by Tom McClusky
June 8, 2009
POSITION: ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOLS
NOMINEE: Kevin Jennings
Born: Winston-Salem, N.C.
Occupation: Executive Director, and founder, of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
Education: graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College
by Tom McClusky
March 20, 2009
POSITION: DEPUTY DIRECTOR for THE FDA
NOMINEE: Joshua Sharfstein
Born: 1970
Occupation: Commissioner of Health for the City of Baltimore, Maryland
Education: Harvard College, 1991; Harvard Medical School 1996; Residency in pediatrics at Boston City Hospital and Boston Medical Center; completed a special pediatrics fellowship with Boston University
by Tom McClusky
March 13, 2009
POSITION: ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
NOMINEE: Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg
BIRTH DATE: 1955
EDUCATION: She earned her M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and completed her training at the New York Hospital/Cornell University Medical Center.
FAMILY: Husband: Peter Fitzhugh Brown; two children
by Tom McClusky
February 19, 2009
POSITION: HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY
NOMINEE: Kathleen Sebelius
Born: Cincinnati, Ohio, May 15, 1948
Family: Husband, K. Gary Sebelius, and two sons.
Occupation: 44th Governor of Kansas
Education: B.A. Trinity Washington University, Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Kansas.
Work history: Jan 2003-present, Governor of Kansas (term-limited, term ends Jan 2011)
1994-2002, Kansas Insurance Commissioner
1987-1994, Member of the Kansas House of Representatives
1977-1987, Director of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association
1975-1977, Aide with the Kansas Department of Corrections
by Tom McClusky
February 18, 2009
POSITION: WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR
NOMINEE: Ellen Moran
Born: May 1, 1966, in Troy, N.Y., and grew up in Amherst, Mass.
Occupation: Prior to joining White House staff, Moran was executive director of EMILY’s List, where she oversaw the national staff and charted the overall strategic direction of the organization to provide financial assistance to female candidates in the Democratic Party who take liberal pro-choice political stances.
Education: B.A. in political science and English literature from Wheaton College.
Clinton White House: Helped plan both Clinton inaugurals, a staunch advocate for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton through the entire primary season, shifting her support to Mr. Obama only after Mrs. Clinton conceded the Democratic presidential nomination in June, 2009.
by Tom McClusky
February 13, 2009
The House passed the Stimulus bill with all Republicans and 7 Democrats voting against it (except for two Republican absences who would have been NO and one Democrat, Rep. Lipinski, (D-Mich.) who voted PRESENT)
The Democrats voting yes (or switching from the last vote):
5 switched NO to YES: Reps. Boyd (D-Fla.), Cooper (D-Tenn.), Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Kanjorski (D-PA) and Kratovil (D-Md.)
6 stayed NO: Rep. Bright (D-Ala.), Griffith (D-Ala.), Minnick (D-Id.), Peterson (D-Minn.), Shuler (D-N.C.) and Taylor D-Miss.)
1 switched YES to NO: DeFazio (D-Or.)
Representative Boehner gave an impassioned speech (no crying though) on the House floor, you can watch it here
Senate update:
The Senate will vote at 5:30 pm tonight on the Stimulus Conference Report. The vote will be on a motion to waive the budget point of order (must achieve 60 votes) and under the order the vote on the motion to waive will count as final passage of the conference report.
Keep in mind this vote will be held open for a bit in order for all Members to have a chance to record their vote.
by Tom McClusky
February 10, 2009
POSITION: ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE
(Energy and Environment Czar, new position created by President Obama to coordinate energy and climate policy regulations)
NOMINEE: Carol M. Browner
BIRTH DATE: December 16, 1955 in Miami, FL
EDUCATION:
B.A. in English 1977, University of Florida, Gainesville
J.D. 1979; University of Florida College of Law
by Tom McClusky
February 10, 2009
POSITION: ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOMINEE: Lisa P. Jackson
BIRTH DATE: February 8, 1962 in Philadelphia, PA; adopted a few weeks later and raised in New Orleans, LA
EDUCATION:
Master’s in Chemical Engineering 1986, Princeton
Bachelor’s Chemical Engineering summa cum laude 1983, Tulane
by Tom McClusky
February 9, 2009
The substitute “compromise” made cloture* tonight with a vote of 61-36. Beyond the Terrible Trio (Senators Collins (R-Me.), Snowe (R-Me.) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.)) no Republicans voted for the measure. No Democrats voted against cloture. Senator Cornyn (R-Tex.) missed the vote, but one can safely assume he would have voted against it, and Senator Gregg abstained because he is going to be the next Commerce Secretary (I am assuming he is getting a head start on abstaining from all fiscal responsibility for the next four years.)
