Thursday Olio

Coupla things that struck me today.

First up - Tom DeLay and his comments about "Winning the War on Fat in the Federal Budget."

Some of us are not amused.

While I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh's show (I do generally like his monologues, but once the callers start in, I'm outta there, I can only take so much group-think before my mind wanders), I'll say that Limbaugh's explanation is *also* plausible. In fact... I *hope* he's correct, otherwise I have to conclude that Mr. DeLay was hung-over or otherwise incapacitated. Y'all can decide as you wish.

The whole thing revolves around paying for Katrina. There's this little bit from the Wall Street Journal:

Some public-spirited folks in Bozeman, Montana, have come up with a wonderful idea to help Uncle Sam offset some of the $62 billion federal cost of Hurricane Katrina relief. The Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports that Montanans from both sides of the political aisle have petitioned the city council to give the feds back a $4 million earmark to pay for a parking garage in the just-passed $286 billion highway bill. As one of these citizens, Jane Shaw, told us: "We figure New Orleans needs the money right now a lot more than we need extra downtown parking space."

Which got us thinking: Why not cancel all of the special-project pork in the highway bill and dedicate the $25 billion in savings to emergency relief on the Gulf Coast? Is it asking too much for Richmond, Indiana, to give up $3 million for its hiking trail, or Newark, New Jersey, to put a hold on its $2 million bike path?

The whole article is here, if you are a subscriber.

Now *there* is an idea that even lefties should be able to get behind. Take some of the 'nice to haves' out of the current budget and apply them to the 'need to haves' from the month's/year's disasters so far... Lefties are willing to tell me that I should skimp nice to haves at home and fork over the dough to government for need to haves like bike paths... why can't we divert that money for what is obviously *not* a crying and compelling need, to one that is? It's not like we can't reallocate the funds next year.

Further - and I've sent this to my delegation... lets put a checkbox on the federal tax form that allows me to allocate funds to disaster relief... a self-selected surcharge. I can either do it as an "add" to my tax bill or as a debit from my refund. States do it all the time. Why not the Feds?

I'd tick it off if I knew where it was going... and yes, I understand money is fungible, spare me that discussion.

Here is another interesting observation. Where I work, there are some pretty left-leaning people, who work for my firm, the government, and other firms. I've been out shaking the charity tree and just talking to people about who and what they have for giving habits. Not inquisitorial, just in context. Given where I work and who with, the lefties are a decided minority, and pretty muted, though there are at least three who are pretty aggressive, one even pugnacious, in their politics. But all in a collegial way, lest anyone think we have rollicking and brawling politics in the office. We don't, and there is plenty of group-think around here, too. [Get to the point, Donovan, sheesh!] The point is... every right-winger I've spoken to has given money, some substantial amounts, to Katrina relief, and been keeping up with their other giving. With two exceptions, the left-leaners have not, or have given token sums. What's more interesting is the underlier - we all make, broadly speaking, about the same amount of money. I suspect both groups give similar amounts of money, too. Since I'm not really digging into it, and it *is* self-reported, this is not good data... but the lefties give it to groups with direct political agendas, whether parties or organizations like NARAL, NOW, ACLU, etc. Righties tend to give it more to United Way, CFC, Red Cross, and faith-based organizations that are more service-oriented than policy oriented.

Just an observation.

Moving on... Today is a big day in history for CAPT Heinrichs, Mostly Cajun, Neffi... their branch debuted!

1916 First use of tanks in war, by the British in the Battle of the Somme.

1938 Br PM Neville Chamberlain visits Hitler at Berchtesgaden. Thus ltidying up the groundwork for WWII in the aftermath of WWI. So obvious in hindsight, but a lot of people thought it was a good idea at the time. Does any of this sound vaguely familiar... echoes of the 90's? Does anyone doubt that if French Prime Minister Daladier had ordered the French Army into the Rhineland, to enforce the provisions of Treaty of Versailles (Arts. 42, 43) he would have been reviled as much as President Bush has been... by generally the same group of people?

1944 Marines land on Peleliu, 450 miles east of Mindanao in the Philippines. Sadly, the place is more famous now as the setting for Survivor, Palau. (I *detest* the Survivor shows... which makes me a distinct minority amongst my compadres).

You want to read about surviving in Palau, I recommend this: Marine At War. by Russell Davis (I read it in 5th Grade - the first of many, many, many war-related books to follow.)


