DCRepublican.com

It was reported today that the budget deficit of the United States will hover around $482,000,000,000 for the year 2009. What does the White House blame for this deficit? Of course, the most typical response is the sagging economy, but then they have another blunder to add to the pile of blame: the absurd stimulus package that was suppose to “stimulate” economic growth in the United States.

Of course, every branch of the government seems to have some way to legitimize this handout by claiming that the numbers will come in, and we’ll continue to see the economy grow stronger.

What’s funny is that all of this is being said on the heels of what is becoming a semi-annual trend: a bailout of some sector or company by the government, funded or backed by the tax-dollars of hardworking Americans who would overwhelmingly oppose the proposal at hand.

Washington’s lesson in economics: If you work hard, pay your taxes and make smart decisions, the government might leave you alone. If your neighbor doesn’t work hard and makes bad financial decisions, the government will bail them out with your hard earned money, but of course come back to you with a tax increase to fund their irresponsibility that is driving this country further into debt.

If you’re a young American watching how Congress has worked in the past year, why would you even want to be financially responsible?

Today the Senate voted to take the next steps in passing a bill that would essentially try and remove speculation from the oil markets. However, does the Senate have any idea what they are even talking about?

In watching some of this unfold today, it’s quite clear that this bill is going to serve as the base for a variety of additions and negotiations, which means it’s probably something that the Republicans might actually compromise on, if they get their carrots.

The biggest impetus for this bill was the skyrocketing costs of oil over the past few months. According to CNN.com, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is convinced that speculation is responsible for 71% of the increase in the price of oil.

Who actually believes that 71% of our increasing oil prices are based on the actions of investor? Anyone?

I think John Birger explains this well in an article at money.cnn.com,  Don’t blame the oil ’speculators’, where he examines the ludicrous accusations that speculators are playing a “huge” role in the increase of the price of oil.

One segment from the article:

Bad public policy

If our representatives did understand the oil markets, they’d know that the true telltale sign of a speculative bubble is not rising trading volumes but rising oil inventories. Speculators would be hoarding oil - building up inventories either in anticipation of higher prices or as part of a scheme to drive prices there. Yet according to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil inventories are now at below-average levels. U.S. oil stocks stand at 309 million barrels, versus 330 million in June 2005.

So far, lawmakers have introduced nine different bills targeting oil speculators, though for the most part their prescriptions have been milder than their over-the-top rhetoric .

Bashing futures traders may well be good politics, but it’s stupid public policy. By providing a mechanism for locking in prices, the futures market makes it easier for oil companies to make costly investments in new production - which is the key to lowering prices at the pump.

Futures trading also discourages hoarding in an otherwise tight market. Without speculators willing to take the other side of so many futures contracts, oil refiners and other end-users might be inclined to ramp up their spot-market purchases and store more oil as a hedge against further price increases.

And, of course, any increased draw on current supplies would lead to even higher oil and gasoline prices. Indeed, without a futures market, I believe we’d be decrying oil at $200 a barrel oil instead of oil at $135.

I encourage everyone to read Birgers complete article, because I think it sums up the real issues so well.

Honestly, I’m quite shocked to see Senator Dorgan be so aggressive in pushing this legislation. After all, he is one of the few members of the Senate who I would have guessed would be most qualified to oppose the very claims he is making. Senator Dorgan has an MBA from U of Denver, was the tax commissioner for North Dakota, is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce, Trade and Tourism. You would hope that any one of these positions would have given him more understanding on this issue.

But, I guess sometimes politics surpasses knowledge.

For more details on this bill, please checkout TheOilDrum.com, where they have been covering this extensively, and are providing excellent analysis of the more complex issues regarding speculation.

CNN.com is reporting that John McCain is expected to meet on Wednesday with Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal, in what many believe could be one of the final vetting events before McCain finalizes his choice for running mate.

While I think that Bobby Jindal is a great American, with a great story, I truly believe that if John McCain picked him to be his running mate, Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

Unlike my posts about why Mitt Romney should be selected as McCain’s running mate, my reasons for coming to this conclusion are much simpler, experience.

The reality is that Bobby Jindal has very little experience in governing. One of the biggest arguments that people have used against Barack Obama is that he doesn’t have the experience needed to be President; however, Barack Obama has much more political experience than Bobby Jindal. Let’s remember, Bobby Jindal has only been Governor of Louisiana for seven months, and when he was in Congress, it was only for one term.

In a campaign where age is going to be an issue, the last thing John McCain needs is people second guessing his pick, simply because they are young and lack experience.

As I’ve said earlier, Mitt Romney (or someone of similar caliber) is exactly what John McCain needs to remain viable in this election.

I’ve seen a lot of crazy things, and have met many interesting people since I moved to Washington, D.C. However, not even my wildest of dreams would I be able to come up with some of the crazy things people do here to look their best.