From the Senate: “Under the previous order, at 12:00pm tomorrow (Tuesday), the bill will be subject to another 60 vote hurdle by either waiving a budget point of order (if it is raised) or a 60 vote threshold on the amendment. If the amendment is agreed to, the Senate will then proceed to final passage of the Stimulus bill.
Majority Leader Reid also said this evening that additional votes on Executive Nominations may occur tomorrow.”
I’ve talked to several offices and between this and the David Ogden nomination Senate offices are getting swamped with phone calls – so keep them coming. It inspires those on our side and sends a strong message to those who are not.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a new estimate tonight on the “compromise.” CBO estimates that the package will cost $838.2 billion (not including interest which puts it over a trillion dollars). This is $18.7 billion more than the House-passed bill.
I also updated the greatest quotes (HERE) with the help of some FRC and Senate staffers.
*Cloture is the process by which debate can be limited in the Senate without unanimous consent. When invoked by roll call vote – three-fifths of those present and voting – it limits each senator to one hour of debate.
by Tom McClusky
February 9, 2009
POSTION: SOLICITOR GENERAL
NOMINEE: Elena Kagan
Born: April 28, 1960
Occupation: Dean of Harvard Law School and Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law at Harvard University.
Education: BA summa cum laude, Princeton University, 1981; MPhil, Worchester College, Oxford, 1983; JD magna cum laude, Harvard Law School, 1986
Clinton White House: 1995-1996 associate counsel to the President; 1997-1999 deputy assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; 1997-1999 deputy director Domestic Policy Council.
NOTE: From 1986 to 1987 Ms. Dean Kagan served as a judicial clerk for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. From 1987-1988 she also served as a judicial clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Dean Kagan briefly served as a staff member for Michael Dukakis’s presidential campaign. During the summer of 1993 she served as Special Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee to work on the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
HOMOSEXUAL ISSUES
Gays in the Military
“Last year candidate Barack Obama repeatedly opined that students should have military service opportunities on campus. However, President Obama’s nominee for solicitor general, Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, believes the military should be barred from campus. In fact, she fought all the way to the United States Supreme Court, trampling on students’ constitutional rights all the way there, in order to deny qualified students the opportunity to serve our country . . . Kagan’s staunch ideological opposition to the military and providing qualified students the opportunity to serve puts her well outside of the mainstream. Even Bill Clinton, who dodged a military draft during Vietnam, signed the law Kagan opposes, the Solomon amendment, with overwhelming congressional and public support.
Solomon, simply put, seeks to facilitate voluntary military service by asking colleges and universities to allow students to meet with military recruiters on campus and to participate in the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC). Schools whose policies or practices obstruct students from taking part are ineligible for federal funding.
Yet, Kagan, who has categorized the law as “immoral” at a 2003 Harvard student forum, argued in support of the position of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the so-called FAIR coalition, claiming elite schools have a right to taxpayer largesse while simultaneously barring the military – a radical view the Supreme Court unanimously struck down . . . Yet, leftwing views like Kagan’s still disparage the sacrifices our military makes and cause real, quantifiable harm to students and to our nation at taxpayer expense. According to Harvard’s annual financial statements, the school received $473 million of our hard-earned dollars during the 2003-4 school year, while FAIR, with Kagan’s help, won an injunction against the military in the Third Circuit. Harvard took another $511 million during the following school year and, for 2005-6, $517 million more as the Supreme Court heard and rejected FAIR’s claims.
Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer and centerpiece of the liberals’ high court coalition, couldn’t find a way to justify these spurious, anti-student claims and recognized Congress’ ability to condition taxpayer spending.” Flagg Youngblood, “Solicitor General Flimflam,” The Washington Times, January 30, 2009.
Hate Crimes
Believes courts should support hate crime laws and that when reviewing regulations of speech, courts could “evaluate motive directly, they could remove the lion’s share of the First Amendment’s doctrinal clutter.” Elena Kagan, Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Government Motive in First Amendment Doctrine, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 413, 516 (1996).
“In her 1993 University of Chicago Law Review piece, she wrote that proposed regulations on hate speech and pornography failed to adhere to the fundamental First Amendment principle of viewpoint neutrality – that the government cannot favor certain private speakers or viewpoints over others. Her 1996 article on government motive in First Amendment cases has been cited more than 115 times – an enviably high number for a secondary source. In that article she declares that “the application of First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting.” David Hudson, Jr., “Solicitor-general nominee: impressive First Amendment resume,” FirstAmendmentcenter.org.