1950 Inchon Landing: UN troops attack behind North Korean lines. MacArthur's last great stroke of genius.


1 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/4603

Happy birthday, tankers! from Mostly Cajun, All American and Opinionated on September 20, 2005 3:58 PM

Thanks to Castle Argghhh!, I am reminded that today is the birth of the tank in combat. On this day in 1916, the Brits rolled out across no-man’s land with tracked, armored combat vehicles, thus changing the dynamics of modern warfare… I... Read More

27 Comments

A bike path in Newark? It'll take more than two million bucks to dig through all that asphalt and find actual soil...
 
... except that, as of that date, my regiment still rode into battle, sword in hand. Cavalry, y'know. Cheers JMH
 
Here is how you make Survior type shows interesting....take a group of 10 people and a pot of $10 million. Put them in a nasty environment, maybe similar to current, but harder. When a person leaves the group (For *any* reason) the pot shrinks. [Going from 10-9 people means that the pot goes from 10,000,000 to 6,750,000, ie. each player only gets 750,000 instead of 1,000,000.] Here the object is actually to survive, not that anti-survival BS.
 
Here's an idea: ad hoc fed gov't bonds to use for reconstruction in LA, Mississippi, and other states affected by natural disasters this year. Everybody wins(no bait and switch with tax money ten years down the line.) Survivor: Wife got me hooked. The only fun is predicting the outcome from week to week, and commercial break to commercial break based on personality traits of the cast. We bet pocket lint on it.
 
Don't watch Survivor television. I can only stand a little of the Family Worship Center at a time. Interesing observations about donating. The governor of GA got the legislature to suspend, for one month, the state's cut of the gas sales. That is a whopping .15 a gallon. 87 octane is down to 2.59 a gallon. That is what he did to give the state a break. Since no government body ever met a tax they didn't like, we know at midnight 9-30 it will end. I wonder what pork they can trim from the budgets to send to Katrina relief. Thanks for the thought.
 
Hmmm. $941 million bucks for what's essentially a bridge to nowhere might be a start in the right direction. And it won't throw the ferry crew out of what little work there is...
 
Err...the state of your Federal budget has nothing to do with lefties, John - check the results of the last election. That one was worthy of that Kar-Tooon you run. Start asking the righties why they are wasting the money and you might actually find someone in a position to make the decision...except...they've been making all the decisions that got the budget where it is.
 
I know that Alan. The difference is, when your side is in power, you spend all the same money happily, on all the same crap and more, and your constituents are happy about. When the Right is in power, their constituents grump about it. And would the Left even suggest the redirection of funds, or rather, just raise taxes... which wouldn't go down after the issue was resolved... now would they? And have you been paying attention to the 'kartoon' this week? Muir has been Bush-bashing, if gently.
 
Gee - I woke up thinking that was ruder than I meant to be...and I was right?!?!? You are right about the cartoon. I think we control the agenda there now. I want a bunny character introduced. There has never been a political cartoon of any vlaue which did not have a bunny. Any make fun of Cheney. No one is making enough fun of Cheney.
 
If she's got a nice profile, I can take the bunny. As for Cheney, c'mon, Alan, you can do better than that. He's been caricatured so much he's old news. Get creative!
 
Not by the right. It is time for them to eat their own.
 
Feh, Alan. Name me a democrat politician hounded out of office, or quietly told to go away, in recent memory. Democrat congressmen boff underage interns or commit adultery, as an example, might get embarassed or *shudder* censured. Republican congressmen resign or go to jail. Spare me.
 
Err...maybe because getting a bj is not a crime?
 
Notice the words "congressman" and "resign," Alan.
 
But abstract it a bit. Is there not an odd thing happening in the last few years where moral wrongs are worse than white collar crimes? I am quite disgusted, for example, that Martha gets a show after getting out of the slammer. All the while she claims something like it was a "techicality" - not really bad to lie to an investigator. Look at DeLay - generally I would suggest the defence to the ethics charges are that these are technical things, not indicative of a plan or wickedness. But snuggle up to the attractive girl and you are going to hell. I don't think of this as a partisan thing so much as a degradation for the rule of law and the courts supported by politicians who attack "trial lawyers" and that sort of thing. Is that fair? [I am sure I can think of how to turn this into a reason for the right to eat its own...give me a moment or two...]
 
