Dan Bice has another hard hitting story, where he has uncovered the fact that Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn had an affair with Jessica McBride.  There are just a couple of things I want to mention here.

First, Jessica McBride was one of the ones who was pushing hard for passage on the gay marriage amendment... you know, so that the sanctity of marriage can be protected.  Well, she got her amendment, but apparently that didn't change how she thinks of marriage.  I feel sorry for her husband, and also their children, who are going to have to deal with the publicity this will bring.

Second, Jessica teaches journalism at UWM and has even taught journalistic ethics.  One of the tenants of journalistic ethics is that reporters should "remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility."  Apparently she didn't think that applied to her when she wrote a flowering review of the Chief in Milwaukee Magazine and later said in a letter to the Chief: "Just felt a little protective. Knew I didn't want to do you wrong..."  Obviously this puts a taint on anything she's written regarding the Chief, and the Milwaukee Police department in general.  People ought to consider these ethical problems before accepting any of her writing in the future.

This of course is yet another in a long line of people (especially conservatives) who talk very publicly about the need to protect certain institutions, like marriage, who then trash those institutions through their private behavior.  Simply put, if you can't practice what you preach, then get out of the pulpit.

And on a side note, could they have picked a worse picture of her for the story on the website?  It looks like a mug shot, only worse.

Update 6/22: The Editor of Milwaukee Magazine has publicly come out to defend Jessica, and says that Bice left out a lot of evidence that shows that the affair started some time after the article was written.

There is a great investigative story in the Journal Sentinel about eminent domain abuse right here in Milwaukee.  For those who don't want to read the whole thing, here is the reader's digest version:

• Man buys property, tears down delapidated building on that property, and applies for a permit to build a bar and restaurant on that property.
• The permit is denied, due to "aldermanic priviledge".  As it turns out, the alderman received campaign donations from the owner of the market which is next door to the property.
• The owner of the market next door offers to buy the land, but is rebuffed because the owner of the land still wants to run his own business (silly him).
• The city declares the land blighted, because nothing has been built on the property.  Of course the only reason nothing was built on the property was because the city denied the permits to build!
• The city is now starting eminent domain proceedings to acquire the land, for the sole purpose of selling it to the neighbor so he can expand his market.

The city maintains that this is all perfectly well and good, and that the campaign donations given to Alderman Jim Witkowiak had nothing to do with the decision.  Uh huh.  Let's just put this in very clear terms.  This is government sponsored theft, and Alderman Witkowiak is abusing his power as an alderman, and should be driven out of the common council on a rail.

Even if the lot stood empty for 10 more years, it is never legal for a government to take land from one person, simply to sell it to another.  The 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Of course, there was the Kelo case a few years ago... but that was simply a wrong ruling.  The Supreme Court essentially declared that the Founding Fathers added the word "public" for fun, and that it had no meaning.  It should also be noted that Wisconsin does have a law which specifically forbids the transfer of "non-blighted" land from one private owner to another.

The problem with this is that the barrier to declaring land as "blighted" is low, that it really doesn't exist at all.  The fact that the city is using their own failure to grant a permit as a reason to declare land blighted is just gaming the system.

I find the latest controversy regarding the Guantanamo Bay prison closing, or rather not closing now, to be absurd... almost to the point of being laughable.  Now that the Democrats have a firm hold on Congress, and a Democrat is Congress, the debate about that prison has all of a sudden turned into one of zip code.  Now, all of a sudden, everyone is crying NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).  But the reality here, is that the location of the prisoners was never the issue.

In fact, suggesting that we are somehow incapable of safely imprisoning terrorists in the United States is ridiculous on it's face.  We house tens of thousands of very violent, and very dangerous people, every day in our prisons.  The idea that a maximum security prison, in the middle of an army base, with thousands of well trained soldiers in Kansas, can't secure these men is plain idiotic.  And more importantly, there is really no difference from an "abuse" standpoint between housing someone without trial in Cuba, or housing someone without trial in Kansas.

So if the where was never the issue, then what is the issue?  The issue here is actually the who and the how.  While there certainly are terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, it is a far cry to say that everyone imprisoned there is actually a terrorist.  We seem to have this idealized concept that all the people being detained at Gitmo were caught in the middle of a firefight with American troops, detained, and then shipped to Cuba.  Unfortunately, not every case is so cut and dry.

