It's time for us to have a really serious discussion... The $26 billion bailout approved today is just the beginning!

Our House members were on their lengthy summer vacation and were called back to do the bidding of Pelosi… What? Why? It is a payback to unions to SOLIDIFY democratic votes in November 2010 and November 2012. It will stock their coffers; the NEA will be sitting on a $50 million dollar cash cushion. Do you remember the blog I posted on July 6, 2010?  [http://apatriotrant.blogspot.com/2010/07/beware-america-next-165-billion-bailout.html ]  Basically, what I said was that collectively, underfunded unions would need $165 billion because they had a shortfall as a consequence to unrealistic pensions promised, great Cadillac health plans ensured, and the union members living longer.  Congress feared, I am sure, that the outcry against, and repercussions resulting from, such a huge bill, from Americans might actually drive them into the streets or to march into their offices and escort them out in DC and in their local districts.  So, what happened here?

Instead, the progressive, socialist liberals or liberal, socialist, progressives, did what they always do.  After all, what is $26 billion?  They passed the $26 billion, and all that will do is anger and make the other "children/supporters (a/k/a unions)" jealous, and cry "foul."  They are, after all, responsible for his being in office.  Do you really think it will stop here?

In the article: Obama Signs $26 Billion Bailout for Cash-Strapped States, let's look at what is really in there: (a) The legislation provides $10 billion to school districts to rehire laid-off teachers or ensure that more teachers won't be let go and (b) another $16 billion would extend for six months increased Medicaid payments to the states.  The most alarming part is that "[S]ome three-fifths of states have already factored in the federal money in drawing up their budgets for the current fiscal year.  The National Governors Association, in a letter to congressional leaders, said the states' estimated budget shortfall for the 2010-12 period is $116 billion..."[1]   Did I mention the "camel-in-the-tent" theory, or the ole "dog-on-the-bed" theory before?

So today, in essence, barf and the democrats solidified their union support and democratic base by rushing through a $26 billion by pulling on your heartstrings about Billy and Sally not having a teacher in the classroom this fall, and by scaring people into believing that there would not be a policeman to respond should they call 9-1-1. This $26 billion bailout for the teachers is the incremental, camel-in-the-tent theory .... incremental, slowly, barely discernable bills, being passed, especially over the summer while we and the House were on summer vacation. But, you can bet your sweet bippy, that the grand total before it is all over, before this future lame duck session becomes the previous 111th Congressional Session, they will have collectively passed $165 billion for union bailouts.

Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn has expressed anger at the bill, and no, it's not partisan outrage. To the contrary, TN passed a balanced budget amendment and has balanced its budget. So TN is now getting punished and being responsible for the bill of those states that spend with complete abandonment and irresponsibility It's coming guys. Go to sleep, and you won't even know it happened.

So America... caught snoozing again and we should all be ashamed! http://apatriotrant.blogspot.com/2010/07/america-you-should-be-asha...

At the same time, this House passed a $600 million Border Security bill which will now go to the Senate for approval. I say too little, too late. Is this to placate the masses? or because they generally think we won't notice what the other hand is doing. Will Americans be so excited that they overlook the excessive union bailout? But look who's expressing disappointment over the bill! The abusive parent… offer or give the child a lollipop and then backhand her when she gets close. Keep them off-guard.

US House passes $600 million border security bill

WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to bolster security along the Mexican border, grappling with the flow of illegal immigrants that has become an explosive issue ahead of November congressional elections.

Democrats hope the measure will be a first step toward comprehensive immigration reform. They ignored Indian outsourcing companies' protests against higher visa fees, which would be imposed as part of the bill to finance the plan.

The Obama administration has urged passage of the $600 million program. Republicans also have been calling for a stronger border controls as well as a crackdown on illegal immigration. The bill passed the House on a voice vote.

But because of a legal technicality, it will have to return to the Senate, even though that chamber has approved an identical measure, before President Obama can sign it into law. The Senate, however, is in its summer recess.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said it was hoped the bill could be passed by "consent" by the end of this week. Such a process would mean the entire Senate would not need to return to Washington, so long as party leaders agree.

The money will fund 1,000 new border patrol agents and 250 customs and border protection officers at points of entry along the southwest border, advocates say. It will also pay for over 250 special immigration enforcement agents, investigators, and intelligence analysts.

BORDER DRONES

The money would also expand the use of unmanned drones to monitor border activities, improve communications among federal agencies and help fund investigations of illegal drug activity at the border.

"This funding is urgently needed to counter the pressures our law enforcement agencies and our border communities currently face," Representative David Price, a Democrat, said.

Obama and many fellow Democrats back a comprehensive reform of immigration policy to tighten border security but also allow the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants working in the United States to get on a path to citizenship.