CNN.com reports:

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (AP) — Ready for the latest in spa pampering? Prepare to dunk your tootsies in a tank of water and let tiny carp nibble away.

Fish pedicures are creating something of a splash in the D.C. area, where a northern Virginia spa has been offering them for the past four months. John Ho, who runs the Yvonne Hair and Nails salon with his wife, Yvonne Le, said 5,000 people have taken the plunge so far.

Very odd.

Very rarely are there times where you’ll find me holding a position that is opposite to one that is held by the Israeli government, at least to the point where a blog post is in order. I firmly believe that Israel has been, and remains to be a great example of the power of democracy and one of the United States’ best friends. However, today Israel made a move that I have an extremely hard time comprehending.

In a deal that would bring back the bodies of two Israeli soldiers (1st Sgt. Ehud Goldwasser and Sgt. 1st Class Eldad Regev.), the Knesset agreed to release five militants they have been holding in their prisons. However, what was even more unique about this swap, was that one of the prisoners included Samir Kuntar, by far one of the most horrific murders I’ve ever heard of.

While I’m not a fan of gorey details, I do not believe it’s possible to understand my frustration without knowing more background on what landed Kuntar in prison. This is something that has received very little news attention here, but I think it’s an extremely important story.

From CNN.com:

A member of the Palestine Liberation Front, Kuntar led a group of four men who entered Israel from Lebanon by boat in 1979. They killed a police officer who came across them. Then they took a 28-year-old man and his 4-year-old daughter hostage.

Kuntar shot the father dead at close range in front of his daughter and tossed his body in the sea. He then smashed the girl’s head, killing her. In addition, a 2-year-old girl from the same family suffocated as her mother tried to stop her from crying while they hid during the violence.

Kuntar was sentenced to 542 years in prison.

In the United States, not only would this have landed you in an electric chair, but it also would have led to the first pay-per-view execution.

As an American, these actions made absolutely no sense to me. However, since I’m not an Israeli, I went and sought the opinion of someone who is there, knows the culture, and the rationale. The following is a reitiration of an online conversation with Tal Siach, Israeli blogger at Walyou.com.

If you want to know my thoughts, we the Israelis are very moral. To bring back dead bodies is important to us; they (the terorists) don’t care about it too much. They didn’t say if they’re alive or not until the last second and they made their family believe they are alive.

It’s not human whatsoever to me, Kontar killed someone and we let him go for bodies. As you can see its not an eye for an eye, I hate that, but you can do an eye for an eye with animals. I respect the families and happy their soldier will be buried in Israel, but on the same note sad for the mother who lost her son and her murderer is free now.

I don’t like the fact that the terrorists can think now that’s OK to not keep prisoners alive since dead bodies are value to us, and they know it, unlike them.

That is personally what i think.

I believe in peace and want it to happen, but there are ways every human been should act. How come we are bringing the prisoners alive, and not in coffins? Why do we keep them, feed them, and they kill ours.

me:  i read he got a college degree while in prison I’m guessing that was at your expense

For sure, we are very moral. The citizens pay for his stay, while the Hezbollah kills everything they see. Yeah , really they’re not humans, what the press is showing is not the truth; they bomb Israel.

There  are good people who do want peace in the Arab countries, I believe that. I have good friends here online, from Iran, too. But where democracy fails, it’s hard to get peace.”

While it’s extremely easy for me to illustrate my point of view, my frustration is nothing compared to what must be going through the minds of many Israeli’s today.

Even though I have a very limited number of readers in Isreal, to those who do read my blog, I encourage you to share your thoughts on this as well.

Again, a special thanks to Tal Siach for helping me get a better understanding of this. Please visit Tal’s blog here.

There has been a lot of speculation lately about who John McCain should, or is going to pick to run alongside him in his battle for the White House. CNN’s Political Ticker has also been reporting that it appears that McCain might be heading in the direction of Mitt Romney.

It’s no secret to anyone who has read this blog that long before I was a McCain supporter, my top choice, by far, was Mitt Romney. Naturally, there is some bias with me when it comes to this, however to help paint a better picture, here are 5 reasons that I think would give John McCain incentive to selecting Mitt Romney as his running mate.