Many of the people being imprisoned were in fact caught by foreign countries... for a bounty.  If that type of system isn't ripe for abuse, either for the money, or to get rid of someone they simply didn't like, then I don't know what is.  The real reason that the government likes Guantanamo Bay, is because it lives in a gray area of unconstitutionality.  The United States owns the land, and runs the base, but the Constitution doesn't apply there.  That means that people being kept there are not granted any rights that we have on U.S. soil.

A federal judge has ruled that the United States can continue holding some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely without any charges, the Associated Press reports.

The district judge's opinion limits the Obama administration’s definition of who can be held. But he said Congress in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, gave the president the authority to hold anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the terrorist attacks.

So no matter how those men were brought into the system, they never get a chance to challenge their detainment, no matter how flimsy or non-existent the evidence is. More importantly, with all the controversy surrounding the base there, the government has a large incentive in making sure that nobody finds out that someone might be falsely imprisoned, which explains why so much evidence is not reviewable by a defense.  In fact, many good men who had issues with the tribunals because of this have resigned over it... for the very reason that the evidence in many cases is just that flimsy.

So the question I continue to ask is... why are people so afraid of giving these men their day in court?  If the evidence against them is so overwhelming (as it is sure to be for the worst of the worst that are always featured in news stories), then a trial ought to be a slam dunk.

Update:  And in case you need more proof that there are in fact many innocent people being held at Gitmo, here is some testimony from Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's Chief of Staff) attesting to just that:

The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.

But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror and these leaders already had black marks enough: the dead in a field in Pennsylvania, in the ashes of the Pentagon, and in the ruins of the World Trade Towers. They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces.

And more:

Wilkerson told the AP in a telephone interview that many detainees "clearly had no connection to al-Qaida and the Taliban and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pakistanis turned many over for $5,000 a head."

Some 800 men have been held at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Wilkerson said two dozen are terrorists, including confessed Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006.

Both links via Outside the Beltway.  All this, just to say that we weren't wrong.

Obama asked for, and got passed, a $700 billion "stimulus" package.  We have also previously passed a nearly $1 trillion TARP bill, with the full support of Obama when he was in the Senate.  And now, he wants to cut $100 million from the budget?!  Does the phrase, "penny wise and pound foolish" mean anything to you President Obama? How about "publicity stunt"?  Alright... maybe just plain "insulting".  Why so concerned now?  He is supposedly concerned about a "confident gap" with the American people.  Now if you think cutting $100 million dollars from the budget will shrink that gap, perhaps you underestimate the American people's understanding of the difference between trillion, billion and million.

If there is a prize for the coolest, most clever, most awesome Congressman ever, I think Congressman John Carter from Texas ought to be given that award:

All U.S. taxpayers would enjoy the same immunity from IRS penalties and interest as House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Obama Administration Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, if a bill introduced today by Congressman John Carter (R-TX) becomes law.

Carter, a former longtime Texas judge, today introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735, which would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from charging penalties and interest on back taxes against U.S. citizens. Under the proposed law, any taxpayer who wrote "Rangel Rule" on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest.

This is not a joke!  It hasn't passed yet, but it is an actual proposed law.  You can track it on GovTrack.  Call your Congressman and let them know to support HR 735!

In case you haven't heard yet, the "stimulus" package, that couldn't stimulate an 80 year old war vet with permanent damage from a grenade, passed the House today.  I will note that every single House Republican, including Paul Ryan, voted against the bill.  Along with them were eleven brave Democrats.  Bravo gentlemen. 

Dear President Obama,

At noon today, you will take the oath of office and become President of the United States.  An entire nation will listen to a speech you will give, which will set the tone for the next four years.  Some of the most remembered speeches of our times have been given after an inauguration.  They lay out bold plans for the coming term, and often times instill hope in those who listen.  It seems that in your Presidency, more than in any other in recent memory, people of all creeds, colors, and backgrounds have foist their hopes and dreams upon you, to change their world for the better, or more accurately, to their liking.

As you are more than likely already coming to realize, this is an impossible task.  Everyone's needs, hopes, wishes, desires and values are different, and no one plan or program can satisfy all.  In fact, in trying to satisfy some, you will make it harder for others to satisfy their needs and desires.  It is for this reason, that I implore you to not simply recite the Oath of Office, merely as a requirement to attain the office you have sought after for so long.  Instead, I would ask that you truly take those words to heart:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Of all the tasks that are laid before you on this day President Obama, the only one to which you swear, is to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  That poor document has survived many tough times in this country, and Lord knows, the President who is leaving office has run rough shot over it, as has our Congress.  On this day, you swear to defend it, and so now is the time to think about how you will treat it.

