This is too funny! (hat tip – Powerline)
Sen. Cornyn’s tally on the Feingold Censure Resolution.
Results of Feingold Censure Resolution (S.Res. 398): Day 2
Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0
al Qaeda communications intercepted by Feingold Resolution: 0
Terror attacks prevented by Feingold Resolution: 0
– U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee and member of the Judiciary Committee said,
“I have taken a long and serious look at the legal authorities governing the NSA program that is the focus of this hearing. It is misleading to characterize the NSA program as some sort of broad-based ‘domestic’ spying on U.S. citizens. The NSA program is narrowly focused. It targets the international communications of al Qaeda in an effort to connect the dots and prevent another 9/11.”
I just saw this on the FOX News Channel news scroll and laughed. Unfortunately, it sounds like the town got cold feet and watered down the original language.
NH Town Votes on Justice Souter’s House – Forbes.com
In a largely symbolic gesture, voters in Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s hometown weighed in Tuesday on a proposal to seize his 200-year-old farmhouse as payback for a ruling that expanded government’s authority to take property.
The vote was prompted by activists angered by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision last year in a property rights case from Connecticut. Souter sided with the majority in holding that governments can take property and turn it over to private developers.
Originally, the ballot measure called for the seizure of Souter’s home so that it could be turned into an inn called the Lost Liberty Hotel. But at a town meeting in February, residents of this town of 8,500 watered down the language.
The reworded measure asked the Board of Selectmen not to use their power of eminent domain to take the farmhouse. The measure also urged New Hampshire to adopt a law that forbids seizures of the sort sanctioned by the Supreme Court.
Too bad. I think it would have been great if the town had turned his place into an inn. Only question I have… where would his Mom live?
than being away from home and being sick as a dog. Ugh.
I’m supposed to be on a “Fly-In” to Washington, DC where folks from our industry meet with our respective Federal lawmakers. Yeah, I feel like trudging around the Capitol while I cough up a lung and have alternate waves of overheatedness and shivers.
I haven’t even felt like blogging, but now I’m bored and sick. Heh.
Las fall, when I first heard about Bruce Bartlett’s then-forthcoming book,
Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, I was eager to read it. A senior White House policy analyst in the Reagan Administration, Bartlett served as deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department from the last year of the Gipper’s second term through the end of George H.W. Bush’s administration. A smart economist with libertarian economic views not too different from my own, he had his first job on Capitol Hill working for Texas Congressman Ron Paul (one of the few men who has retained his small-government principles despite decades on the Hill). Later, working for New York Representative Jack Kemp, he helped draft the Kemp-Roth bill — which, when passed (in slightly revised form) in 1981, helped spur the economic boom of the Reagan years.
Over his three decades in public life, he has consistently advocated cutting taxes and reducing the size of the federal government. (One does wonder what he thought when his boss in 1990, the first President Bush, betrayed his campaign promise and pushed through a tax increase.) I generally enjoy Bartlett’s columns (available here) because of his keen understanding of economic issues — and our shared libertarian principles. Given Bartlett’s domestic policy background, one would expect him to be critical of the current Bush Administration because the president has basically failed to follow the Reagan domestic policy agenda.
While the president has done a better job in his three most recent budgets of holding the line of federal spending (than he had in his first few budgets), he has still failed to veto a single bill, especially those spending bills “enhanced” with “Set-Asides,” federal money earmarked for “pet projects.” Those who want to see Gipper’s agenda realized should be upset about this failure to hold the line on federal spending.
Ronald Reagan’s agenda, however, involved more than just cutting federal spending. Indeed, while he wanted to reduce the size of (if not just plain eliminate) many federal programs, he saw national security as the paramount issue. Believing, when he took office, that we needed to counter the Soviet threat, the Gipper compromised with the Democrats who then controlled the House of Representatives and agreed to backtrack on some of his proposed spending cuts in order to get the increases in military spending he believed necessary to win the Cold War.