1. Mitt Romney brings a strong understanding of economics and economic policy to the table. This isn’t something that was picked up in a committee hearing, instead something learned by operating, managing, and consulting some of American’s top companies.
2. Mitt Romney will bring some much needed youth to the campaign. Yes, Mitt Romney isn’t the first guy you think of when it comes to being youthful, but at least he has an understanding of technology and new media.
3. Mitt Romney understands the importance of having a strong relationship with foreign countries, but beyond that also understands the value in having strong business relationships. Mitt Romney has dealt with foreign economies before and he will have no problem transitioning those skills and observations on a larger level.
4. Mitt Romney is an articulate speaker, who can quickly make key points without having to rely on note cards and overused talking points. It’s one of my biggest pet-peeves with McCain, is that most of his speeches seem overly rehearsed, or reliant on note cards and talking points. I know that’s how politics is, but some just pull it off better than others.
5. Mitt Romney will be able to bring in a considerable amount of money into the campaign. Even without his personal wealth, Mitt Romney is an extremely well connected guy, both in business and religious circles. These two areas are obviously areas that McCain could be stronger in when it comes to fundraising.

I’m sure others might have their own reasons, or even opposition to this. Regardless of your point of view, I welcome and urge all comments!

While it’s no surprise that each year more Americans turn to the internet to find news about what is happening in Congress, what is surprising is how resistant certain factions in Congress are when it comes to letting Members of Congress communicate with their constituency more freely.

Currently, there is a debate brewing in the House about how the Franking Commission should relax the rules when it comes to communications using outside platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Following a firestorm of debates in the blogosphere last week (including an online petition from the Sunlight Foundation), yesterday’s New York Times had an article highlighted the debate, and its bipartisan response thus far.

The Times’ article made it quite evident that there was support on both sides. But what is truly troubling is the position of Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano, Member of the House Franking Commission:

Mr. Capuano wants web sites where lawmakers post videos to be scrubbed of advertising and political messages that could be seen as endorsements.

What’s so troubling about this proposed change, is that it essentially tells a company that if they want to open their services up to members of Congress so they can reach the masses, they’ll have to remove the possibility of generating any profits whatsoever.

If we were to implement Congressman Capuano’s vision on a larger scale, I don’t see how there could be any way that a Member of Congress could reach out to any media source. For example, if a member wanted to write an op-ed, would it have to be in a publication that has no advertising? If it’s re-posted on the publications website, would they have to remove all advertising from that page?

The reality is that no Member of Congress would ever suggest a move this radical when it comes to using traditional media. So why be so restrictive when it comes to integrating new media?

While Congressman Capuano claims that he supports the idea of making Congress more modern, I don’t see how you can do that by limiting uploads to sites that are advertisement free.

If this rule change ever went through, I can guarantee that there would be even more confusion about what members can and cannot use to communicate with their constituency.

Sure, they might remove the ads from a YouTube page, but what about the embed feature? Is it acceptable for a member to upload something to YouTube, and then for others to spread it across the web? What about other features YouTube has like social bookmarking sites (Digg, Reddit, Propeller, etc)? What about Facebook? They all have advertisements, therefore each raise questions that would have to be answered.

Then of course there are the arguments about which services, other than YouTube, a member can upload videos to? There is no way that YouTube competitors will sit idly by while they are being barred from sharing messages created by elected officials, simply because they allow advertising to sustain their business. In reality, they are following the exact same business model as newspapers, magazines and television stations.

I’m sure there are a wide variety of other problems that could develop from maintaining such a restrictive policy on new media, and I urge you to share them below.

This is not what I meant when I suggest that more Austrians need to in public office.

read more | digg story

I knew Jesse Jackson pissed off a lot of people, but I didn’t see this one coming at all. It used to appear that Jesse Jackson was revered by many in the rap game, but it appears that in the eyes of some rappers, his time is up.

From MTV News:

“On Thursday (July 10), the rapper responded to Jackson’s videotaped whisper on Fox News, when the reverend said, “See, Barack’s been, um, talking down to black people on this faith-based … I want to cut his n—s off.” Nas says the civil-rights leader is finished.

“I think Jesse Jackson, he’s the biggest player hater,” Nas fumed during a conference call. “His time is up. All you old n—as, time is up. We heard your voice, we saw your marching, we heard your sermons. We don’t wanna hear that sh– no more. It’s a new day. It’s a new voice. I’m here now. We don’t need Jesse; I’m here. I got this. We got Barack, we got David Banners and Young Jeezys. We’re the voice now. It’s no more Jesse. Sorry. Goodbye. You ain’t helping nobody in the ‘hood. That’s the bottom line. Goodbye, Jesse. Bye!”"

read more | digg story

Washington, DC - The scandal surrounding the Dodd-Countrywide mortgage bailout bill continues to grow, as news surfaced that Barack Obama received a suspicious deal on a home mortgage in 2005 from Northern Trust in Illinois. The massive $1.32 million loan, nicknamed a “super super jumbo” loan by mortgage lenders, allows Senator Obama to pay preferential, below market rates on his six-bedroom, four-car garage, home that includes a wine cellar and a solarium. This is the same controversial home Senator Obama bought with the help of a sweetheart land deal with convicted felon and political insider Tony Rezko.

read more | digg story