'Can You Imagine the Congress Voting on Anything Generous for the Solar Industry Right Now? I Don’t Think So'

With the Solyndra scandal threatening to consume an already teetering Obama administration, amazingly enough they're prepared to double and triple down on reckless stupidity by throwing even more billions at dubious solar projects. This has to stop and it needs to stop now.

Political fury over a failed $535 million loan guarantee to an Obama administration-backed solar company is threatening to poison the well for future green investments.

The Obama administration is doubling down on its support for renewable energy, stressing that it will move forward on more loans like the one to Solyndra, the California-based company that announced its bankruptcy late last month. In fact, as many as 14 new loan guarantees from the Energy Department — nine of which are for solar projects — could be finalized by the end of the month.

But congressional Republicans have signaled they’re prepared to start a huge political fight with the White House over the investments. The fight could be a major campaign theme next year, particularly since the loans are tied to the 2009 economic stimulus package the GOP already believes is a political liability for President Obama.

This fight, experts said, is likely to compound an already dismal outlook for federal investments in solar and wind power, despite arguments that the U.S. needs to act quickly to compete with China and other countries developing similar technologies.

“Can you imagine the Congress voting on anything generous for the solar industry right now? I don’t think so,” said Paula Mints, a solar industry analyst at Navigant Consulting.

Republicans ratcheted up their criticism of the administration over Solyndra this week, releasing a series of emails they say show that the White House tried to rush a final decision on the company’s financing so that Vice President Biden could announce approval of the loan guarantee at the September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s new factory.

The White House has dismissed the allegations, arguing that the emails were a “scheduling matter” and had no impact on the decision to finalize the loan guarantee.

Still, Republicans have continued to pummel the administration on the Solyndra bankruptcy; Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight and Investigations subscommittee, said Friday that Jonathan Silver, executive director of the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office, should be fired.

“We’re not done with this issue yet and we’re going to see where this takes us,” full committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) told The Hill Thursday.

The solar industry is worried the fight will debilitate government support for a nascent industry.

Well that's just a pity now, isn't it? If your industry cannot survive without dependence on the government then you need to find another line of work. It'll be curious to see how much money these thieves donate to Obama's re-election.

Meanwhile, Obama's former chief of staff played Sergeant Schultz when asked about Solyndra.

I know nuthink!

Obama's 'Green Jobs' Scam Creates 3500 Jobs for $38 Billion

If the GOP has even the slightest clue they put a halt to this green jobs scam today and start in investigation into where this money has gone. The Solyndra scandal is merely the tip of the iceberg. Seriously, $38 billion for 3500 jobs? What the hell is going on here?

A $38.6 billion loan guarantee program that the Obama administration promised would create or save 65,000 jobs has created just a few thousand jobs two years after it began, government records show.

The program — designed to jump-start the nation’s clean technology industry by giving energy companies access to low-cost, government-backed loans — has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount, according to Energy Department tallies.

President Obama has made “green jobs” a showcase of his recovery plan, vowing to foster new jobs, new technologies and more competitive American industries. But the loan guarantee program came under scrutiny Wednesday from Republicans and Democrats at a House oversight committee hearing about the collapse of Solyndra, a solar-panel maker whose closure could leave taxpayers on the hook for as much as $527 million.

The GOP lawmakers accused the administration of rushing approval of a guarantee of the firm’s project and failing to adequately vet it. “My goodness. We should be reviewing every one of these loan guarantee” projects, said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

Obama’s efforts to create green jobs are lagging behind expectations at a time of persistently high unemployment. Many economists say that because alternative-­energy projects are so expensive and slow to ramp up, they are not the most efficient way to stimulate the economy.

Oh, so I guess they can say the results here were unexpected.

At least antique media outlets like the Washington Post are reporting this fiasco. If such a failure occurred during a GOP administration you can bet your last nickel this would be front page news across the country and at the top of every national newscast.

More on Solyndra (aka, Obama's Enron) here.

Oh No! Arctic Scientist Under Investigation

Remember all that nonsense about polar bears disappearing, even though their numbers kept growing? Yeah, about that.

A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

H/T.

Another scam bites the dust.

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds and "suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."

The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore's mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, "An Inconvenient Truth," came up during investigators' questioning of Gleason in January.

These people should be brought up on charges.

Obama Rails Against Oil Subsidies, Gave ACORN $3 Billion in Stimulus

Yeah, how dare those evil oil companies who produce a product we all need get money from the federal government.

