When is Enough, Enough?

Pelosi’s Stimulus Package Too Much for Republicans, Too Little for Dems

Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled her plans for an $825 billion “stimulus” package and, before the ink had dried on reporters’ notepads, Wisconsin Democrat and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey said that it might not be enough.

Remember, back in the day, when $750 billion was an eye-poppingly large number, when we were assured that we’d know where it was going, and when we were told it was all we’d ever need? How soon the Democrats have forgotten — now that the economy has continued to slide and that we see the first $350 billion lacked adequate oversight, they’re prepared to do it all over again.

Enough is enough.

We cannot recklessly spend our way out of this downturn; if we refuse to rip this band-aid away and accept the short-term sting, we’ll be forced to agonizingly pull our hairs out one by one. When we talk about similar periods of economic decline in the 20th century, we always hear about the Great Depression and the stock market crash of 1929 yet rarely hear discussion of the recession of 1920. Why? Because the recession of 1920 didn’t last. Because, that time, we allowed for the natural economic cycle to take its course. With regard to the Great Depression, however, the federal government did intervene, did interrupt the natural economic cycles, and it was the ensuing spending policies associated with FDR’s New Deal which delayed economic recovery for at least a half-dozen years, if not longer.

According to Lee Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics, in an August 2004 article in the Journal of Political Economy, Roosevelt championed anti-competition and pro-labor policies out of fear that the free market and capitalism had driven down prices and wages, and in June 1933 signed into law measures which would artificially inflate both and thus “short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.”

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian at the time, commenting on the article. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

Ill-conceived stimulus policies? By all means, professor, please go on.

Ohanian and partner Harold Cole, another UCLA economist, calculated that the so-called National Industrial Recovery Act and its economic consequences accounted for 60 percent of the weak recovery, and argued that without such policies from Roosevelt’s White House, the Great Depression would have come to fruition in 1936 instead of 1943. Seven years. Once again, however, revisionist history–aided by the progressive leanings of academia–has since significantly clouded what truly happened.

“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said at the time. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”

Fast-forward to 2009, and America is oozing with government intervention. Enduring economic decline, Americans have no choice but to watch as the president-elect positions himself to greatly increase the size and scope of government and perpetuate the federal government’s spendthrift tendencies. Pelosi’s stimulus plan and Obey’s response were enough to elicit from House Minority Leader John Boehner, though arguably not the most conservative of Republican representatives, a very simple response:

“Oh, my God.”

From there, Boehner went on to say that Democrats were operating with “the flawed notion that we can borrow and spend our way to recovery,” and remarked that House Democrats entertained no Republican input when they outlined the $825 billion plan.

That’s not to say that Republicans on Capitol Hill have been silent. On Wednesday, the Republican Study Committee outlined their own stimulus plan which, according to the group’s press release, is rooted in three main fundamentals:

  • Support Families through Tax Relief
  • Economic Relief for American Businesses and Entreprenuers
  • Save Future Generations from a Crushing Debt Burden.

Alabama Rep. Spencer Bachus, a solid conservative, 1969 graduate of Auburn University (always a plus), member of the RSC and ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee, remarked to those in attendance yesterday at a hearing organized by the House Republican Economic Working Group and featuring testimony from former EBay CEO Meg Whitman and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney that not only must the money our federal government so quickly disposes of as “stimulus” first be collected from the wallets of taxpayers struggling on their own to make ends meet, but also that the idea proposed by the Democrats could do more harm than good.

“High taxes starve the creation of capital,” Bachus said at yesterday’s hearing. “We need to communicate the message that the American people, individuals and businesses, can use capital more efficiently and effectively and grow it better than the government. We have a downturn where some people think that the best use of capital is by the government and that’s not a capitalist system, that’s a socialist system.”

Late yesterday afternoon, Bachus explained to America’s Right that we can learn from mistakes made by others, that a reduced tax burden and less government spending–not more–will help lead America along the road to economic recovery.

“Economic growth and job creation are dependent on capital,” Bachus said. “Of all of the major industrialized powers, the worst performing economy in the last ten years has been the Japanese economy and our corporate tax rate is second only to theirs. We need not only lower taxes but also must address entitlement and regulatory reform and curb government spending to create economic growth and prosperity for all Americans.”

Bachus is absolutely correct. We cannot spend our way to economic recovery. We cannot break free of the ills of excessive regulation and a heavy tax burden by increasing the size, scope and involvement of the federal government. The key to recovery is the adherence to the tenets of fiscal conservatism — low taxes, responsible spending and a smaller, less invasive government.