On Questioning of Presidential Nominees
“Kagan herself has called for the Senate to use confirmation hearings “to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues.” In her 1995 review (62 U. Chi. L. Rev. 919) of Stephen L. Carter’s The Confirmation Mess, Kagan argues that the “critical inquiry” that the Senate should conduct on a Supreme Court nominee “concerns the votes she would cast, the perspective she would add (or augment), and the direction in which she would move the institution.” Kagan draws as “the fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings … the essential rightness-the legitimacy and the desirability-of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.”
Although Carter’s book and Kagan’s review focus heavily on Supreme Court nominees, they also address DOJ nominations (especially Clinton’s 1993 nomination, subsequently withdrawn, of Lani Guinier to be AAG for Civil Rights), and Kagan’s view of the Senate’s role applies fully to those (and other executive-branch) nominations. That, of course, is hardly surprising, as the case for careful scrutiny of the legal views of DOJ nominees, even if combined with greater deference to the president, seems widely accepted.” Ed Whelan, “Obama’s SG Pick Elena Kagan,” NRO’s The Corner, January 7, 2009.
MISCELLANEOUS
Despite being asked to be America’s Solicitor General, who argues cases before the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan has never argued before the Supreme Court. In fact, she has never litigated a case to verdict or trial.
by Tom McClusky
February 7, 2009
Friend from the Hill sends the following:
On Saturday the Senate will be in session from 12:00 – 3:00 pm for members to speak and there will be no roll call votes. Also on Saturday cloture will be filed on the Collins/Nelson amendment and the cloture vote on the amendment will occur on Monday at 5:30 pm. If cloture is invoked on the amendment post cloture time will run until noon on Tuesday. At noon on Tuesday the bill will be subject to another 60 vote hurdle by either waiving a budget point of order or achieving 60 votes on final passage.
The Senate will not be in session on Sunday.
Why is Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in the Senate taking so long in building bipartisan support to pass the bill instead of just passing it without Republican support like Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats in the House did? Well one, the Democrats in the Senate do not yet have 60 Members to defeat any filibuster from the Republicans and secondly, as the blog Hot Air points out, a new CBS poll shows “eighty-one percent of Americans say the stimulus bill should be a bipartisan effort. Just 13 percent think it is okay for a bill to be passed with only the backing of the Democratic majority.”
This new bill still has a good chance of passing, especially if liberal spending Republican Senators like Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), Susan Collins (R-Me.) and Olymia Snowe (R-Me.) vote for the bill. So please contact your Senators today. The phones have been lighting up so you might have to try a few times. Many of the problems we have documented (religious institutions, money to ACORN, etc.) remain in the new bill.
Some news reports are calling the new Senate legislation a streamlined bill. Mark Hemmingway over at the Corner has a list of a few of the cuts – however the bill is still full of pork and payoffs. Additionally the Senate Republican Policy Committee have sent around numbers disputing that this bill is more frugal:
Cost of deal: $780 billion
Cost of amendments added on the floor: $47 billion
Total cost of Senate bill: $827 billion
Total estimated cost with interest: $1.2 trillion
Senate bill is $7.5 billion higher than the House bill
Additionally, as Senate Minority Leader Mith McConnell (R-Ky.) points out “According to the figures I’ve been given, the House bill is about $820 billion. The Senate bill, under the compromise, we believe, would be about $827 billion. Bear in mind the interest costs on either of those proposals would be $348 billion. So we’re really talking about a $1.1 trillion pending measure.”
by Tom McClusky
February 7, 2009
Darned If You Do, Darned If You Don’t
“Because if we don’t move swiftly to put this plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe.” President Barack Obama’s weekly radio address, February 7th.
“President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Wednesday.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.” Stephen Dinan, “CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over the Longhaul.” Washington Times, February 4th, 2009.
Hey Wait a Second! What Happened to That Guy Always Talking About “Hope”?
“Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.” President Barack Obama, “The Action America Needs,” Washington Post, February 5, 2009.
Bye Bye Bipartisanship?
“Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) commenting on the attempt to get Republican support for the legislation in the Senate.
It All Depends on What Your Definition of Stimulus Is
“So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point.” President Barack Obama at the House Democratic Caucus Annual Issues Conference in Williamsburg, VA.
Spending Cuts Shmending Cuts
“These cuts are very damaging — [the House bill] was put together very carefully.” . . .
