Have a Look for Yourself!
Given how much the "Cromnibus" spending bill was talked about over the last few days and the last-minute Senate vote last night approving the bill, an observer may be wondering.."how did my Senator vote?"
Well, wonder no more!
Thanks to the good folks at govtrack.us, you can see the state-by-state breakdown for how each of the 96 senators on the floor last night actually voted.
Sites like GovTrack are an invaluable source for those who want to not only remain informed about how folks in Congress are actually voting, but also providing a handy fact-checking tool for the next election cycle who the usual game of finger-point on who voted for what begins..
For my part, I found it quite interesting that both current U.S. Senators from my home state of Iowa (Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Todd Harkin) voted "nay" on the bill, though I suspect for VERY different reasons..
Remember folks, an informed electorate is a dangerous electorate, if you're a member of Congress that is..
Well, wonder no more!
Thanks to the good folks at govtrack.us, you can see the state-by-state breakdown for how each of the 96 senators on the floor last night actually voted.
Sites like GovTrack are an invaluable source for those who want to not only remain informed about how folks in Congress are actually voting, but also providing a handy fact-checking tool for the next election cycle who the usual game of finger-point on who voted for what begins..
For my part, I found it quite interesting that both current U.S. Senators from my home state of Iowa (Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Todd Harkin) voted "nay" on the bill, though I suspect for VERY different reasons..
Remember folks, an informed electorate is a dangerous electorate, if you're a member of Congress that is..
Senator Elizabeth Warren's Stand Against 'Cromnibus' Bill, First Real Spark for 2016?
The debate leading up to the U.S. Senate's vote last night on the so-called "Cromnibus" bill to fund the federal government through next year was arguably the biggest political story this weekend (and a minor distraction from the Senate Torture Report).
One of the reasons for the attention placed on this vote was not just the prospect of another government shutdown, but the fact that opposition against the bill came from the political "edges" of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
On the Republican side, Senators Cruz and Lee acted as their usual "rogue" selves and challenged that bill largely on the grounds that it wouldn't stop President Obama from carrying out his executive action on illegal immigration (though the bill does stop funding for the Department of Homeland Security 7 months earlier than the rest of the federal government). No big surprise there..
But the fact there was vocal Democratic resistance to the bill is what was truly surprising.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a much talked about prospective Democratic contender for the 2016 Presidential nomination, emerged as the leader of the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party in the Senate and challenged the bill for COMPLETELY different reasons than Senators Cruz and Lee. They decried the bill because of what they see as a 'roll-back' of financial regulatory reform put into place after the 2008 crash.
True to their words, the leaders of opposition from both parties against this bill voted accordingly but nevertheless, the bill passed a close 56-40 vote last night.
Now that the bill has passed, many in the political media have moved to Senator Warren and how her stand against this bill could be her first real spark into her (potentially) eventual presidential campaign.
Until now, Warren's name has been thrown around as possible "anybody but Hillary" candidate so as to, at the very least, not present the image of Hillary Clinton being the inevitable candidate in 2016, without any kind of action by Warren to show she was truly interested in being a contender..until now.
So perhaps we WILL get to see some fireworks on the Democratic side this next presidential election cycle after all..
One of the reasons for the attention placed on this vote was not just the prospect of another government shutdown, but the fact that opposition against the bill came from the political "edges" of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
On the Republican side, Senators Cruz and Lee acted as their usual "rogue" selves and challenged that bill largely on the grounds that it wouldn't stop President Obama from carrying out his executive action on illegal immigration (though the bill does stop funding for the Department of Homeland Security 7 months earlier than the rest of the federal government). No big surprise there..
But the fact there was vocal Democratic resistance to the bill is what was truly surprising.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a much talked about prospective Democratic contender for the 2016 Presidential nomination, emerged as the leader of the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party in the Senate and challenged the bill for COMPLETELY different reasons than Senators Cruz and Lee. They decried the bill because of what they see as a 'roll-back' of financial regulatory reform put into place after the 2008 crash.
True to their words, the leaders of opposition from both parties against this bill voted accordingly but nevertheless, the bill passed a close 56-40 vote last night.
Now that the bill has passed, many in the political media have moved to Senator Warren and how her stand against this bill could be her first real spark into her (potentially) eventual presidential campaign.
