UPDATE: IDOT LAW ENFORCER HARASSES IOWA COUPLE

April 2, 2009 4 Comments

Several days have passed since the IDOT Law Enforcer  pulled us over in our RV, and  there has been a lot of speculation and misinformation out there on the web. I’d like to try to set the record straight with what I know for sure.

1) My husband and I were not participating in any illegal activity.

2) The guns in the RV were legal.

3) There is no law in Iowa that requires an individual to reveal to a law officer that he is carrying a concealed weapon. Again, it is considered a courtesy by some to do so and may or may not be considered a safety issue, but the choice to reveal to  law enforcement that you are carrying is up to you. You are allowed by law to use your own discretion. Given the extremely unusual circumstances of the vehicle stop we were involved in my husband felt safer in not telling the officer rigjht away that he had a CCW.

4) We are fully aware that gunlaws differ from state to state and when we travel we go online to make sure of the laws or else consult The Traveller’s Guide to Firearms so that we do not break the law. We also know how to store and transport firearms in different states. We also know full well it is as important for the traveller to know the laws as it is for the Law Enforcement officer who might pull him over.

5)The essential oils I use are insect repellents, astringents, and softeners for the skin. I make my own lotions and some have quite a pungent odor which might indicate drug use to people who don’t know better and are prone to stereotypes, some of them quite laughable. But the oils themselves do not smell like marijuana and any well trained officer searching for drugs would know the difference. The presence of the oils in an RV does not indicate that the occupants are drug users.

6)An IDOT officer can come up with any kind of reason he wants to search your vehicle and he can question you over and over with the same question relentlessly  to try to break you down and force you to admit that what he is saying about you is true. The two most common examples of why an IDOT officer will tell you he must search your vehicle seem to be that he smells drugs or that he smells alcohol.

7)If you do not agree to a search, the IDOT officer can impound your vehicle until whatever time he might be able to get a search warrant and that could take days. You wonder if you want to have your vehicle impounded. You worry about what might happen inside and outside your vehicle if the IDOT officer has it impounded.

8)If you agree, however unwillingly, to let an IDOT officer search your vehicle, your agreement makes the search legal. You are not allowed to watch him while he accomplishes the search and you are told this is for his safety. Meanwhile you are going to be standing  outside worrying about your VEHICLE’s safety and if what was in there before is still there and also if what was not in there before is in there now, if you get my meaning.

9) According to IDOT they may legally pull over any vehicle they think is engaged in a commercial venture whether or not the vehicle has commercial plates. According to IDOT they do not have to have proof of wrongdoing to pull you over. According to IDOT they are allowed to pull you over basically it seems just to check you out. Further, the law somehow seems to have gotten quietly extended in the last couple of years to include pulling over passenger cars (which one would think would be least likely to be engaged in commercial activity.) So it’s not just the Avon lady that IDOT gets to pull over and question without having done anything wrong! According to IDOT, it could be any of us.

10) IDOT is a very controversial agency in this state. I myself don’t have a lot of affection for IDOT because in the last five months, IDOT has forced us to sell fifty acres of a fourth generation farm for a highway bypass that cuts the place in half and pretty much ruins  it. We have lost one quarter of our income because of this. We were paid for the land and we got a good price but we would rather have the income and our farm back the way that it used to be. The next run-in we had with IDOT was the other night when we were pulled over and our RV, which is a home to us, invaded and searched in a manner that made us feel violated and humilated.Finally when we returned to the farm we found the next morning that IDOT highway workers had taken down our livestock fence  without telling us and our horses could have been running all over the county.   So no, IDOT is not my favorite government agency although I have to say that the fellow we dealt with over the sale of our land turned out to be okay and in the long haul put up patiently with a lot of grief from us, but then of course he was the messenger of a lot of grief to us! I can certainly say that in the last five months we have received the IDOT triple whammy.