Our government is one of limited, and enumerated powers.  Ours is one that guarantees to its citizens the right to pursue their needs, and desires, and live their lives according to their own values, by means of their own choosing, and their own effort.  Ours is one that recognizes the rights of the people, not because the government chooses to grant them, but because they are inalienable and cannot be removed or modified on the whim of those in power.  They are not to be treated as a mere inconvenience to a further goal you or others might have.

Remember, not just on this day, but every day of your Presidency, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution... as it reads today... not simply as you think it should read.  That is your oath, and your duty to the people.

Good luck, and God Bless.

Yesterday, in case you didn't hear or see, there was a major concert at the Lincoln Memorial in prelude to the Presidential Inauguration.  It was attended by a multitude of different stars from the music industry, and from Hollywood.  At first, I thought they might have made the Oscars an outdoor event... that is until I realized I was watching part of the inauguration festivities.  I have a lot of mixed feelings about this.

While I understand that the inaugural balls are generally paid for with a lot of private dollars, there are still massive amounts of public funds that go into these.  In fact, President Bush declared a State of Emergency in Washington D.C. which allows for more funds to be used for policing.  They've closed every single bridge into Washington, unless you're in a limo.  That, in and of itself, seems like an abuse, because a State of Emergency should only be declared during unplanned and unforeseen circumstances that can't be budgeted for or expected.  This hardly fits that definition.

But I also can't help but see this a show of blatant excess at a time when we can hardly afford it.  Radley Balko has a good take on this, where he compares Democratic critiques to the 2005 inauguration of George Bush to their responses to some critiques this year regarding Obama's.  So far, it's hard to tell whether we're spending much more than four years ago, but it looks like we are, in both private and public money... this at a time when the economy is surely worse off than it was four years ago.  Perhaps this is part of the Stimulus package, and we just don't know it yet.  And even if the dollars spent are comparable, it seems like the media attention is not.  How many balls and concerts were aired on television for all to enjoy four years ago vs. this year.  You'd almost forget that Obama only won by 7%.

I also found it interesting to hear from some people while in Mexico about this.  When Ally and I were at a Cenote, we happen to start talking with a gentleman from Mexico City, along with his friends from France and Holland.  The woman from Holland said that their election coverage in November was almost as extensive as ours.  All of them knew exactly when the inauguration was to occur, and wanted to know what we thought of the whole thing.

Now, there is obviously much to be celebrated tomorrow.  As has been said by multiple people, many times, this is a historic event, and I don't mean to detract from that aspect of it.  But with the glamour and opulence that has grown with each ceremony in years past, one has to wonder how much more excess is needed to celebrate this particular swearing in?

But I'm also reminded of a quote from Vince Lombardi... "When you get to the end zone, act like you've been there before."  There is a certain dignity that is found when you attain a long sought after goal, and then act like it is perfectly normal that you would achieve it, for it gives more hope to those who come after that it won't be a once in a lifetime occurrence.

Rest in peace, Ricardo Montalban who died in his home yesterday at 88.  Most of the news items covering him talk about his famous role on Fantasy Island, but every geek on the Internet knows him best as the actor who played Kahn in Star Trek:

"To the last, I grapple with thee; from hell's heart, I stab at thee; for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."  Which is originally a quote from Moby Dick.

All to help the new Green Economy^TM!

Rep. Eric Massa, the newest elected member from NY, decided to play Leo DiCaprio for a day and insist he drive a hydrogen fuel cell car from NY to DC before his congressional swearing in.  One problem:  The trip to DC is just under 300 miles and the fuel cell car he had hoped to drive could only guarantee him 175-200 miles.
...
Here’s how it went down.  Massa drove one fuel cell car while a hybrid SUV towing an additional SUV followed along.  Once he got half way, he switched to new fuel cell car.  The empty fuel cell was then towed back by the first SUV.  As he continued on his journey, the second SUV followed.  Once Massa arrived in DC, the second SUV then towed the second fuel cell car back to NY.