Until now, Warren's name has been thrown around as possible "anybody but Hillary" candidate so as to, at the very least, not present the image of Hillary Clinton being the inevitable candidate in 2016, without any kind of action by Warren to show she was truly interested in being a contender..until now.
So perhaps we WILL get to see some fireworks on the Democratic side this next presidential election cycle after all..
DISCLAIMER:
All comments and/or opinions expressed in the above work are purely those of the author unless otherwise noted and do not represent that opinions/positions of any political or non-political organization or the Department of the Defense. Any/all distribution of this work MUST contain this disclaimer.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
House continues ban on earmarks | RedState
In a fairly refreshing set of news, the GOP caucus in the House of Representatives has voted to KEEP the "earmarks" barn in House spending bills.
It didn't quite go down without a hitch, but still, good to see the GOP trying to maintain at least SOME level of good governance in Congress..
Now let's see if the Senate follows suit..
Kudos to Redstate's Streiff for this short and sweet piece..
House continues ban on earmarks | RedState
It didn't quite go down without a hitch, but still, good to see the GOP trying to maintain at least SOME level of good governance in Congress..
Now let's see if the Senate follows suit..
Kudos to Redstate's Streiff for this short and sweet piece..
House continues ban on earmarks | RedState
Monday, November 10, 2014
NASA Signs 60-Year, $1.16 Billion Lease with Google
In a rather refreshing change of pace, we have a story tonight about a federal government agency making a useful (not to mention profitable) use of government assets and resources..
Now before you all bust a gut laughing about this notion, lets get to the facts.
Google has apparently signed a long-term lease agreement with NASA to access the Moffett Field Naval Station near San Francisco, California.
The Moffett Field Naval Station is a place of interesting history and is well known for its three large hangars, which were originally built for U.S. Navy airships. These large hangars have even made an appearance on the popular television series MythBusters.
So what is so interesting about this lease agreement between NASA and Google?
Google isn't just getting a wider use of this facility, they are actually to fix it up a bit!
They are currently planning on investing some $200 million to refurbish the hangars and add educational facilities.
In other words, NASA is leasing one of its older and less modern facilities to a private company for a handsome price and getting the facilities improved WITHOUT having to use their own funds. This is a perfect example of a federal government agency using some of its assets in a smart and economic fashion, a rarity it seems these days.
So now you maybe asking yourself something along the lines of, "well that's a rather deal, but what does Google get out of it?"
A good question no doubt, but not one that is easy to answer. The closest I am aware of Google being involved in the aerospace field is the Google Lunar X Prize. This is a competition of sorts to inspire private companies and technology entrepreneurs to develop cheaper and more efficient technologies for travel to the Moon and possibly even exploring the surface.
So does Google want to build Moffett into the perfect launch site for some of these ventures or perhaps even develop such technology itself?
That, it seems is the $1.16 billion question.
Wall Street Journal- Google Signs 60-Year, $1.16 Billion NASA Lease
Now before you all bust a gut laughing about this notion, lets get to the facts.
Google has apparently signed a long-term lease agreement with NASA to access the Moffett Field Naval Station near San Francisco, California.
The Moffett Field Naval Station is a place of interesting history and is well known for its three large hangars, which were originally built for U.S. Navy airships. These large hangars have even made an appearance on the popular television series MythBusters.
So what is so interesting about this lease agreement between NASA and Google?
Google isn't just getting a wider use of this facility, they are actually to fix it up a bit!
They are currently planning on investing some $200 million to refurbish the hangars and add educational facilities.
In other words, NASA is leasing one of its older and less modern facilities to a private company for a handsome price and getting the facilities improved WITHOUT having to use their own funds. This is a perfect example of a federal government agency using some of its assets in a smart and economic fashion, a rarity it seems these days.
So now you maybe asking yourself something along the lines of, "well that's a rather deal, but what does Google get out of it?"
A good question no doubt, but not one that is easy to answer. The closest I am aware of Google being involved in the aerospace field is the Google Lunar X Prize. This is a competition of sorts to inspire private companies and technology entrepreneurs to develop cheaper and more efficient technologies for travel to the Moon and possibly even exploring the surface.
So does Google want to build Moffett into the perfect launch site for some of these ventures or perhaps even develop such technology itself?
That, it seems is the $1.16 billion question.
Wall Street Journal- Google Signs 60-Year, $1.16 Billion NASA Lease
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)