When looking at our current economic situation, remember that it was FDR’s fear of low wages and low prices which fostered the New Deal and, in turn, extended the Great Depression for more than half a decade. Then consider what President-elect Barack Obama said in his January 8 speech, that our economic difficulties have been caused by circumstances “where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending” and that “only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy.” Obama seems to draw comparisons with Abraham Lincoln; I think he’s looking more like FDR.

It seems painfully obvious to me that every single American man, woman and child are now being forced to repeat lessons from history which we should have learned long ago. While we may not be able to put toothpaste back into the tube and somehow un-spend the $750 billion from last October’s bailout disaster, we need to make our voices heard with regard to the $825 billion more which Pelosi and her liberal colleagues are prepared to throw away. This spendthrift trend must stop.

We are struggling. No doubt about it. Unemployment is up, retail sales are down. Signs everywhere point to long-term decline. Regardless, continuing down this slippery slope to socialism can only serve to lengthen our troubles and further weaken our nation.

Enough, my friends, is enough.



  1. Anonymous says:

    Money is either earned, stolen or lawfully confiscated. Earning more money and building real wealth is the only way out of a recession. Lavishing unions and publicly traded corporations with confiscated funds just increases their dependency on un-earned money.

    Still, it looks like no matter what we’re going to dilute the value of our money by printing more of it. But doesn’t every American have a money supply problem? Wouldn’t we all like a little more of it? If they gave it to us instead, wouldn’t we spend it among ourselves across every nook and crannie in the American economy??

    I think the Congress TARP boondoggle will build up a 5 Trillion Dollar institutional carcinoma before it’s over. For that we could print and give an immediate $15,000 tax free to each 310 million American man, woman and child and still have $350 billion left over for Congressional payola and kick-backs to elite political insiders and family members.

    That would be the best way to stimulate the economy with un-earned money. Best of all, it would be going to the majority of the people who will ultimately pay for it. Their chances of creating real tax-paying wealth are far better than pouring dollars into publicly-traded companies with their huge tax sheltering carry forward losses.

    Give every American man, woman and child $15,000 each, tax free, and you’ll not just stimulate the economy, you’ll launch entrepreneurial energy and excitement as never before seen.

  2. TM says:

    If you think these people are not getting real dangerous take a look at what I found


  3. Ladalang says:

    Enough is enough, but it’s too late for that. We let them do it the first time with the bank bail out. The dam has broken. We called, we wrote and we faxed and they said, “we don’t care what you think, you aren’t running things.” In Declaration of Independence terms it’s time for “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it[Government]“. We have no choice, we are at the point of no return and we must take back our Republic. It’s time “to institute new Government”. Or sit back and watch it disappear before our very eyes.

  4. Dakotagirl says:

    Norma Desmond? I love it!

  5. toto says:

    You know, I was watching Lou Dobbs a couple of weeks ago, and the point he made was rather interesting. He said, by the time the gov is done, they’ll spend around $1.3 trillion on these bailouts. Now the interesting point was if you took all the mortgages for homes in the U.S., it equals about the same amount of money. Why doesn’t the gov just pay off all our mortgages, and presto, economic problems solved. Of course they won’t do that, whats in it for them? Think about it, if suddenly you had exposible income to spend, equal to what your mortgage was per month, what do you think would happen? People would start spending again, and therefore our economy picks up, and jobs start to be created to keep up the pace. Of course there are people out there that would still outspend their income, but with those types it’ll be that way regardless. You know, sorta like our government, out spend what you have coming in.

  6. gailbullock says:

    Don’t expect a solution to the nation’s economic predicament from me, but I can offer you a taxpaying citizen’s viewpoint. When I have money left over from the monthly drafts against my checking account for my bills and automatic transfers to my CD and savings account, the leftovers are what I use for budgeted amounts for groceries, gasoline, taxes, insurance, and spending. This is really simple: The higher my taxes and cost of living, the less money I have to spend as a consumer. Doesn’t that apply to everyone? Money gets tight as taxes increase and burdens become greater for the average person.

    By allowing the average citizen to keep more of his/her income, the government boosts the economy. I have a little problem with the fiducial behavior of Citigroup, when it sticks its hand out for a bailout, spends $400,000 for the naming rights of a ballpark, and then sticks its hand out for yet another bailout!

    Good ol’ Neal Boortz wrote a column recently about how to jumpstart the economy. Google “Neal Boortz + economy” and click on the http://www.Townhall.com link to read it in its entirety, but here is the “best of the story:”

    “Six Month Tax Holiday – The government prints $800 billion to replace the lost tax revenue needed for ordinary government expenses while people are spending the money they earned to stimulate our economy. Plan adds $800 billion in additional debt.