Apparently the new Congressman from New York thought that the emmissions from the SUV trips would just disappear into the ether.  But at least he made a point about using alternate fuels.  What was that point?  Well, the good Congressman seems to have demonstrated that they are not as convenient as current technologies, and maybe not ready for prime time.  Well done sir, you have done your country a great service.

Via The Agitator.

I've mentioned before some of the interesting conversations I end up having when I visit California, and my family tries to convince me to move back.  I call it "The Sales Pitch", which one time ended in me calling them "California Snobs".  As the argument goes, California's economy is so productive, and they produce such a wide variety of goods, they can actually survive as their own country.  They produce more dairy than Wisconsin, more oranges than Florida, more peaches than Georgia... they produce more things than the states that are known for those items produce themselves!  California is a marvel!  All the red states in the middle of the country should bow down and pay homage to the wonderfulness that is California!  Well... that's how the sales pitch goes at least.

Of course, the only problem with that story is that California is going bankrupt.  While it may have a thriving economy, their government is so bloated, and so liberal in its spending, that they won't make it through March of next year:

If California and New York State were businesses, they'd be going bankrupt. If you're among the nearly 20 percent of Americans who live or work in these two states, the fiscal crisis is coming home for the holidays. And the worst is still on its way.

California, the world's eighth largest economy, will run out of money in March if the deadlocked legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can't come to an agreement on tax-hikes and spending cuts. Its bonds have been reduced to near-junk status after decades of borrowing and spending. State Treasurer Bill Lockyer summed up the situation in terms unhelpful to the tourist industry: "California's fiscal house is burning down."
...
But New York is playing Ford to California's GM at this stage of the crisis. While the Golden State economy is comparatively diversified, its financial meltdown is further along, with entire cities and towns throwing in the towel and declaring bankruptcy.

The city of Vallejo—population 120,000—declared bankruptcy earlier this year because it was locked into spending 74 percent of its $80 million general fund budget on public-safety salaries. Police captains were entitled to receive $306,000 annually in pay and benefits, while 21 firefighters earned more than $200,000 a year, including overtime. After five years on the job, all were entitled to lifetime health benefits. Now two smaller towns north of San Francisco, Isleton and Rio Vista, also appear on the brink of bankruptcy.

In a preview of political fights to come, both New York State and California budgets are being crippled by outsized public sector union pension obligations that are now coming due in a perfect storm—a combination of an aging population, a declining tax base, and a fiscal crisis.

And how are those red states doing?  You know, the ones filled with backwater hicks who believe in Creationism?  Well, as this map (courtesy of the New York Times) shows, the states in the middle are doing far better overall than the ones on the coasts (click for a larger version):

Maybe Californians ought to rethink their plans to tromp to the border with saws and cut themselves off from the rest of the United States after all.  They may actually need the red states (that are still in the black) to bail them out.

Cue comment from my darling sister in 3... 2... 1...

I often times wonder what the Presidential election would have been like had the "financial crisis" happened anywhere from 6 months to 1 year before it did.  Imagine how much different the debates would have been, especially with Ron Paul still in the mix.  To give you an idea of what it would have been like, here is Ron Paul from 1983 (his line about cigarettes being more valuable than paper money is hillarious):

And here is Ron Paul now:

Both videos come courtesy of Ideas from Free Minds.  Remember all this when you read news that the according to some people's accounting, the United States is actually bankrupt.  Although to be fair, there are others who are saying those numbers are wrong, and we just have a huge mortgage to pay (about half our value):

making the correct comparison of total US assets per person versus total US obligations per person, and it was about $300K assets vs $160K obligations, or over the whole population, about $90 trillion versus $48 trillion.  Most of that wealth is real stuff - land, houses, factories, etc - and hasn’t gone away in the last year.

The point is, we’re not bankrupt - we're more like a homeowner with a mortgage.  We have to keep working to make the payments.

And while the Federal government is devaluing our currency, and mortgaging our future into near bankruptcy, they are attacking companies in the same position for having outragous salaries.  Of course, at the same time, Congress will receive a nice pay raise as a reward for its fiscal prowess:

Members of Congress are slated to receive a $4,700 pay raise beginning in January, increasing their annual salaries to $174,000. The increase for 535 House and Senate members would cost taxpayers more than $2.5 million.