“The new Senate cuts, if passed, ‘will do violence to the future,’ said Pelosi.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on spending cuts in the Senate version of the legislation.
“Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, told reporters he and others hoped that some of the funds on the chopping block would be restored next week when negotiations open on a House-Senate compromise.” “Tentative Deal on Senate Stimulus Bill”, Associated Press, February 6, 2009.
Shortest Night EVER
“So it is 6:15 tonight and I would hope in the next 12 hours we could have a piece of legislation we will feel good about it after working on the many hours that we have worked … There isn’t a single senator who has come to this floor who hasn’t said that this economy is in deep trouble, and we have to do something to fix it. And my comment was I hope we can do that. And that’s the reason I’ve said we’ve got to work the night.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on the Senate floor Thursday, February 5th.
“We’re going to stop legislating tonight” Senator Reid less then three hours later.
Short But to the Point Award
“So what.” House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) in response to a question on NPR’s “Morning Edition” about the perceived lack of direction from Congress as to how money in the stimulus should be spent.
Party of Personal (Shifting of) Responsibility
“The person who spends the money badly will be responsible (not the U.S. Congress).” House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) on the lack of direction of where exactly the money should go in the bill.
Finally, Something We Can All Agree On
“Regardless of what we do, there will be some stupid decisions made.” House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) on lack of oversight of spending in the bill.
I Don’t Think Neil Kinnok Will Claim Authorship of This Speech
“Anybody remember a time when we’re talking about, if we don’t make some real changes, deficits that are a trillion two hundred billion dollars a year for as far as the eye can see, if we don’t, ah, get it right, which you guys have already?” Vice President Joe Biden remarks at the House Democratic Caucus Annual Issues Conference in Williamsburg, VA. It appears he was starting to talk about the deficit and then realized he was talking to a crowd that just greatly increased the deficit. Politico reports “(d)uring the speech, some members read newspapers or checked BlackBerrys in the warm conference room.”
It’s Tiring Spending All Your Money
“My staff is worn out, working around the clock. So is David Obey’s staff. So is Nancy Pelosi’s staff.” President Barack Obama at the House Democratic Caucus Annual Issues Conference in Williamsburg, VA.
“Man am I tired. Working all day to find enough R votes to get this thing to conference. I confess I’m cranky.” Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) twittering on the Senate negotiations.
Joe the (Lousy) Oddsmaker
“If we do everything right. We do it with absolute certainty . . .there is still a thirty percent chance we are going to get it wrong.” Vice President Joe Biden remarks at the House Democratic Caucus Annual Issues Conference in Williamsburg, VA.
Maybe She Was Talking About In All 57 States?
“Every month we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) The latest census numbers show the U.S. population is 303 million.
Easing Families Burdens by Eliminating Them
“One of the elements of this package is assistance to the states. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, defending giving millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood as “stimulus.”
It’s All Bush’s Fault
“I do think that there was some spending in the bill that was makeup for a starvation diet under the Bush administration, some important priorities of our party” Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) on why there was a lot of bloated spending in the so called stimulus bill.
This Guy Could Almost Make Me Miss Lincoln Chafee. Almost
“If a city needs tree planting and that brings real jobs and it puts people and their trucks and their trees and their nurserymen to work, and if it provides shade, and it provides greenness, and if it absorbs carbon, and if it engages in traffic calming, there are all sorts of good reasons why people would want to do that.” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) speaking against Coburn amendment 309 that prohibited stimulus funds from being spent on any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project.
by Tom McClusky
February 3, 2009
Position: Secretary of Defense
NOMINEE: Robert Michael Gates
BIRTHDATE: Born: September 25, 1943 (age 65)
PERSONAL INFORMATION: Boy Scout & Eagle Scout; (Former president of the National Eagle Scout Association), 2007: Time Magazine named Gates as one of the most influential people,
2008: Named one of America’s Best Leaders by U.S. News & World Report
Political party: Independent/ Republican
EDUCATION: Georgetown University (Ph.D. Russian and Soviet History), Indiana University (M.A. History), College of William & Mary (B.A. European History)
FAMILY: Spouse Becky Gates (Married 1966); Two Children: Bradley & Eleanor
FRC SCORECARD: N/A
EXPERIENCE:
1966: Recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency as a graduate student at Indiana University
1967-1969: Intelligence Officer, United States Air Force
1969: Central Intelligence Agency
1974: White House National Security Council (President Ford)
1979: Central Intelligence Agency: Director of the Strategic Evaluation Center
1981: Central Intelligence Agency: Director of the DCI/DDCI Executive Staff
1982: Deputy Director Central Intelligence Agency (President Reagan)
1989: National Security Advisor to the President (President George H.W. Bush)
1991: Director of Central Intelligence Agency (President George H.W. Bush)
1993-1999: Lecture Circuit
1999-2001: Interim Dean of the George Bush School of Government & Public Service at Texas A & M University
2002-2006: President of Texas A & M University
December 18, 2006: 22nd Secretary of Defense
BOOK: 1996, Gates’ autobiography, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War.