    “Either way we add $800 billion to our deficit.

    “Who gets the power to chose economic winners and losers?

    “Obama’s Stimulus – Government makes the choices of who wins and loses. Winners include teacher’s unions, government contractors, politicians and businesses favored by government and political operatives. This plan grows government.

    “Six Month Tax Holiday – The people who actually earned the money get to choose the economic winners and losers through their spending decisions. Winners include private sector businesses that provide quality products and services. This plan grows the private-sector economy.

    “Either way $800 billion gets poured into our economy!!!

    “Who comes out with more power?

    Obama’s Stimulus – Enhances the power of government and promotes the cause of a state -controlled economy.

    “Six Month Tax Holiday – Enhances the power of the individual taxpayer/consumer and promotes the cause of economic liberty and the free market.

    “Power to the people? Or to government?

    “Who gets the happy ending?

    “Obama’s Stimulus – Thrills those who love government

    “Six Month Tax Holiday – Pleases those who love liberty

    “Is there a detriment to the Gohmert plan? You betcha! And the flaw is fatal. If you declare a full tax holiday people are actually going to figure out how much they earn. No more of this ‘take home pay’ nonsense. You get your whole paycheck. Now just imagine what happens in July with the withholding starts again.

    “Revolt.” (End quote)

    Jeff has told us, as have many economists, that the more control we allow government over our lives, the less freedom we have. What Obama and his “Demonatic” cronies are trying to accomplish is not to stimulate the economy but to stimulate government control over us. If they tax and regulate us beyond the point that we can afford our own upkeep (which has now happened to millions with the foreclosures and loss of jobs at astronomical levels), we become a socialist, third-world nation.

    Don’t know about you, but I have scouted my front and back yards for the money tree which Obama thinks grows on each and every person’s property (like the chicken in every pot), but I can’t find one anywhere. As my mother used to tell me, “Baby, money doesn’t grow on trees.” (Not sarcasm–That’s what Mama and Daddy called me.)

    Robert Wallace, I didn’t mean to omit you when I expressed my appreciation to Jeff for his writers.

    Today is “SCOTUS Day,” y’all! I’m still reeling over the unethical private conference of CJ John Roberts and PEBO, in view of the SCOTUS cases pending against PEBO. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall!

  7. Jan says:

    Jeff, spot on.
    And anonymous at 2:16 am – what a novel idea. If they are going to take my money anyway, give it to me to spend in the economy. They are going to spend us into oblivion. Oh, and of course, those who voted for these morons just think that money is going to be coming in hordes for them. How little they realize that so much more is going to be required. When the first bailout was discussed my partner and I noted that about $5k per man, woman, and child could be given and used to purchase things. Putting more of our money in the economy is what will boost it, not taking more of our money to pay for more governmental “stimuli”.

  8. Lawdawg says:

    The Application (08A505) for an injunction submitted to the Court by Justice Scalia is denied.


  9. Anonymous says:

    WE need a protest and that is not to pay in April!!! I am seriously considering a “hiccup”. If that guy named Geithner(sp)can do it….then why can’t hard working American citizens??? This is getting totally out of hand and America had better WAKE UP soon because it will be more than a “bad dream” we are looking at!!!

  10. Jeannette says:

    Pelosi looks like Norma Desmond in that picture.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Found this. Hope it helps.

    As an example of the tenacity of some ideas, the desire to repeal the 22nd Amendment is a very popular one. Using the Thomas database, we searched all the way back to the 99th Congress, which started in 1985, for proposals to repeal the 22nd. In 2005, there was a great deal of discussion, and derision, of a new proposal to repeal the 22nd. But the derision, certainly, was unwarranted. Every Congress since the 99th has had at least one proposal with the sole intent of repealing the 22nd.

  12. hokiedokie24 says:

    Lawdawg has been right every time so far so this will be no different.

  13. bdaman says:
  14. Anonymous says:


  15. Anonymous says:

    off topic, but I couldn’t find a thread that worked.

    Anyway, I read a rumour that Orly Taitz is off Keyes case. Is that true?

    Personally, I think they are both nuts. But, Did Keyes through her off his case?

    Does this rumour have any validity that you can shed light on?


    —just wondering.

  16. Bodenzee says:

    All I’m seeing, day after day, are job cut announcements from a plethora of American businesses. Any chance that we’ll see a reduction in Government employees?

  17. Anonymous says:

    Does Lawdawg have a bug in the SCOTUS. How does he know at 10:20 a.m. when they don’t meet until 10:00??? Wishful thinking from an Obot!!

  18. Marie says:

    Can you at least tell us–are you pleased with today’s ruling?