But they deserve it... you know... for having the lowest approval rating in memory.  To top it all off, we have a President who openly says he will break the law, and act like a King if Congress doesn't do what he wants:

Even Americans whose knowledge of the legislative process is limited to the "I'm Just a Bill" episode of Schoolhouse Rock know about the veto: If Congress approves legislation the president doesn't like, he can refuse to sign it, in which case the law can be enacted only by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. President Bush's plan to aid the auto industry relies on a more obscure maneuver: If Congress rejects a bill the president likes, he can act as if the vote went the other way.

This maneuver, unlike the veto, is illegal by definition, not to mention unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers and the rule of law. But it is business as usual for Bush, who has shown no compunction about ignoring the law when it prohibits him from doing what he considers necessary in response to what he considers an emergency.

Why?  Because we have to sacrafice the free market to save it of course!

US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from "collapse."

"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."

Words escape me.

And that just about sums up what's going on in Washington regarding not just the auto bailout which failed to pass last night, but also the $700 billion bailout from a few months ago.  What amazes me is how the "story behind the problems" simplifies itself so quickly.

The $700 billion bailout quickly boiled down to greedy Wallstreet types vs. greedy homeowners who couldn't afford mortgages.  The auto bailout is quickly boiling down to greedy unions vs. greedy executives.  Michael Mathias is horrified by the gall that legislatures have, demanding that union workers take a pay cut when legislatures themselves get paid very generously and get great benefits.  For the record, I completely agree, but I believe the solution is to cut the pay of all legislatures, cut their health benefits so they no longer get "Cadillac benefits" and give them no pension at all.  "Politician" should not be a career in this country.

Jay writes today about how horrible Republicans are because they blocked the auto bailout to do some union busting.  After all, he goes on to explain, the difference in wages only account for about $800 per car, and GM cars often are sold cheaper than foreign ones anyway.  Not only that, but the auto bailout is a mere fraction of the financial industry bailout, and that one got approved.  Well, first of all, saying we need to pass this bailout because we passed an earlier bailout is a strawman, because most people who fought this bailout also fought the last one, including me... strenuously.

Secondly, $800 still means a lot to people, and so lowering price could very well help, especially in this economy.  But the problem is that it's not just the raw price of the vehicle that makes a difference... its the value you get for your dollar.  The quality of car, along with resale value, of foreign cars has been higher for a long time.  That means that employees for foreign companies are working harder, and/or doing a better quality job, for every dollar... which acts as a multiplier on that price difference.  Through perverse UAW rules, workers often have a disensentive to do a better job, or they refuse to use more efficient and reliable techniques to perform certain tasks because it might costs fellow employees a job.  That makes a difference well beyond $800 a car.

Now then, to their credit in recent years, the Big 2.5 have made significant gains on quality such that they are nearly on par with their foreign competitors in many ways, but the value of the work dollar is still a problem.  However, Jay is right in that the UAW is not the only problem here.  For instance, there is the dealer network throughout the country which also is a dead weight on these companies, and provides its own set of problems, that are often times encouraged through local state regulations.  There are other agreements as well that cause problems too.  This is not just a UAW problem.

But then Jay goes into some really funky territory, and talks extensively about a post I made a few days ago regarding corruption in government.  As a quick aside, the comment thread on that post has taken on quite a life of its own, so you might want to revisit it if you haven't in a while.  As Jay explains, workers need unions because not only can corruption occur in government, but it can also occur in corporations.  And how dare we try to break the right of workers to collectively bargain and get what they deserve from the evil corporations!  After all, CEO pay has skyrocketed!  The loley auto workers are only trying to get their fair share!

And so you see, we are back to the classic battle of the evil CEO and the poor worker I mentioned earlier.  Now then, I could try to explain how labor unions devalue individual work, and create disincentives for improvement.  And I would have a hard time arguing that CEO's often times are corrupt and in times like this, should take a pay cut for the good of their company.  I could also bring up that the UAW is somewhat unique in that it allows retired workers to still vote, which often times skews benefits away from the good of the company, to the good of retirees at the cost of company health.  But in the end, none of that matters.

Perhaps both the UAW and the CEO's of those companies were cutting off their noses to spite their faces.  Why do I, the taxpayer, have any responsibility to come in and rescue them?  Because as soon as you talk about a taxpayer bailout Jay, it's no longer the UAW demanding their fair share from the corporation and the stockholders... no... now they are demanding a share from me... the taxpayer!  That's a big difference.  When I talk about corruption in government, I do so with the knowledge that when they come to tax me, or enforce a law, they do so at the point of a gun.  I cannot refuse to pay my taxes, nor can I resist the police if they believe I broke a law, no matter how insane and contrived that law is.  If I do those things, I'm potentially dead.