But House Republicans accused Democrats of bringing up the bill for political gain before the November elections. Representative Jerry Lewis, a Republican, also said it would be paid for by 'questionable' taxes on specific companies.

The bill funds the new measures by raising visa application fees on a select group of companies that operate in the United States. Schumer last week said they were targeted because they take advantage of U.S. law to import workers from abroad.

Senate aides said four companies from India would be affected: Tata (TCS.BO), Infosys (INFY.BO), Wipro (WIPR.BO) and Mahindra Satyam (SATY.BO).

In India, the chief executive of one of the companies said the fees would be passed on to customers. Infosys Technologies' chief executive Senapathy Gopalakrishnan said he felt 'sad and disheartened' by the bill." TOO BAD!! Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1015211620100810

And since I don’t think it’s a popularity contest, I do think it is about hard-line ideologues as Reid eyes security bill for the Senate: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40894.html

And "States Don't Need a Bailout—They Need to Cut Spending" according to U.S. News & World Report’s Carrie Lukas, vice president for Policy and Economics at the Independent Women's Forum:

Those who prefer tax increases to spending cuts rely on the tried-and-true tactic of claiming that any spending reduction will take food from the needy and quality education away from children. That's the justification being used for Congress's latest effort to send the states a $26 billion bailout: Absent the federal money, proponents argue, states will have to fire teachers and other public workers, and children will suffer.

Taxpayers shouldn't buy this logic. State government spending—and, in particular, spending on education—has ballooned in recent years. There is plenty of room to cut without sacrificing essential programs or hurting education quality.

For fiscal year 2011, states are expected to face a combined budget shortfall of about $144 billion. That's a lot of money, but it's important to keep this spending gap in perspective. In the five years between 2003 and 2008 (that's the last year Census had the complete data), state and local governments increased annual spending by more than $500 billion so that total spending reached more than $2 trillion.

The increases between 2003 and 2008 came on top of previous record-setting spending hikes. State and local government spending was $730.5 billion in 1990. Even after adjusting for inflation, the 2008 level of spending represents a 67 percent increase over 1990 levels.

Much of that money was spent on education. In 2006, states and localities spent $728 billion (about 30 percent of their budgets) on education. Of that, $500 billion went specifically to K-12 education. Per pupil spending in the K-12 education system has been rising for decades. Between the 1996-1997 school year and 2006-2007, average per pupil spending increased from $7,891 to $10,041 after adjusting for inflation.

Unfortunately, there is little evidence that this additional spending has bought higher quality education. During the decades of booming education spending, reading achievement has stagnated, math performance has barely improved, and our graduation rate has hovered below 75 percent.

What increased state and local government spending has bought are more government workers. Between 1998 and 2008, the number of full-time equivalent state and local workers grew from 14.5 million to 16.7 million. More than half of those new workers were related to education. Growth in the number of teachers has far outstripped growth in the student population. In 1970, there were 22.3 students per teacher. By 1985, there were 17.9.  And as of 2007, the student-per-teacher ratio reached 15.5.

Yet states and localities didn't just hire more teachers, they also hired more education workers outside of the classroom. In 1998, 5.7 million worked in the public education sector, but 1.7 million of those workers weren't involved in actual instruction. In the next 10 years, governments added another 400,000 workers who weren't involved in instruction at all.

Taxpayers should ask themselves what they get from this bureaucracy. Undoubtedly, there's a lot of paperwork associated with administering the public education system. Yet that shouldn't be an excuse for bloated government. Taxpayers should urge policymakers at all levels of government to find ways to streamline regulations and reporting requirements so that education dollars can be used to educate students.

In the wake of the recent economic crisis, states and local governments have been reducing spending. The National Association of State Budget Officers recently reported that states' general fund spending will be $52 billion (or 7 percent) lower than it was in 2008.  That's a fine start.  But voters should recognize that 2008 isn't an arbitrary baseline—it was the final year of a decades-long state government spending spree. Trimming back from that level is hardly austerity.

No governor or local official wants to cut spending or reduce public sector jobs. Yet the current budget crisis requires an honest look at government finances. States don't need bailouts to preserve bloated budgets. They need to make cuts and return government to a more sensible size. Source: http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/10/states-dont-need-a-bailout-they-need-to-cut-spending.html

So go stand in front of a mirror and say it like you mean it.... “NO MORE BAILOUTS!” Practice it in the mirror, raise your voice and lower the pitch, and then get on your front porch and yell at the top of your lungs, pick up the telephones and scream it to your family friends, and try to educate others. It's only going to get worse during the lame duck session.  After all, they've gotten away with it so far, what will they have to lose?
_____________________

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/10/house-approves-billion-teacher-bailout/