HR 5140 - Corporate Welfare is NOT an Economic Stimulus

The economic meltdown has started. So what do our fearless leaders plan to do about it?

The Fed dropped interest rates. About all this means is that the banks who made fraudulent or stupid investments will get propped up for a little longer, because the people who are paying these loans will be able to pay them for a little while longer. Before going bankrupt and disappearing off the face of the Earth.

Tax breaks for business. After all corporation are people too. The vampirarchy must be protected. All the short-sighted, self-centered decisions made by corporations will be repaid with a tax decrease. Heaven knows we can't let them get desperate enough to sell off a couple of corporate jets.

Tax rebates for people who still have jobs. _yippee They think that $300$600 is a big enough bribe to get me to go along with the corporate handout? I'm not that cheap.

What could I do this $300$600?
-I could pay down a loan, which would give money to the vampires that are already overcharging me.
-I could use it to pay for the increased price of food & gas for a month or two. Big economic stimulus there.
-I could use it to buy more stuff. After all, consumers keep the economy afloat. With any luck, it will bounce around our economy for a little while before zooming off shore. The bump in spending will spur an increase in the price of oil, and I get to pay even more for food & gas.

What about the people who have been laid off by the vampirarchy? We can't extend unemployment benefits because people would be counted for a longer length of time. That would make our unemployment rate closer to the real number. No, they have the honor of subsidizing the companies that laid them off. Since Pelosi is so ready to abandon them, maybe it's time for a permanent tent city on her front lawn. Should we call it Pelosiville or Pelosiburg?

By the way, Pelosi is so busy fixing the economy, we are going to have to put off those subpoenas for Josh Bolton & Harriet Miers a little while longer. But she promises to get to it, just as soon as this emergency is over.

And what has our Senate been doing about this mess? Reid decided that they are too busy to deal with economic problems. They need to make sure that the telecom companies have immunity for those wiretaps that weren't illegal.

John Edwards has a really stupid idea. Many the economy would be stimulated if people had good jobs. And we could use these jobs to make the country more energy efficient. Wow! hope for a better future, that couldn't possibly spur the economy.

Impeach. Now.

Note: vampirarchy - A set of ruling persons, comparable to vampires.

Update: The official reason the Republicans give for not extending unemployment benefits is very amusing.

We need to give tax cuts to businesses so that they will create more jobs.
BUT, with a 5% unemployment rate, there is no need to expand unemployment benefits because we now have full employment

Voter Fraud Hypocrisy

The following is taken from the January 9, 2008, Supreme Court Hearing on voter fraud.

There is no requirement that the State show evidence of past in-person voter impersonation for the State’s interest in preventing such fraud to qualify as important. A State need not wait to suffer a harm; it can adopt prophylactic measures to prevent it from occurring in the first place. That is particularly true in a situation, like voter fraud, where the temptation is obvious and the consequences of undeterred and undetected violations are enormous.

Brief for the United States as amicus curiae, Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General

I suppose. I don't know if I can say significant. The situation has existed for now a number of years, and the salient fact here is that there's not a single recorded example of voter impersonation fraud.

Paul M. Smith, Esq.; on behalf of the Petitioners

... if there were that kind of as-applied challenge, one of the virtues of it would be that the remedy at the end of the day would not be to strike the statute down on its face, ...

Paul D. Clement, Esq., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents

Note: An as-applied challenge means you can't go to court until after after you have been affected. A facial challenge means you can go to court because you expect to be affected.

Mr. Clement is arguing that the state has the right to be pre-emptive by passing a law to prevent people from committing a crime, even though there are no cases where the crime has been committed. However, citizens do not have the right to be pre-emptive by questioning a law, even though it is obvious that they will be affected if the law stands.

In other words, it is better to prevent a few people from voting because they might vote fraudulently, than to stop a law that will definitely prevent citizens from legally voting. This whole problem could be solved by putting a little purple stamp on voter's hands. Then everyone would have one, and only one, vote.

http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_51017.pdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-21.pdf

Senator Jeff Sessions is Responding

It must be one of the wonders of the election season. Jeff Sessions has been responding to my letters. They are even on topic, although full of Bush talking points. Could he actually be worried about his upcoming election?

Now if I could just get him to answer a few of my questions.

- How is it pro-life to vote against SCHIP?

- How can he accept government-run health care, but deny it to the rest of us?

- Why is amnesty great for big telecom companies, but bad for illegal immigrants?

- How can he say he supports the troops if he votes down funding just because it asks the president to try to bring the troops home? How can he vote against giving soldiers time off between deployments?