11) There are many many truckers out there who quite frankly despise IDOT. Lately we have received five or six calls a day from some of them. They all call to offer their support and  say how sorry they are that we had to go through the experience we did.  They assure us they know we are telling the truth because they have had similar experiences, several  with the very same officer  Darrell Wiegand who pulled us over. And the truckers are thanking us for bringing out the truth of what happened to us, because  they simply don’t dare to.

Most of these truckers are furious over the way they have been treated by Wiegand and other  IDOT law enforcers time and time again. IDOT has made life absolutely miserable for these folks and also for many trucking companies, not to mention any other  business that uses trucks.

I have found out that the actions of IDOT have been blamed for the destruction of entire businesses. I’m told the way it works, every time a truck gets pulled over, it is time lost, fines paid and insurance raised and eventually this can put such a  strain on a budget that companies simply can’t make it anymore. One trucker told me today that the state is broke and they are trying to pull every penny they can out of the truckers by using IDOT to harvest money from truckers in the form of fines.

Not one of the truckers I talked to wanted his name used, they are terrified  to speak up because of retaliation from IDOT.They say if they make a single wave, IDOT is all over them and can shut them down or seriously slow and handicap their business. Truckers said the only way they would speak up and register a complaint against any IDOT officer is to make a deal with IDOT for no reprisals, and even then they are still afraid that some of the bad actors out there will not be sufficiently reined in. Until the truckers feel safe enough to talk they will not file complaints and all the bad actors and horror stories will continue. I’m convinced that the reason all these abuses of power and harassment continue is because the truckers don’t dare say a word. An IDOT official was quoted recently as saying there have been very few complaints in the last couple of years. Either IDOT is stretching the truth or else many many incidents of abuse and harassment are going unreported.

Big grown men and women are running scared from a government agency that appears to be out of control. And from what I have experienced these men and women are smart to be scared.This is a terrible situation that needs to be addressed pronto. We can’t allow men and women who work so hard keeping America  moving to be treated like this. These are the  people who help feed us and clothe us and provide us with so many of the products and necessities that make us prosperous and comfortable.

IDOT needs to clean up its act and root out what I have experienced first hand as rank corruption.I have had all the reminders I need that IDOT is an enormous part of Iowa’s government. IDOT has tremendous and far reaching power into many aspects of our lives.  BE AFRAID unless IDOT drastically changes  its ways.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Iowa DOT Enforcement Officer Commits Harassment of Iowa Couple