No, lets not abstract it a bit. Let's keep it very specific--inductive rather than deductive. Newt Gingrich--booted for a conflict of interest because he signed a contract with a book company. HR Clinton--signs similar book deal, yet is still there. Trent Lott--says something nice about a friend on his b-day and loses his job. Sen. Byrd, actual Kleagle in the KKK, is the teflon senator on race issues because he's a dem(even though he also was a dixiecrat just like Lott's friend). Oregon and Utah congressman(R) got the boot in the 90's for sexual harrasment suits(even though it was consensual the difference in power MADE it harrasment), but for the Playboy in Cheif we get 'getting a bj isn't a crime'. I'm sorry Alan, but there is a serious double standard at play.
 
Hey - leave my generalistic abstract cogitations alone! You want to selectively slag feel free...but if you list all legislators who have found themselves and legal problems and it might be worth listening to. Otherwise that is just enemy-of-the-people divisionist rhetoric, party before nation jingoism. Shame.
 
You're right, Alan - so Stop It! Else we send the RWDS's after you... Some people just don't get your humour, Alan... Hee.
 
I forgot my emoticon! I can't believe I forgot my emoticon! ;-) There - that must clear up everything. But I still want a wabbit character in the Kar-toon.
 
I think survivor would be more interesting if the tribal council had to EAT the person voted off... And all the baggage that entails.. :)
 
That, you'll have to take up with Chris. I only get the soft-porn Playboy style bunnies...
 
Oi. Did I mess up again(I really need to just stay under that rock don't I?)? Sorry Alan. You can take the pound of flesh tommorrow(though seeing your ode to Carter on your site I dunno if I should be appologizing ;)). Seeing as how I've already used up my 'in trouble for insensitivity' quota for the day. Got hauled into my PIs office after angering and causing a PRC student to rant for twenty who saw a Rand study I was reading and forwarded to a ROC student. (That's a mainland Chinese student going berzerk for something I sent to a Taiwanese student for those who don't know the difference) It doesn't help that they share the same lab space. Ai ya. After that my patience for 'you evil repbulican bastards, kiss my heiny as penitence' type stuff was a little short. So, if I went off half cocked, sorry. You're second in line, behind Sanger, for kicking my head in, okay? Or you could just have John teach you the Hairy Eyeball--that tends to keep me under my rock.
 
Ry - Alan was just in wingnut-baiting... what's it say that you fell for it? 8^D That was better than any Hairy Eyeball... Now, to the important stuff - which RAND study, and how come a PRC student gets to have exposed nerves, anyway?
 
No worry, Ry. I am exploring very indirectly the state of US politics and the problem of division for division's sake. We do it in a series of insults, pokes and cartoon politics references.
 
Well, I do stand by what I said Mr. MacCloud. There is a double standard on 'sensitivity' issues in the US in favor of the democrats, but on the flipside no modern democrat will ever be seen as tough on crime or defense(Whittles 'Tribes' essay is a great example of the division and the logic behind why---oh, and I'm a graphite Babe-the-herding-pig. Not a grey sheepdog, no matter how much I think I am a sheepdog.). Ah, we youngsters. We don't understand how to play the game entirely yet. Like young cornerbacks in the NFL. Speed and reflexes and intesity. Sigh. Why do the PRC students get to have raw nerves? I dunno. Considering how Bing-Bing terrorizes Ah-Cheun into saying it's one big happy China I don't understand either. Why what some ecentric gwai-lou who hangs out at Castle Arghhh! has to say on the matter whould matter to a loyal citizen of the Middle Kingdom I have no bloody idea why. But it did, but it also made the ROC student very happy to see that someone here Stateside cared enough to pay attention to the situation. Plus, there's no explaining to some people either. Actually showing my PI PLA whitepapers available online about how PRC lays claim to 'the Three Island Chains' that include the Ryukus and other bits of Japan and the Philippines, and a decent chunk of the Pacific as 'territorial waters' to boot, didn't help. Just showed I was a right wing nut. Jeez. I can't wait 'til I finish. If anyone's interested I do get interesting stuff about the Taiwan/PRC situation occasionally--particularly from RAND and a few academics. Let me know and I'll pass it along.
 
Isn't the 'earmark' in question an authorization, not an appropriation? The former don't spend a cent, last I checked, and while giving it up is a nice gesture, it doesn't actually affect spending anyway. (I mean, there's no guarantee that spending was going to get appropriated, and until then, there's not a cent for it.)
 
Well, actually, under the Stafford Act, the emergency declaration (this is why you go for it EARLY when you're a Governor) obligates the Feds to 755 of the bill, up to 90% if it's severe enough. This is a %90 event, and it's a statutory bill the Feds are due to pay. Of course, with that gives them the right to some say in *how* it's spent.