AWARDS/DECORATIONS:
National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal (2 awards)
Distinguished Intelligence Medal (3 awards)
Distinguished Eagle Scout Award
Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from College of William and Mary
College of William and Mary Alumni Association – Alumni Medallion
Corps of Cadets Hall of Honor (First Non-Corps Honoree) – Texas A&M University
George Bush Award (2007) – George Bush Presidential Library Foundation
COMMENTS/NOTES HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY
Secretary Gates has not expressed a personal opinion on President Obama’s proposal to repeal the law which excludes homosexuals from the military. In March 2007, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sparked controversy by telling the Chicago Tribune, “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it’s OK to be immoral in any way.” Gates responded in an interview on the Pentagon Channel, saying, “Now look, you know I think personal opinion really doesn’t have a place here. What’s important is that we have a law, a statute that governs ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ . . . That’s the policy of this department, and it’s my responsibility to execute that policy as effectively as we can. As long as the law is what it is, that’s what we’ll do.” [Source]
According to National Public Radio, “Senior Pentagon officials privately said the defense secretary summoned Pace to his office after the comments came to light, and demanded he put out a statement.” Pace did so, stating, “In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct. I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral view.” Three months later, Gates announced he was replacing Gen. Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs rather than renominating him, expressing concern about a “divisive ordeal” that would have focused on the “past rather than the future.” [Source]
In the spring of 2008, it was reported by Politico that “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced to intervene with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in order to get Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s domestic partner on a military flight for a congressional fact-finding trip to Europe. . . Under House guidelines, members of Congress may take their spouses with them on military flights,” but “military officials were apparently unwilling to consider Azar a ’spouse.’” A Pentagon spokesman insisted that the travel rules are set by the House, not the Pentagon, and that the decision to waive the normal spousal requirement rested with Pelosi, not Gates: “Secretary Gates honored a request from Speaker Pelosi to make an exception to the House rules.”
Secretary Gates was also the named defendant in a court case seeking to overturn the law barring homosexuals from the military, but the Department of Justice actually handled the case in court. On June 9, 2008, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the current law in Cook v. Gates. [Source]
by Tom McClusky
February 3, 2009
CBO estimates that the Senate version of the so-called stimulus plan will top at least $1.1 trillion. Trying to wrap my mind around that I found some interesting figures what you 
could get with a trillion dollars. Some examples:
If you stack up $1,000 bills, $1 trillion would need a pile that is 80 miles high.
$ 1 trillion is more than the combined gross revenues of Wal Mart, Exxon, General Motors and Ford Motors.
Assuming the United States consumes about 17 billion barrels of oil a year and assuming the cost of a barrel of oil is about $65, a trillion dollars will buy an entire year’s worth of oil for the USA.
You could buy a thousand Queen Mary 2 with accommodations for 2,620 passengers
With a population of approximately 300 million people, you could give away $1 trillion by giving every man, woman and child in the U.S. $ 3,400 each.
We could buy everyone on Earth an iPod.
We could pave the entire U.S. interstate highway system with 23.5-karat gold leaf.
We could buy 16.6 million Habitat for Humanity houses
We could hire 1.9 million additional teachers
In my search I found a great website that helps you buy luxury and charitable items trying to add up to a trillion dollars. It was based on the spending involved with the Iraq War, but it works with out of control spending too. Here is the list I came up with:
You could buy:
8,700 Porsche 911 Turbos ($126,000 each): $1,097,940,000
New York Yankees: $1,200,000,000
New York Mets: $482,000,000
Every NFL Franchise: $8,600,000,000
Dracula’s Romanian castle: $140,000,000
1,000 60SE Lear jets ($11,595,000 each): $11,595,000,000
Denver International Airport: $4,822,000,000
10 Picasso’s (113,400,000 each): $1,134,000,000
Hard Rock Casino in Vegas: $770,000,000
Hong Kong Disneyland: $3,500,000,000
South Pacific Island of Katafanga: $38,900,000
Buy the whole world 100 cans of Coke: $650,000,000,000
Buy 50 Super bowl ads ($2,600,000 each): $130,000,000
Build 1,001 Habitat for Humanity houses (at $60,000 each): $600,060,000
Build 2,000 miles of Metro rail ($150,000,000 per a mile of track): $300,000,000,000
Build 250 hospitals in Third World nations ($41,300,000 each): $10,325,000,000
Produce your own Hollywood movie: $150,000,000
Buy the Maltese Falcon, the world’s most expensive yacht: $100,000,000
Buy 2 Napa Valley wineries ($34,000,000 each): $68,000,000
Buy 26 McDonalds’ franchises ($1,000,000 each): $26,000,000
———————————————————————–
Total: $1,000,000,000,000
Try it yourself here
by Tom McClusky
February 2, 2009
POSITION: DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
NOMINEE: David Ogden
Born: November 12, 1953
Family: Wife, Anne Harkavy, and three children.