March 29, 2009 138 Comments

We were coming home in our RV from a two week trip to the Southwest. Around 8 pm just as we turned onto Hwy 61 in our hometown, an IDOT patrolman pulled us over. My husband could not figure out why as he had obeyed all traffic signs and our license plate was up to date.
The officer did not ask for license or registration or insurance, instead he said he just wanted to know what the odd looking trailer we were pulling was used for. My husband replied that it was for a gyrocopter and he and the officer chatted for a couple of  minutes during which it was explained that we lived north of town and were returning home after a trip.
All of  a sudden the officer started asking what it was he was smelling and my husband said he didn’t know. The officer kept repeating, “What is that smell?” “What is that I smell?”  over and over,  and again and again my husband  kept saying he didn’t know, because neither of us had a clue what the officer was talking about. Finally the officer said he smelled marijuana.  We tried to protest and defend ourselves but the officer kept insisting this was what he smelled and we got a very bad feeling that we should not argue with him. He seemed very wired and was definitely aggressive and even menacing. In addition, the officer was acting alone and it felt strange because we had no witness to what was occurring.
Finally he asked if we would let him search the RV. Naturally we were not happy about this but gave in thinking that if we stood in the way he could become increasingly angered and try to impound our vehicle in order to get a search warrant. In addition, we  had nothing to hide and were engaged in no illegal activity.
So the officer called for backup (his buddy who showed up to help was far more reasonable and professional) and we had to stand in the headlights in front of the RV while the first officer searched it. He was in there less than ten minutes and clearly did no more than a cursory search. Certainly if we had had anything illegal hidden in there he would never have found it.
When he came out with no evidence against us he proceeded to lecture my husband  on Concealed Carry laws in Iowa. The only trouble was this officer was unclear on the laws– yet he had the temerity to become vaguely threatening about what he could have done to my husband if he wanted to. When we got home my husband  called a sheriff’s deputy who assured him the IDOT officer was incorrect on the laws.
Anyway, the whole episode was bizarre. And if you could see us in our Class C RV–a retired couple one of whom has a beer occasionally and the other who is practically a card carrying member of AA– you would see how ludicrous this was. My husband  was pretty upset not only at the invasion of privacy but also at having this happen in a town where his family has lived for four generations and where for more than forty years he himself  had a respectable and lucrative business (from which the town and state benefited for years in the form of tax revenue!)
The officer did not apologize for accusing us of something we weren’t doing, nor even for taking up forty five minutes of our time. He said something to the effect that he’d  thought we were carnival people (so carnival people are to be discriminated against?) and the other officer explained that IDOT has the right to pull over  and question anybody they have reason to believe may be using their vehicle for commercial purposes (even if they do not have a commercial license plate and are not in violation of any traffic or registration laws.)
After a bit more discussion during which both officers continued to reveal their ignorance of gun laws,  we continued on our way, never having had so much as an ID check. The feeling we got was that we were supposed to be grateful we were allowed to go home.
Here are the conclusions we came to after this occurrence:
  • A driver ought to have the expectation that when travelling in a recreational NON commercial vehicle s/he will not be pulled over unless s/he has committed a moving  violation or is operating with faulty equipment or expired tags.
  • A driver ought to have the expectation that s/he will not be pulled over by the DOT on the basis of belonging to a certain group, type, color, or occupation.
  • A driver ought to have the expectation that when pulled over by a DOT officer, s/he is asked for a driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, all of which provide  legitimacy for the driver.
  • A driver ought to have the expectation that the DOT officer will be respectful and professional and will not harrass the driver with one question repeated over and over in an attempt to break the driver down to an admission of guilt.
  • A driver ought to have the expectation that possession of a firearm with a Concealed Carry permit should not raise red flags or be cause for alarm on the part of the DOT. In fact, since a criminal background check is necessary in order to obtain a Concealed Carry permit, the permit should help establish credibility for– rather than suspicion of –the permit holder.
  • A driver ought to have the expectation that the DOT officer is accurately apprised of all firearm laws, including Concealed Carry and laws concerning interstate transportation of firearms.
  • A driver ought to have the expectation that the DOT officer will not lecture the driver with misinformation about these laws and make veiled threats about the driver’s non-adherence to these nonexistent laws.
  • Lastly, if a DOT officer has made a mistake in pulling over, interrogating, and searching a driver’s RV, the officer should offer at the very least a thank you for the driver’s time. In addition, an apology is  in order.  Possibly also due  is some form of reparation for treating a valuable citizen like a common criminal, and we are looking into that angle.
The  irony in all this is that we had just travelled 3600 miles all over the Southwest and close to the border where we encountered many DOT, county law enforcement, state highway patrol and Border Patrol, and all of them treated us professionally and intelligently.
We had to come home to Iowa to be treated like dirt. That says it all to me.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Ann Coulter Crashes on Her Own Highway

February 27, 2009 8 Comments

Steve Deace was extremely courteous in his interview with Ann Coulter which aired on WHO Radio yesterday afternoon. Coulter became unglued and revealed herself as an irrational and reactive individual.

Almost every time Ann Coulter is in the spotlight, she does the conservative cause a lot of harm. Unfortunately those who don’t know better believe she embodies the base of the Republican party and represents the caliber of people who belong to it. This is very bad PR. If we are to move forward as a successful party we don’t want anybody thinking we are as unhinged and mean spirited as she is. She has not been designated, except maybe by herself, as a spokeswoman for anything— she is merely an entertainer. Conservatives and Republicans would do well to disassociate themselves from her and expose her for what she is.

