Congress Gets A Well-Deserved Raise

on Tuesday, December 23, 2008

The economy is in shambles, millions of Americans have lost jobs (with potentially millions more to be lost in the coming months), and every industry from banking to cars to prostitution is getting a nice slice of the delicious bailout pie from Washington at the expense of mere trillions to the United States taxpayer.

...And what better way to reward one of the worst Congresses in American history than by giving each and every blowhard in Washington a nice, fat raise. You know, cuz they deserve it so much.

Each lawmaker's annual salary is due for a $4,700 cost-of-living increase starting in January, which will amount to a cost to taxpayers of $2.5 million in 2009...

Members of Congress make an average of $169,300 a year, with Congressional leaders making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cailf., makes $217,400, while the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate each make $188,100.

The raise will increase the average salary to about $174,000, up 2.8 percent.
While $2.5 million is mere chump change in Monopoly U.S. government dollars, it's the principle that bothers me here. At my place of work we are given raises which reflect the merit of our working contributions to the company over the past year. On the other hand, your 110th Congress after having approval ratings in the single digits and accomplishing nothing of real value or recognition over the last 12 months - and after having taken a whopping 50 days of vacation by September's end (just in time for them to take yet another 6 weeks of pure vacation in the Fall) - Nancy Pelosi and crew have decided that they deserve yet another raise for all their hard work.

Now, while cost-of-living allowances are rather standard in almost every line of work, what baffles me here is the shameless double-standard seeping from the depths of Capitol Hill. While lawmakers virtually force automaker executives to take $1 per year salaries until they pay off their debts, Congress (whose debt exceeds that of the automakers by 1,000 fold, mind you) quietly takes a raise. While Pelosi screams at executives for flying around in corporate jets, the Madame Speaker is herself paddling around in a private jet of her own - paid for by you, of course.

My question is this: Why do the rules seem to apply to everyone else except for our beloved politicians? Why is it that lawmakers can tell one failing industry to make cuts, while they themselves take raises in spite of their own failure? Why is it that Pelosi and crew can tell corporate executives how to fiscally manage their businesses when Congress themselves have failed at every feduciary task appointed to them over the last 50 years? Why is it that Obama can tell us that "we can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times" while he himself vacations and golfs in a $9 million extravagant mansion on a secluded beach in Hawaii?

Just another day in Washington's "Do as I say, not as I do" world.

Define "Absolutely Certain"

on Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Barack Obama, December 11, regarding the Blagojevich scandal:

What I'm absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat. That I'm absolutely certain of.
Chicago Sun-Times, December 16, regarding Obama's very own Chief of Staff:

President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds -- dealing with his boss' vacant Senate seat

Obama's an idiot. Not because I think he's guilty (which I don't), but because in politics, it's ALWAYS best just to get the truth out as quickly and painlessly as possible. Instead of saying that he was "absolutely certain" that nobody in his staff was dirty (which is stupid in itself seeing as he hadn't even conducted an internal investigation yet, thereby leaving me to wonder how he could come to such a conclusion with no evidence), Obama should've just told the truth and got it over with. But instead, Obama decided to jump on the ol' Chicago reflex and deny any wrongdoing before even gathering any facts.

"I haven't interviewed any of my staff and have conducted no internal investigation whatsoever... but I'm 'absolutely certain' that nobody was involved."

How do those words taste, Barry?

Best Corruption Scandal Evah!

on Tuesday, December 9, 2008

I wrote a lenghtier post about this earlier today, but decided not to post it. So here's the short version:

  • Illinois Governor gets arrested on charges of corruption and graft for offering Obama's vacant senate seat to the highest bidder.


  • ...In Crook County.


  • ...On International Anti-Corruption Day.



  • Hollywood writers couldn't have scripted it better.

    Bias? What Bias?

    on Monday, December 8, 2008

    A good catch by Warner Todd Huston who points out yet another shamefully pathetic double standard creeping up from the foul depths of the Obama-worshipping media:

    [In early 2001] as Bush tried to warn the nation, the media jumped all over him for "talking down the economy." Yet, as we watch the reporting of Obama's current down talking of the economy, the media has said nothing similar to the condemnation reigned upon Bush...

    On CNN, Lou Waters needled Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer on January 12, 2001 about the "politicalization " of the economy. "President Clinton, sort of, answered that as well today. He's talking up the economy. There are economists who say you guys are talking down the economy. What's happening here in this transition period, the whole, sort of, politicalization [of the economy]...," Waters said.

    On March 19, 2001, The New York Times scolded Bush that presidents were supposed to be "cheerleaders for the nation's economy."

    [On March 26, 2001, Alter unleashed his Newsweek piece headlined "Thanks Ever So Much, President Poor-Mouth."]

    Yet, has anyone seen any similar scolding of the new "cheerleader" in chief, Obama? Has anyone seen an Alter sternly scolding Obama for "poor-mouthing" the economy? Has there been any hectoring from CNN over Obama's grave warnings? Where is The New York Times beating up that downcast Obama?

    In fact, every single report I have seen about Obama's talk on the economy has been matter of fact. Even sometimes giving him cover for changing his campaign rhetoric about the economy by asserting his acknowledgment that he has changed his tune.

    The New York Times went so far as to assess Obama's mood as optimistic, despite his claims of an further economic downslide. "Despite the bleak economic picture awaiting him, Mr. Obama sought to project an air of determined optimism," the Times published on December 7.

    For its coverage, the Washington Post, assures us all that Obama is putting things in "perspective" for us as he prepares to take office.
    I was thinking this very same thing on Suunday after catching Tom Brokaw's interview with Obama on Meet the Press this past weekend in which Obama claimed that the economy "is going to get worse".

    I'm confused. You see, from what I recall, during the election our media outlets assured us that Obama was the redeemer of all things dreadful. The cure for all of America's woes. Yea, the veritable messiah himself come down in mortal form to heal the earth and all the underlying troubles within...

    Yet now we have Obama telling us it's going to get worse? And all while forming a committee to lower American's expectations of what the rookie will actually accomplish as president?

    Why is the media setting up a cushion for Obama before he even takes office? Are they are already expecting him to fail? If so, (which I assume is the case), then why in the world are so many anchors calling for an amendment to the Constitution allowing Obama to take office early so he can get us into a deeper mess sooner?

    Barack Obama: Fear Monger

    on Monday, December 1, 2008

    How many times have we heard liberals that seem to be suffering from an incurable case of Bush Derangement Syndrome accuse the current Commander-in-chief of "playing on our fears" to push his own agenda?

    And yet we have this. Straight from Obama's own administration, regarding the country's current condition:

    You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
    Would any of you malpracticing wizards of intellect in the Obama-worshipping media like to explain to me how this doesn't qualify as fear mongering? Ask any financial guru to sum up in one word why the Dow is tanking and you'll likely hear the following response: Fear.

    ...and yet here we have Obama's own right-hand man stating on record that the Obama administration wants to utilize this fear to push forward an agenda that's so radical that even Obama's cronies themselves admit that it would not likely pass but for this financial crisis.

    You asked for "change" America. And you're about to get it.