Occupation: partner at the Washington, D.C. firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, co-running the firm’s Government and Regulatory Litigation Practice Group.
Education: B.A. summa cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania, 1976; J.D. magna cum laude in 1981 from Harvard Law School
Clinton White House: 1994-1995, Deputy General Counsel and the Legal Counsel for the United States Department of Defense; 1995 – 1997, Associate Deputy Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice; 1997 – 1998, Counselor to the United States Attorney General; 1998 – 1999, chief of staff to the United States Attorney General; 1999 – 2000, Acting Assistant Attorney General; 2000 – 2001, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division in the United States Department of Justice.
On Abortion
In a brief for the American Psychological Association in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he wrote: “Abortion rarely causes or exacerbates psychological or emotional problems. When women do experience regret, depression, or guilt, such feelings are mild and diminish rapidly without adversely affecting general functioning. The few women who do experience negative psychological responses after abortion appear to be those with preexisting emotional problems ….”
Ogden also wrote: “In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects ….”
[Source]
Opposed Parental Notification by 14-year olds
In Hartigan v. Zbaraz, 484 U.S. 171 (1987), Ogden co-authored a brief for the American Psychological Association arguing that parental notification was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old adolescent girls seeking an abortion. Excerpts:
“There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental.” (p. 10).
“By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make.” (p. 11).
“[E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults.” (p. 18).
[Source]
Miscellaneous Abortion filings
In Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990), Ogden served as counsel to People for the American Way, the National Education Association, and others supporting petitioner’s claim that abortion is a method of family planning that should be eligible for federal funding.
In Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (2003), Ogden co-authored the brief for the respondent NOW and several abortion clinics. They sought permanent injunctive relief under RICO, which was originally aimed at fighting organized mob crime, against pro-life protestors from Operation Rescue and the Pro-Life Action League. Available on WestLaw as 2002 WL 31154781.
See also Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), where Ogden served as counsel of record on behalf of law professors filing an amicus brief supporting Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act and opposing the Ashcroft Directive barring assisted suicide. Available on LexisNexis as 2004 U.S. Briefs 623.
On Homosexuality
In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Ogden served as counsel of record for the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers filing an amicus brief in support of the defendants.
”Of course, families headed by gay couples may encounter particular issues and challenges, much as families of racial and ethnic minority group members, low-income families, and single-parent families do.” (p. 21).
“Although a shift in public opinion concerning homosexuality occurred in the 1990s, hostility towards gay men and lesbians remains common in contemporary American society. Prejudice against bisexuals appears to exist at comparable levels. Discrimination against gay people in employment and housing also appears to remain widespread. The severity of this anti-gay prejudice is reflected in the consistently high rate of anti-gay harassment and violence in American society.” (p. 23-24). [Source]
On Gays in the Military
In Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989), Ogden filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Psychological Association. In it, APA argued “(8) prejudice against lesbians and gay men in the Army is likely to be reduced by encouraging contact between homosexuals and heterosexuals; and (9) there was no rational basis for the Army’s exclusion of gay people.”
[Source]
On Strict Scrutiny for Gay Rights Claims
In an article for the APA, Ogden called for “strict scrutiny” of claims by homosexual persons. American Psychologist, Vol. 46, No. 9, p. 950-956 (September 1991).
[Source]
Pornography and Obscenity
Opposed the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000
In United States v. American Library Association, Ogden served as counsel of record for an amicus brief filed on behalf of fifteen library directors in support of the Association.