Just let Ann talk as Deace did and she will shoot herself in the foot. In this interview, it was hard to decide which was her worst  enemy–FACTS or the woman herself.

Kudos to Steve Deace.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

IOWA’S TENTH AMENDMENT RESOLUTION

February 23, 2009 4 Comments

I’ve been so busy keeping track of what other states have been doing to make sure the Tenth Amendment is upheld in their states that I haven’t been paying any attention to what Iowa is up to in this regard. Thanks to taco for alerting me and THANK YOU STATE SENATOR PAUL MCKINLEY for the work he is doing.

Paul McKinley has sponsored a senate concurrent resolution which in substance and spirit pushes back against the federal government should it attempt “to commandeer the regulatory and legislative processes” of our state. This resolution is linked to the Tenth Amendment, the last in the Bill of Rights, because the Tenth Amendment is the one that states unequivocally, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Tenth Amendment is considered one of the principal truths of the Constitution.

Here is the McKinley resolution in its entirety along with the link to the legislature’s webpage:
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&hbill=SCR1

 
About twenty other states have worked on similar resolutions, and it is important to note that a concurrent resolution is defined as:
A legislative measure, designated “S. Con. Res.” and numbered consecutively upon introduction, generally employed to address the sentiments of both chambers, to deal with issues or matters affecting both houses, such as a concurrent budget resolution, or to create a temporary joint committee. Concurrent resolutions are not submitted to the President and thus do not have the force of law.
 
In other words, this resolution the Iowa legislature is going to consider would have more weight if it were law.  I am hoping that as Iowans take a closer look at the activities of the federal government these days they will raise their voices and clamor for it to become law!

The links below will take anybody who is interested to further discussions and actual wording of resolutions in other states:

Oklahoma
http://letsgetthisright.com/blog/view/id_595/title_oklahoma-10th-amendment-resolution-passes-state/
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3333
http://www.forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=18665
Arkansas
http://jasontcpa.blogspot.com/2009/02/state-sovereignty-bill-filed-in-house.html
http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/?p=849
New Hampshire
http://friendfeed.com/e/ba05268e-a0db-db8a-89b1-bb01b4a78b66/The-Revolution-Begins-In-New-Hampshire/
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
http://www.forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=18624

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , ,

Questions for Our President

February 16, 2009 7 Comments

I’m not a sore loser, I’m a scared one. And I’m not as scared by the fact the economy seems to be going down the tubes as I am by our President’s performance in the weeks since he took office. I now have more than a little concern about his integrity. Obama is behaving very differently from what he promised.
My questions to Obama are:
1)How will you stop the ” bleeding” in Washington if you don’t control spending by congress?
2)How can you claim a bill has no pork by limiting the definition of pork as having to be specifically requested by special interest groups?
3) How will you help bring about bipartisanship if you don’t insure that legislation is created by both parties and reject (rather than rush through) any legislation that is not?
4)How will you create change if you use the unconscionable spending spree under a Republican president as justification for a spending spree under a Democratic president?
5)How will you create hope when you are expressing anger towards people with whom you disagree and promoting fear about the economy?
6) You told congress they had to rush the “stimulus” bill through because of our dire economic emergency, so why are you now in Chicago? Why aren’t you signing this bill right this minute? Why didn’t you sign it as soon as it passed?
Obama needs to stand up and follow through on his promises if he wants to be the leader he claims to be.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , ,

Collins/Nelson “STIMULUS” Amendment

February 9, 2009 6 Comments

The text of this amendment is in pdf form  here http://bit.ly/44cv2a . On the first page it is described as being “in the nature of a substitute.” This SUBSTITUTE has grown to 778 pages. There is no doubt the Democrats and our three favorite “Republicans” will try to pass this as fast as they can before any of us –or them– get a chance to read it.
A nice little piece below is posted at http://bit.ly/ucdU8 :

Economy 101: A Lesson for Fans of the Stimulus Package

By Katie Favazza  February 7, 2009

One of my mom’s best friends sent this to me, and I couldn’t resist sharing it here.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.  The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.  When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.  You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
– the late Dr. Adrian Rogers

Spread the word.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , ,

Three Turncoats

February 7, 2009 8 Comments

Maybe it was just my imagination, but Susan Collins, Republican Senator from Maine, seemed mighty nervous when she was giving her speech before her peers yesterday. As well she might be, given the fact that her support of the stimulus bill could effectively guarantee transfer of the largest amount of wealth in history from the private to the government sector.