  19. Kevan says:

    Amen and Amen. :) Prayers, praying for the TRUTH to come into the light for all to see…Amen. :) I am thankful for all those who have worked so very hard to bring this “secrecy” out. :) God Bless YOU, Jeff! :) You are a wonderful patriot! Prayers for strength for each you! :)

  20. Sharon2 says:

    Lawdawg gets off on this. Lawdawg reasonably speculates as to outcome to get a rise out of everyone. The Berg decision is not on the list of today’s orders and will likely be posted on Monday’s list. Wow! Lawdawg makes an announces at 10:20 after getting the nod from the Supremes! If you recall, Lawdawg went a little further last time, discussing mootness, to put some further credibility to her “insider” information.

    Too bad about the decision, though.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Anyway, I read a rumour that Orly Taitz is off Keyes case.

    There’s nothing on the Sacramento County Superior Court’s website to indicate that Taitz is no longer counsel of record.

  22. Anonymous says:

    The Berg decision is not on the list of today’s orders and will likely be posted on Monday’s list.

    Tuesday. Monday is a holiday for the federal government.

  23. TM says:

    Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Sorry Jeff, I didn’t read your entire article, perhaps ADHD has some blame…

    A huge difference between the recession of the early 1900s and now is that a LOT of our jobs have been sent overseas (at least blue collar). Money we receive from the government to stimulate our economy probably will give it a spark, but the money is leaving our country and stimulating China! Talk about enough is enough — we need to bring the jobs back to the U.S. OK, so if the price of products goes up because the cost of an American worker is higher, so be it. The end result is everyone will be paying more, but we will be able to employ more people and not get into this mess!

  25. Kris says:

    Court’s closed on Monday and Tuesday. Announcements to be made on Wednesday.

    Can’t really see why there will be anything different than before. Otherwise I think the Court would have acted more quickly due to the times we are in and with the amount of spending that the gov. is now going to be involved in for this inauguration. There is just much more needed as far as evidence goes for suppositions being made.

  26. Sharon2 says:

    On one of the threads, a commenter wrote that the Supreme Court refers a second try at an application to the full Court merely to stop the refiling at the second attempt. On the Right Side of Life site, Phil has noted that Berg’s application for an injunction has the following history noted on the docket:

    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

    Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.

    Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.

    Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.

    Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.

    Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
    Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.

    This shows two denials and a third refiling before being distributed to the Court. It still may have been denied, but maybe one or more of the Justices is interested in the case. All we know is that in the past, there haven’t been four. Now we know that a case is automatically distributed for conference after the first refiling.

  27. Claudia says:

    I might be dead wrong on this subject, because I feel that it is a huge affront to every American who has relatives that go back any further than one gnereation in Citizenship with both parents, but here is what Arnold said last night in his State of the State message It is just a small excerpt of his whole speech, but take a look and tell me what you think about the saddness of this nation when we are spelling things like thtis out to all peoples around the world:

    [You know, President Reagan used to tell about a letter that he got from a man who said that you can go and live in Turkey but you can't become a Turk. You can go and live in Japan but you can't become Japanese. And he went through various different countries like that, but the man said anyone from any corner of the world can come to America and become an American. (Applause)

    I know that we know that any American child now also, no matter what corner of the world his father or mother comes from, can even become president of the United States. What a wonderful national story for us. This nation rightfully feels the hope of change.]

  28. Seeks Truth says:

    Heard Newt Gingrich today say that with the $$$ we are talking about spending would be equivalent to suspending all fed and FICA taxes until August. Just think what individuals without 8 months of withholdings could do for any economy.

    Oh, but I forgot. Fixing the economy is isn’t the real motive — that’s just the smokescreen.

  29. CryingBabe says:

    With the socialist’s in power they think they will get it right even though none of the socialist governments have ever gotten it right.
    We need to push for the Fair Tax Plan and then all of the businesses that moved overseas because of all the taxes will come back and there will be so many job openings there will not be enough workers to fill these jobs.
    Then we need to get on the Herman Cain plan.

  30. Anonymous says:

    WND posted comment:

    In protest against the policies and legislation proposed by the congress and PE Obama, citizens are being asked to fly their flags upside down on January 20th.

    Our country is in grave distress!

  31. Sharon2 says:

    Not is such an important word- I meant to say that cases are not automatically distributed for full conference after the first filing.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Look who submitted the Bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment:


  33. Anonymous says:


    In protest against the policies and legislation proposed by the congress and PE Obama, citizens are being asked to fly their flags upside down on January 20th.

    Our country is in grave distress!

    Citizens are being asked to declare their intentions of flying their flag upside down, as a sign of our country’s distress, at the end of each “comment submission” made on any website. This will spread the word to those who may have missed the original post.