“As a condition of receiving federal funds, Congress has – with the Children’s Internet Protection Act … – insisted that public libraries affirmatively censor constitutionally-protected material. By demanding that libraries be censors and devote resources – not to facilitating – but to interfering with patrons’ pursuit of information and ideas, Congress has subverted the role of librarians and public libraries and violated the First Amendment rights of library patrons.” (p. 3).
CIPA “impairs the ability of librarians to aid patrons seeking information.” (p. 11).
[Source]
Challenged the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act
Ogden represented several communications trade associations challenging provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988. He convinced the court that requiring producers of pornographic materials to personally verify that models were over age 18 at the time the materials were made would “burden too heavily and infringe too deeply on the right to produce First Amendment protected material.” American Library Association v. Thornburgh, 713 F.Supp. 469, 477 (D.D.C. 1989).
Representation of Pornographers
Ogden represented Playboy Enterprises, among others, seeking an order forcing the Library of Congress to use taxpayer funds to print Playboy Magazine’s articles in Braille against the express wishes of Congress. American Council for the Blind v. Boorstin, 644 F.Supp. 811 (1986). Ogden represented Playboy Enterprises seeking an injunction against the inclusion of Playboy in a list of pornographic magazines that would potentially be included in the Meese Commission report. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Meese, 746 F.Supp. 154 (D.D.C. 1990). Ogden represented a mail-order pornography distributor with a nation-wide business who complained of an allegedly unconstitutional multi-district prosecution strategy by the Department of Justice. P.HE., Inc., v. United States Department of Justice, 743 F.Supp. 15 (D.D.C. 1990) and United States v. P.H.E., Inc., 965 F.2d 848 (10th Cir. 1992).
Ogden has filed numerous amicus briefs in pornography and obscenity cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, including Knox v. United States, 510 U.S. 375 (1993) (on behalf of the ACLU and others); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989) (on behalf of mail-order pornography distributor P.H.E., Inc.); Virginia v. American Booksellers Association, 484 U.S. 383 (1988) (on behalf of the Freedom to Read Foundation); Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987) (on behalf of the ACLU and P.H.E., Inc.). See also Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987) (on behalf of Playboy Enterprises, Inc., and the American Booksellers Association).
On Judicial Activism
“Sen. Sessions: I was concerned about your comments on judicial activism or the meaning of our Constitution and how it ought to be interpreted in an article you wrote back in July 1986 concerning the Bowers case in Georgia . . .
‘Constitutional interpretation cannot be limited to ascertain the way a particular law would have been viewed by the Framers. While constitutional principles do not change, the society and individuals in whom they are applied do, and our knowledge about that society and those individuals improves with time.’
Then you noted the changing social context is as much a part of the constitutional issues to be decided as the statute itself because to ignore it is to fail in the court’s basic task, adapting the great outlines of the Constitution to the particular problems of each generation, and then you went on to make some other comments.” Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, 106th Congress August 4, 1999.
[Source]
Tobacco Litigation
Was a major player in the Clinton Administration’s efforts to profit from the numerous court cases against tobacco companies and releasing a statement on the day the suit was announced [Source]. He also testified before Congress in 2001 stating he believed the government had a strong case because of the tobacco industry’s “long-standing conspiracy to defraud the American public.”
[Source]
by Tom McClusky
February 2, 2009
In responding (as I was asked to) to Steven Waldman’s posting on Beliefnet.com it is easy to know where to start. It would be at the original title, “Why Pro-lifers Hate Family Planning,” which can be described mildly as inflammatory. It has since been changed to “Why Many Pro-lifers Oppose Family Planning,” which, at best, is less rabble-rousing. Taken with the rest of the post one could easily draw the conclusion that supporting family planning can only be defined as supporting taxpayer funding of condoms. But what of abstinence? Or natural family planning? While many religions are opposed to condoms, there are a few who are not, however still religious organizations are pretty active on family planning – be it pregnancy care centers, churches with abstinence and pre-marital and marital counseling, abstinence programs, etc. Most religious conservatives, in my opinion, are more unified in opposing federal involvement. With sheckles come shackles.
The rest of the post does seem to try to draw a balance, though I do disagree with the premise “that there is evidence that government financed family planning does reduce abortions” – which seems to have at its base a quote from Planned Parenthood’s research arm, the Guttmacher Institute. However Guttmacher’s own numbers seem to dispute their quote. Many major cities have been seeing an increase of both pregnancy and abortion, despite also having liberal rules and regulations on family planning. Take New York City, which has liberalized sex education and even has its own brand of condom. In New York State 1/3 of the pregnancies result in induced abortion. Additionally the state rate of abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age is almost double the national rate. It does not stop there, in New York City, rates for teenage pregnancy far exceed the national averages and the city “remains the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, with youths, the poor, and minorities increasingly – and unevenly – affected by the disease.”