In deciding to support the bill, Collins claims most of the pork has been removed and seems to think there are enough directives to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Does she really believe this? We will probably never know, nor will we ever know what went on behind closed doors that persuaded Ms. Collins and two other Republican senators to back this bill.

Republican Olympia Snowe (also a woman and also interestingly enough from the state of Maine) and Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania are supporting the “stimulus ” bill as well. However, even with the promises from these three, the Democrats are still so uncertain they can pass the bill that Teddy Kennedy, ill as he is, has been summoned to DC to cast his vote in favor of it. In fact, even Democratic support for the package has been wobbly, as evidenced at one point yesterday by Californian Dianne Feinstein’s refusing to vote for it.

In my opinion, it isn’t over till it’s over. Our U.S. Senators STILL need to hear from us that we hope they are planning to vote against this bill, and why. Evidently phones were ringing off the hook in DC yesterday—I know I had an impossible time getting through– and I doubt if last night the senators had begun to fathom the number of e-mails they received.

Our calls are making a difference as three Republicans–Martinez , Voinovich, and Murkowski– in support of the bill Friday morning came out against it by afternoon. Word yesterday was the Senate planned on a vote last night, then it was going to be Sunday, and now it seems they are putting off the vote till Tuesday, now some are saying late Monday afternoon (conflicting reports!). So obviously the Democrats don’t think they have a clear shot at passing this THING yet, and the longer the vote is postponed, the less chance they may have.

If you haven’t contacted Grassley and Harkin yet, take the time to do so (and especially Harkin who is claiming he hasn’t heard much negative about the bill from Iowans) .

Grassley, Chuck – (R – IA) Class III 135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3744 Web Form: grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm#emailform

Harkin, Tom – (D – IA) Class II 731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3254 Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/c/

And certainly contact the three turncoat Republicans mentioned here. Their contact information is:

Collins, Susan M. – (R – ME) Class II 413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2523 Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=

Contact… Snowe, Olympia J. – (R – ME) Class I 154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5344 Web Form: snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=

ContactSenat… Specter, Arlen – (R – PA) Class III 711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4254 Web Form: specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co…

And of course it would not hurt to contact Democratic Senators because they also need to know what people think of this…er…whateveritis.

Meanwhile, to keep you up to date, here is a link from Michelle Malkin, who has been pushing, pushing, pushing against this monstrosity: http://tinyurl.com/b23rzn

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

HF 14:UNDERMINING ENGLISH

January 24, 2009 4 Comments

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/79GA/Legislation/SF/00100/SF00165/Current.html.  In 2002 the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act was signed into law by then- Governor Tom Vilsack. This law states unequivocally that most local and state government proceedings as well as documents and publications be conducted and written in English.

Since it was passed, this law affirming English has been unpopular with many Iowans, including Governor Chet Culver and a number of members of the legislature. One of them,  Democrat Bruce Hunter, District 69 Representative, was inspired to sponsor bill HF 14 http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/Cool-ICE/DisplayBills.htm which repeals the English Language Reaffirmation Act.

Hunter maintains that the English Language Reaffirmation Act makes Iowans look bad to the immigrant community and also to folks in the rest of the nation— this despite the fact that more than half the states (twenty six) in the union have English official language laws http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/langleg.htm. According to the Des Moines Register, Culver is on record as saying the reaffirmation law of 2002 does not move our state forward. Evidently our secretary of state Mauro agrees with Culver, as during his tenure he has made available voter registration forms in at least four languages besides English.