If the unions demand something from the company, and they get it, and the company is still able to be profitable... good for them.  But if they demand too much, and/or the company is also poorly run, then the company should either go away, or go under restructuring.  That is how capitalism and markets work.  If I think you make a poor product or it's overvalued, then I don't buy it.  While I may not be able to refuse to pay my taxes, I can refuse to buy a car made by an American company.  This bailout says that I have no choice... either I buy your car, or you take my tax money.  The UAW is saying they have a right to work for that specific company, and the company is saying it has a right to exist.  I say neither right exists.

And then of course Jay goes on to talk about the Employee Free Choice Act... otherwise known as Card Check.  Essentially what this does, is to "simplify" the process of forming a union in a company by bypassing a secret ballot vote, and simply allowing the majority of employees to sign their time card.  Those time cards of course are freely viewable by all employees, managers, and those wishing to form the union.  By removing these secret ballots, it allows extreme pressure to brought to bear on employees who don't sign, but also allows retaliation against those who do (if the overall measure fails).

And so you see... it all boils down to choice.  People chose to buy foreign cars (for whatever reason), and now Jay wants to make sure I have no choice but to bail out a company.

The White House has issued the following statement regarding the Senate's failure to pass the Big 2.5 bailout:

Under normal economic conditions, we would prefer that markets determine the ultimate fate of private firms.  However, given the current weakened state of the U.S. economy, we will consider other options if necessary -- including use of the TARP program to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers.  A precipitous collapse of this industry would have a severe impact on our economy, and it would be irresponsible to further weaken and destabilize our economy at this time.

While the federal government may need to step in to prevent an immediate failure, the auto companies, their labor unions, and all other stakeholders must be prepared to make the meaningful concessions necessary to become viable.

In other words... Fuck Congress... I'm going to do it anyway.  The TARP program, while hated by many including me, actually did include provisions which said that it was only to be used to bailout companies that were involved in the financial industry.  The Big 2.5 don't meet that criteria.  Therefore, using that money for that purpose would be illegal.  I would suggest that if any money's are given to the Big 2.5, George Bush immediately be arrested and tried for breaking Federal Law, and sent to a Federal "Pound Me In the Ass" Prison.

But of course... that won't happen... which may be the ultimate goal of Congress' failure to act.  There are many in Congress who are fearful of their constituents if they voted for the auto bailout.  Unfortunately Paul Ryan wasn't fearful enough.  But most in Congress still would like to see it done.  Not because they feel it will actually help those companies survive.  Rather, they want them under their thumb, so they can push other politically popular ideas on them against their will.  But how do they do it, without being blamed...

And they figured it out.  Bush has already shown so much disdain for the rule of law, and the limits of executive power, that everyone knew that if Congress failed to pass the bill, he would do exactly this.  And so Congress gets to have it both ways.  They get their bailout, George Bush takes the blame, and the taxpayers get screwed.

I'm sure there are some that would argue then that Ryan was going a good thing by voting for the bill in the House.  After all, that inserts some kind of accountability, where now there will be none.  You see Nick, he was doing good!  Voting for a bill that should never be passed, because you fear the King will do it anyway, is not reason to vote for something.  It is reason to hold the King accountable for breaking the law.  That is the appropriate response... not buckling in to his demands, which have no legal, or Constitutional basis.

Of course, John Washburn was saying all this months ago.

Last night, the House voted to pass the bailout bill of the Big 2.5. Essentially what it does is to provde for "bridge loans" to be made available from funds already made available for other purposes. Some of the money will be coming from the $700 billion bailout (which is not being used to buy illiquid assets any more) and some of the money is coming from a bill having to do with alternative energy. It also creates a "car czar" which will supervise the dispersement of the loans, and also make sure that the car companies are restructuring properly. The bill also requires that the "car czar" is to receive warrants to receive nonvoting or preferred stock in any car company which accepts funds. In other words, more partial nationalization. Some would argue that it's not true nationalization because it's non voting stock... but let's be honest here. Even without the warrants, the "car czar" is going to wield enormous influence over these companies in exchange for the money they will receive. We're nationalizing.

Read on to find out how this will actually harm the people that Paul Ryan thinks he's protecting.