State O'the Union

OK, to pick up on yesterday's rant...

1) The root cause is the mortgage problem with the banks. Let's fix that first before we throw a TRILLION a the problem. It kills me how first Bush, now Obama, took their eyes off of this ball. If they get the banks on their feet and the economy is still in the shitter, then let's talk about stimulus. But if credit is tight because the banks still are carrying bad paper, how are businesses going to get the money to start on these projects (and, no, I'd rather not give them their money upfront)? Besides, all of this federal money is a disincentive for local/state governments to have their financial act together. This isn't the end of days that those petulant republicans think it is, but we are clearly putting the cart before the horse. Remember, we're not really throwing a trillion at it, it's TWO trillion because of the interest. I think by then government checks should just be written by China.

2) If Bobby Jindal is the next best thing for the Republicans, they are fucked. He's got nothing and he's a hypocrite. What a fucking embarrassment. First, considering how serious the republicans were about Bush's photo-ops (y'know, great lighting with backgrounds with the four words he was supposed to repeat) they screwed the pooch on this one having Jindal walk in through a dark room at the guv's mansion in Baton Rouge. If he's so popular, why not have him in front of a large (and loudly drunk) crowd in Jackson Square? Especially on Fat Tuesday? His sing-song delivery and 5 word sentences made it sound like his speech was written to only be heard by Bush.

Second, when he said that New Orleans was being rebuilt using private money I just about spit my dinner on the TV. More than $127 billion has been spent there. I'm not saying it's been spent wisely, but still. I look forward to his next budget that has the fine citizens of Louisiana rebuilding their levees instead of the Army Corps of Engineers.

Third, he had the balls to say, "In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear because our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust -- and rightly so." This was immediately followed by, "Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican governors, I say: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We will do so by standing up for the principles that we share -- the principles you elected us to fight for -- the principles that built this into the greatest, most prosperous country on Earth." What are those principles? If they were so great, why couldn't you follow them in the first place? Eight years wasn't enough to correct your course? Like any kid, he's not apologizing for what they did (and isn't 3 months a bit short to keep those dumbasses out of office?), but for getting caught.

3) If Obama wants to get the budget balanced he needs to get us out of Iraq and forget this folly in Afghanistan. Also, and I realize that as a percentage of the budget it is tiny, he's got to keep the earmarks out of future bills as he did with the stimulus legislation. It will restore people's faith in government and get some of the McCain voters off of his ass. I'm torn on this idea of having a budget that projects 10 years out. On one hand, clearly the government needs to plan that way, but it seems goofy that a budget would be based on the behavior (partially) of at least the next president, and maybe the next two.

One health care, he's pushing an idea that calls for evidenced-based reimbursements. What this means is that the government will only pay docs and hospitals for performing procedures that have been clinically proven to be the most effective (for instance, using post heart attack drugs instead of stents). So, the republicans who are (supposedly) in favor of streamlined government would be all for this, right? Uh, no. See, even if the government insists on the most effective treatment, the republicans think that this is feds interferring with your health care? WTF? See, it's not just Bush who was anti-science. I'm sure that all the pharma and medical device money they get has nothing to do with it.