I have a few concerns about this issue:

Our nation was not founded by people who spoke German or French or Italian or Spanish, or any other language, but primarily by people whose native tongue was English. Like it or not, our nation at its inception had a strong tradition in England, not only in the language but in the social and political culture of that country. Should we as U.S. citizens be asked to repudiate roots that (even if they do not belong to each of us as  individuals) are the roots of our nation?

Over the years,  one of the essential ways that non-English speaking immigrants assimilated effectively into our country was by learning our language. That’s right: our language that is spoken on our soil and that is the language of our Constitution, our government and our marketplace. Historically the majority of immigrants who have had the most success in this country are those who have become most fluent in English. Conscientious immigrants knew they needed to learn English  in order to conduct business and life outside the family, and so…they learned English! English became an important element of their lives in that it helped bind them to this country and to the ways in which they made their livelihood.

I believe that we need to respect English as the binding language of our nation. For their own good, every U.S. citizen (or anybody who chooses to live here, for that matter) should have the desire and ability to speak, write, and understand English because they will be happier and more successful if they do. The problem is that government does not encourage this to happen by enabling people to such an extent that they no longer NEED to learn.

The strongest motivation to learn anything is necessity, i.e. BECAUSE YOU MUST. I have talked to many people who are expert in foreign languages and when I asked them how they learned to speak and write and read  so well, the response more often than not was, “I lived in that country.” I would hope that anybody who comes to the U.S. will take advantage of the opportunity to learn English that living in our country offers, because it will be one of the best opportunities to learn the language they will ever receive. Living in a foreign country beats taking a foreign language class any day of the week.

Meanwhile, if you agree that we need to keep the law to reaffirm the English language on the books, contact your state representative or senator http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/Legislators/LegislatorInfo.aspx and ask them to oppose HF 14.

Also contact Bruce Hunter, who sponsored  HF 14   http://www3.legis.state.ia.us/ga/member.do?id=317&ga=83.

Bill HF 14 is currently in the House State Government Committee and you may contact its members http://www3.legis.state.ia.us/ga/committee.do?id=29.

Thus far many lobbyists involved with the bill are undecided as to whether it has merit. http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.aspCategory=Lobbyist&Service=DspReport&ga=83&type=b&hbill=HF14 .

And Republican Dave Heaton (Representative from District 91) and House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen have spoken out against it.

Bill HF 14 has a way to go before Governor Culver can sign it. But one thing is certain,  if it is presented to him,  Culver will sign it.

And on a personal note: Never again do I want to walk into my town’s public library and see signs displaying book categories in Spanish. Apart from the fact the signs looked ludicrous in a library full of books written in English, I had to chuckle at the thought that if people can’t read the word “History” above the shelf, maybe they are not quite ready to  read the history books themselves! And they never will be as long as the government maintains its misguided translation initiatives.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

READ THE STIMULUS DOT ORG

January 22, 2009 12 Comments

Yes, there really is a website which has been set up so all of us can read the latest bill concocted under the troubled Troubled Assets Relief Program. My advice to everybody is to go there and peruse all 258 pages (and growing) of this monstrosity. Because it seems by the time they pass this bill, most of our lawmakers won’t have read very much if any of it themselves and some of us might as well be vaguely informed as to what it’s all about.

I am not going to pretend I have digested all I read and in fact much of it I’ve only skimmed in order to get the general picture. But here is the gist of it: if this enormous bill passes– and it looks as if it will short of divine intervention or total and relentless outrage 24/7 on the part of innocent taxpayers– rest assured that our federal government will be able to say to every single one of us “Gotcha covered!” And I mean covered. If this bill passes, it does not seem to me there will be many aspects of my life where federal and/ or state and/ or local government won’t be putting money in my hand, albeit indirectly, and trying to protect me even when I’m not holding my hand out. This is very disturbing.

