House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)  and her fellow Democrats have quietly dropped the word “stimulus” from their vocabulary.

Pelosi apparently feels the word has gone from being an asset to the party to nothing less than toxic as evidence has mounted that talking about the stimulus only raises voters ire and hurts the party.

Even though the Democrats haven’t stopped working on an economic stimulus agenda, they have changed the terminology to use the words “job creation” rather than stimulus in an effort to distance themselves from the negative connotation the word has engendered in the last couple of years.

According to The Hill Pelosi’s office issued more than 80 “fact sheets” highlighting media reports about local projects the stimulus law was supporting.

In December one month after the Democrats were swept out of power in the House the stimulus releases stopped.

The Democrats confidence in the nearly $800 billion stimulus package was high indeed, but as evidence surfaced of just how much taxpayers were paying to create new jobs and the limited boost the package gave to the economy touting  it became an albatross around their necks.

It doesn’t really matter what the Democrats want to call their economic stimulus package.  It’s still the same plan just worded differently. Call it a brand makeover.  Same stuff, new packaging.

But the voters should be able to see right through this Democratic ploy which is comparable to putting perfume on a pig.


Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack tells MSNBC that food stamps are an economic stimulus and that it creates jobs.


This along with both former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stating that continuing unemployment benefits creates jobs makes it clear that the administration is absolutely clueless on how to solve the unemployment crisis.


There has been a lot of debate about the effectiveness of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus program and the people at website have given us a little insight into where some of that money has gone.

1.  $9.3 million (!) to fund the design and development of a “coordinated colony of robotic bees“!

2.  A $54 million project to relocate one bridge for the Napa Valley Wine Train (!) in order to mitigate the possible impact of a “100 year storm event”.

3.  A $712,883 research grant to develop “machine-generated humor“. Project will design artificially intelligent “comedic performance agents”, and will “deploy them both on and off-line for the enjoyment and illumination of everyday citizens”.

4.  A $225,000 study at Ohio State University on the relative and combined impacts of air pollution and a high fat diet on obesity development.

5.  An academic study comparing outcomes of the concurrent and separate use of malt liquor and marijuana ($389,357).

6.  $10,346 for a heating and cooling company to provide “escort services” for other companies performing a laser scanning survey at a courthouse in Honolulu, Hawaii.

7.  Funding a $447,492 Univ. of North Carolina study on the development and use of “African American English” amongst 70 adolescents.

8.  Funding of a $168,300 SBA loan to the Escape Massage parlor in Midlothian, VA.

9.  Funding of a Dartmouth College study involving “sexual arousal in anesthetized female rats” ($9,870).

10.  A $427,824 research grant to design better video games for senior citizens based on their unique “game-play needs”.

The president hoped the stimulus money would get the economy back on track and keep unemployment below 8% but instead it has become another symbol of politicians feeding at the federal trough at the taxpayers expense.

Several Republican governors announced over the weekend that they plan to turn down some of the federal government’s stimulus money rather than face the prospect of having to raise taxes in the future when the money runs out.

The governors from Idaho, Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana are concerned that money targeted towards expanding unemployment benefits will only last for two years leaving the states to either raise taxes or reduce benefits back to the pre-stimulus level neither of which would be politically popular.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) told the Associated Press that he was insulted that the four southern governors in the “proverbial black belt” were refusing the money and intoned by doing so would hurt blacks.  He didn’t use the R word but it was obvious what he meant.

Contrast that with liberal Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell who said on “Fox News Sunday” that “I’m not sure that we can, over the long run, cope with the high unemployment compensation standard that this mandates for states” but that he didn’t care because his people are suffering and they need the extra money now. 

In reality Rendell doesn’t care because he will be out of office when the bill comes due from the effect of the federal mandate.

Not all Republican governors are as principled as those I mentioned previously.  In fact California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who has mastered the art of financial chicanery along with a Democratically controlled state legislature said that he would gladly take any money other states refused.  Schwarzenegger like Rendell will not be in office when the federal money runs out and won’t have to struggle with the hard decisions that will result.

The Republican governors decision may hurt their political future and will in some areas prove to be unpopular, but taxpayers should thank them for taking a principled stand now and saving them from a future of higher taxes and budget deficits.

House Republicans for the first time in recent memory banded together last night and voted against the Democratic stimulus bill backed by President Barack Obama.

Even though the passage of the bill was never in doubt with the Democrats firmly in control of the House, President Obama had hoped to obtain some support from the GOP. He even went as far as visiting Republican House and Senate leaders on Tuesday in a last ditch attempt to woo them in addition to keeping up his image of bipartisanship.

In the end though all 177 Republicans voted against the bill and brought 11 Democrats with them which only added insult to injury for Nancy Pelosi and the President.

Democrats weren’t very happy with the GOP’s resolve. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said of the Republicans “They repeatedly are slapping the outreached hand of Democrats who are attempting to work in a bipartisan way” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Exactly which Democrats are reaching out? Certainly not Speaker Pelosi who said on Tuesday that “We had an election which was about our differing views … the American people agreed with us”

Maybe Rep. Wasserman Schultz missed that meeting.

Barack Obama campaigned on the theme of hope and change. Instead the stimulus bill is just more of the same pork barrel spending that Democrats have been famous for. After all what kind of stimulus will be provided for by another $650 million in digital TV conversion coupons?

Regardless of the pork we are now halfway there. The bill passed last night carries a price tag of $819 billion; the Senate version is closer to $900 billion. Yet the Democrats paid little attention to a GOP alternative of approximately $475 billion.

History has shown that government spending to stimulate the economy will have little if any long term effect and will only saddle our children and grandchildren with an even larger debt burden that they can’t possibly hope to repay in their lifetimes.

For the Democrats at this point it’s all about making sure they maintain control and not what is best for the country.

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;

President Barack Obama may be a great orator, but as the new president he still has a lot to learn.

On Friday in an effort to win bipartisan support for his $825 billion stimulus package he met with GOP leaders at the White House and then promptly told them that “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” which may have been in response to Limbaugh’s declaration that he wanted to see the president fail.

Obama also reminded the legislators that he won and that “I will trump you on that.” in reference to his stimulus package.

As you can imagine the remarks hit the news fast and furious and forced the White House to defend them by stating the president was being taken out of context and was trying to make a larger point.

What larger point? That he won the presidency and that his party holds such a commanding majority in the House and Senate that the GOP shouldn’t bother trying to defeat his legislative agenda? Or that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t truly represent mainstream America and taking his advice would be disastrous for the GOP?

Instead of coming across as someone who is seriously interested in reaching across the aisle Obama appears arrogant and smug, even elitist to some. That is not the image he needs if he plans to succeed over the next four years.

And why attack Limbaugh? Rush may be the number one talk radio host in America, but he is certainly no threat to Obama’s agenda. If he had the influence that the Democrats think he does, McCain would be in the White House and not Obama and the GOP would have regained their majority status instead of being pushed to the brink of obscurity.

Even worse for the White House is that by going after Limbaugh, he has given him plenty of material for his show for days if not weeks to come and will only bring more scrutiny of his suspect stimulus proposal.

Score this one Rush 1 Obama 0.