    Thank you,

    *I intend to fly my flag upside down on January 20th. Our country is in grave distress.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Well, it looks like the Democratic Socialists of America (the official designated representative for the United States to the Socialist International world governing body) are the underlying sponsors of this new, accelerated effort to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

    Who are the Democratic Socialists of America and what are they about? What does it mean to reduce a Republic of Laws to a Democracy of the masses?

    These guys knew, and here’s what they had to say:

    “Democracy is indispensable to socialism.” V.I. Lenin

    “Democracy is the road to socialism.” Karl Marx

    “The goal of socialism is communism.” V.I. Lenin

    I would not trivialize this one, folks. The effort to repeal the 22nd Amendment has extensive and organized support. Look at the names of the Congressional DSA and Congressional Progressive Caucus membership and remember the Fannie Mae/Mac mess that drove an assassin’s knife into the heart of our economy.

    If indeed there’s a 5th Column in national elective office working to bring our great Republic to her knees, this may well be the roster of their names:




  35. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous said…

    UPDATE TO THIS EARLIER POST:*I intend to fly my flag upside down on January 20th. Our country is in grave distress.

    who really cares? not me. I understand a bunch of folks are keeping their kids home from school too. nobody really care. trust me. we don’t care.

  36. gailbullock says:

    I wish those liberal sheep had listened to what we tried to tell them before the election, because the next four years are gonna be one helluva “I told you so!”

    I told one of my best friends that I thought she had better sense than to vote for Obama! She once had good credit, money in the bank, her retirement folio, etc., but now she has nothing! NOTHING! And, she “ain’t seen nothing” yet!! Thank you, Big Government.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Look who submitted the Bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment

    Serrano introduces that same resolution every session of Congress. Yawn.

  38. Tom C. says:

    anon @ 9:54 and 11:38,

    I care.

    anon @ 11:38,

    This is why you will lose your country, or have it saved for you, as it has been in the past, by those that cared enough to courageously fight for it, and your right to do nothing more for your neighbors, community or country, than sit around on your ass, spewing garbage about that which you know nothing, and adding nothing of any consequence or value to the world.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Advance Indiana.com wrties:

    Former FBI Director Says Holder Allowed Himself To Be Used
    Perhaps the most under-reported news coming out this week’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Attorney General designate Eric Holder is the testimony of former FBI Director Louis Freeh, a Clinton appointee. The pardon given to fugitive Marc Rich was “a corrupt act” and Holder, the number two guy at Justice, allowed himself to be used by the Clinton administration:

    The pardon of Marc Rich was a corrupt act,” Freeh said, but was not Holder’s responsibility. Freeh asserted that President Bill Clinton’s White House staff kept the FBI and Justice Department “in the dark” and “actively conspired” to ensure that nobody knew what pardons were being considered shortly before Clinton left office.

    “The [Clinton] White House went to extraordinary lengths to deceive the attorney general, myself, the Department of Justice and everyone about who was on the secret pardon list. … I don’t think it’s fair to put that blame totally on Eric Holder,” Freeh said. “He takes responsibility, and he will never make that mistake again.”

    Freeh adds that he thinks Holder learned from his mistake and wouldn’t make it again, which seems to defeat the whole point he made in his testimony. If you’re not responsible for the decisions you make, then who is? Freeh, as general counsel to MBNA, hired Holder to defend racial discrimination cases against the company a few years ago.

    Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley is less charitable to Holder, who he describes as having “quite a political reputation.” Turley wonders why former President Clinton hasn’t been interviewed as part of Holder’s hearing process, particularly involving the pardon handed to his own brother:

    It is striking that no one has demanded interviews with Clinton, whose abuse of the pardon power was a disgrace to his office. Once again, it is also striking that no one is asking Holder about the greatest abuse: the use of the pardon power to benefit Clinton’s own brother. Did Holder object to such a use of official power for personal benefit? These are legitimate questions in my view. I am not convinced by Holder’s portrayal of the Rich matter as simply not looking at the file. The Rich pardon stood out as an abuse — as did Roger Clinton’s pardon.

    For all of the protestations from the Left about former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez being too political, those same worries about Holder appear totally absent. It just goes to show that it’s all about ideology. The Left could care less whether Holder is political or devoid of ethics. When it comes down to it, they want a very political Attorney General who will cover up Democratic corruption. The Bush Justice Department gets no credit for all of the big-name Republicans it prosecuted over the past eight years. You can bet the Obama Justice Department won’t be nearly as aggressive in prosecuting Democrats with Holder in charge.

Speak Your Mind