The overall plan is to flood pretty much every existing government agency you’ve ever heard of with “stimulation.” It seems the government is planning to spend billions of dollars to construct a spider’s web of state and local hubs with the purpose of creating projects and jobs. Until the jobs provide enough prosperity, or if they never do, the hubs will dispense money and services to maintain people’s health and welfare.

My goodness, I had no idea so many government agencies were in need of shoring up! There’s the Dept. of The Interior, the Dept. of Justice, the Dept of Labor, the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Commerce, the Dept. of Transportation, the EPA, Health and Human Services, FHA, BLM, Fish and Wildlife, the Dept. of Defense, Homeland Security, FEMA— the list goes on and on. It is quite staggering. In some cases these bureaucrats are getting billions, in some cases only millions, and in almost all cases there will be oversight entities the creation and management of which will be in the millions.

I am still in shock looking at this thing, and trust me it is a THING. But I have managed to identify a few of the highlights for me, and here they are:

Housing and Urban Development: 5 billion, Fed Transportation Administration: 6 billion, Highway Infrastructure: 30 billion, Higher Education Act: 16 billion, Education for Disadvantaged: 13 billion, Rural Development: 5 billion, Employment Training: 4 billion. And remember that these amounts do not include millions of dollars for the oversight entities ( money for salaries and in some cases building actual facilities) required for each disbursement of “stimulus.”

A couple of other memorable stimuli are 44 million for some agricultural buildings that we need somewhere (and 245 million in salaries to go with the buildings,) 300 million for job corps centers, operating expenses for the Corporation for National and Community Service, 300 million for the National Mall, etc. etc.

A few interesting tidbits I gleaned from the bill are:

There is a Broadband initiative (covered I believe under Rural Development) which seeks to insure that every household in the US can have internet access other than dialup. I heard discussion of this on CSPAN where a Representative from Texas complained that the way it has been set up in the bill, local Broadband contractors will not be eligible to do the work — so much for local job creation.

The government wants to build a new national computer center.

This bill contains a provision to limit the “administrative expenses” of the Social Security Administration.

AND I learned some new jargon so that I can hold my head high and be informed as I journey further into the 21st century:

Telemedicine is the use of telecommunication technologies to deliver medical information and services to locations at a distance from the care giver or educator.

US Green Building Rating System is The United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green building rating standard referred to as the LEED Green Building Rating System.

Spare me.

This only the tip of the iceberg. You can do your civic duty and read the entire bill here http://readthestimulus.org/ but don’t say I didn’t warn you. ( The website is sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, Kithridge, NTU, CAGW, Freedom Works, CFG, Redstate, Taxpayers for Commonsense, Americans for Prosperity, TCOT, and Lighthouse Strategies and Consulting)

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BUSH COMMUTES SENTENCES OF RAMOS AND COMPEAN!!!!

January 19, 2009 1 Comment

The happy news broke this afternoon–President Bush has commuted the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. For me this is a ray of sanity in my current state of anxiety.
For those like me who need amplification on the difference between a pardon and a commutation: a pardon would have cleared them of their status as convicted criminals (and thereby released them from prison) while the commutation reduces their sentences based on an assumption that their punishments did not fit the crime.
With a pardon (which implies an admission of guilt) the two would no longer have been considered guilty, but with a commutation they will remain convicted felons with records of their crimes on file for the rest of their lives, a very serious matter.
Although I would have preferred a pardon to a commutation for Ramos and Compean, I am not going to complain but rather hope that this may be a step in the right direction to give them their lives back. And I am grateful they will be released from prison within the next two months– I know, I know, we all wish  it could be sooner, but… “the wheels of justice,” etc., etc.
Meanwhile, let’s celebrate the release of two brave men who protected our country to the best of their ability. God bless them and their families, and thank you to to all the people who wrote and faxed and e-mailed and called our public officials on their behalf. And lastly, thank you to President Bush for doing the right thing. president@whitehouse.gov

.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 695 other followers