Finally Mr. Waldman points out that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest promoter of abortion, “also provides prenatal care that prevents infant death and birth control that stops unintended pregnancies.” While how much of this counseling and care is actually done by Planned Parenthood is disputed, what of the other groups that do not promote abortion, like pregnancy care centers, that because of their opposition to abortion, do not accept federal funds under the Title X program that distributes them? These pro-life pregnancy care centers, if they accepted Title X funds, would be forced by the federal government to include referring for abortions as part of their pre-natal care – thanks to a regulation passed by President Clinton and never rescinded by President George W. Bush. Additionally pregnancy care centers, unlike Planned Parenthood, do not spend tens of millions of dollars to elect pro-abortion politicians or overturn popular incremental pro-life laws like parental consent.
How much more could these pregnancy care centers do if they received the millions in subsidies that U.S. taxpayers are currently giving to Planned Parenthood? The question isn’t why do pro-lifers hate family planning but more why does Planned Parenthood hate family planning that creates families?
by Tom McClusky
February 1, 2009
During the campaign there was a lot of talk from the Obama campaign that he would usher in a new era of open and honest government. In fact on the ethics page of his website there is this little tidbit:
Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
Then how does he explain the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which Heritage correctly describes as a payoff to trial lawyers? According to the Congressional website THOMAS the Lilly Ledbetter Act was passed by the Senate on January 22, then passed by the House of Representatives on January 27 and signed into law by President Obama two days later.
I searched the White House website and there was no five day “waiting period” before President Obama signed the legislation into law, and certainly no explanation that this trial lawyers’ dream of a bill is “emergency” legislation.
There is a section of the White House website on the bill that asks for comments – but I am told by people in the White House it did not go up till two hours AFTER the bill was signed!
by Tom McClusky
January 30, 2009
While the homosexual lobby suffered some losses last year they are not resting on their laurels and neither should we.
In Texas last week, a homosexual Dallas man filed for divorce from his partner in Dallas County’s 302nd District Court. The couple “married” in 2006 when they lived in Massachusetts. Up in Maine, on the heels of the homosexual lobby group GLAD’s vow to redefine marriage throughout New England, forces are gathering to defeat a legislative measure that would legalize homosexual marriage in the Pine Tree State. In the state of Hawaii, where in 1998 nearly 70 percent of Hawaii voters supported traditional marriage when they passed a constitutional amendment that gave the state legislature the authority to reserve marriage to one man and one woman, is now seeking to redefine marriage by passing “marriage lite,” or civil unions.
Two states that saw marriage victories in 2008 are still fighting back forces that seek to undermine families. In California a federal judge has denied a request to keep names of donors to the state’s marriage protection amendment secret. An updated list of late donors is to be released Monday. This is of great concern for we witnessed both during and after the marriage amendment debate in California donors in support of marriage faced vandalism, losing their jobs and other forms of thuggery. Meanwhile in Arizona, a new initiative drive seeks to give homosexual Arizonans civil partnerships or counterfeit marriage.
Pro-family advocates are not just sitting around waiting for the other side to attack. Just an example of the many pro-marriage initiatives include the state of Wyoming seeking to pass a marriage amendment in their state and the city council of Sioux City, Iowa looking to pass a resolution defining marriage for their city.
For more information on what is going on in your state and what you can do about it please contact your state family policy council listed here.
by Tom McClusky
January 29, 2009
When you have a huge bill like Hr. 1, the so-called stimulus bill, sometimes it takes a while for things to come out. I’ve found some updates on political pork being directed towards the
author of the bill’s, Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), son. Also the unions are given a sweet deal and, in what could possibly be called a bailout for the porn industry, the National Science Foundation gets $1.2 billion.
Read the updated list here.
by Tom McClusky
January 28, 2009
We have a new contender for my favorite Congressman of the 111th Congress, not sure if this is in time for Wesley Snipes though (my new nominee for Treasury Secretary):
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 27, 2009
New Bill Would Eliminate All IRS Penalties and Interest for U.S. Citizens
Congressman John Carter to introduce “Rangel Rule” Legislation Wednesday
(Washington, DC) – U.S. Rep. John Carter (R-TX) will introduce new legislation tomorrow to eliminate all penalty and interest charges by the Internal Revenue Service against U.S. citizens. The bill is designed to provide the same treatment for all U.S. taxpayers owing back taxes as that enjoyed by House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY).
Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society.