President Obama lashed out at oil companies — and the tax breaks they get from the government — for a second consecutive day on Thursday and again in Saturday's address.

“Four billion dollars of your money are going to these companies at a time when they’re making record profits and you’re paying near record prices at the pump,” the president said at a Nevada town hall. “It has to stop.”

Funny, but he didn't have such objections when the criminal enterprise known as ACORN was given $3 billion in his stimulus scam two years ago.

At least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994, and the controversial group could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states.

The economic stimulus bill enacted in February contains $3 billion that the non-profit activist group known more formally as the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now could receive, and 2010 federal budget contains another $5.5 billion that could also find its way into the group’s coffers.

An Examiner review of federal spending data found that ACORN has received at least $53 million in federal money since 1994.

So glad to see the media point out his hypocrisy. Oh, nobody has?

Scammed! DC Reneges on Aid for Installing Solar Panels

We're from the government and we're here to help scam you.

I'd feel sorry for these people if they weren't such suckers for the green hoax.

It isn't easy going green, and it might also prove costly.

Dozens of District residents who installed solar panels on their homes under a government grant program promoting renewable energy have been told they will not be reimbursed thousands of dollars as promised because the funds were diverted to help close a city budget gap.

In all, the city has reneged on a commitment of about $700,000 to 51 residents, according to the D.C. Department of the Environment. The agency has pledged to try to find money in next year's budget, its director, Christophe Tulou, said.

"It just doesn't seem fair to go through a process with them and have them make investments in solar panels under the assumption they would be reimbursed," Tulou acknowledged. "It's really sad we are having these economic woes when we are."

The abrupt suspension of the city's Renewable Energy Incentive Plan, an annual $2 million fund that was supposed to last through fiscal 2012, threatens to dampen budding enthusiasm for clean energy among homeowners. The program has helped 315 people install solar panels, with another 417 on a waiting list that has been closed by city officials.

D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3), who is leading the push for a sustainable energy utility to encourage green energy in the District, said officials are scouring the environmental agency's budget in hopes of finding reimbursement money for the 51 homeowners this year.

But, she said, "I would think people would take a cautious approach" to future installations.

People should take a cautious approach to believing any of the nonsense coming from these Democrats.

That came as a shock to Brian Levy, 35, who received a letter from Tulou on Jan. 25 informing him that the city would be unable to pay him the $12,200 it had promised last September. In October, Levy had hired a contractor, Green Brilliance, to install a $27,500 solar energy system on the roof of his rowhouse on Florida Avenue in Northwest. The work was completed in December.

"I'm not ready to throw a molotov cocktail at the D.C. government, but I'm very disappointed," Levy said. That money "is my backup fund I use in case of sickness, my safety fund."

Some day in the not-too-distant future there will be multi-billion class action lawsuits against the hucksters who've pulled these green scams. By then they'll have moved on to some new scaremongering, no doubt.

Obama Appoints Aide to Reorganize Deck Chairs on Titanic

There will soon be high-speed rail and solar panels in every pot! Where would we be without such out-of-the-box thinking?

President Obama tapped an aide to lead a "reorganization" of the federal government, communications director Dan Pfeiffer said Sunday.

Obama named Jeffrey Zients, a former CEO of the Advisory Board Company who serves as the president's Chief Performance Office (CPO), to lead an effort to find efficiencies and decrease overlap.

"The fact is that we live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the middle of the last century," Pfeiffer wrote on the White House blog. "Over the past few decades, there has not been a business or large organization that has not rethought, retooled, and revamped how they did their job to respond to a growing, more competitive global economy and an ever-changing technology landscape."

Pfieffer framed the new initiative as keeping with the president's State of the Union address, in which Obama emphasized the need to modernize the government through increased investments in education, technology and infrastructure.

It's funny, but nobody in Obama's back-pocket media seem to ask where all that stimulus spending on infrastructure went.

This guy will come back with a report recommending cutting ten bucks out of some government program and Obama will campaign in 2012 as running a lean, cost-cutting government. And the media dolts will parrot it.

Obama Administration Backing Away From ObamaCare

Well, he did say nobody would lose their coverage, right? Uhh, just not the way it was intended, of course.

Maybe they should have read the legislation before it was shoved down our throats.

Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's and Jack in the Box, won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."

The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000.

The plans will be exempt from rules intended to keep people from having to pay for all their care once they reach a preset coverage cap. McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver.

McDonald's and Jack in the Box didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Democrat campaign aides also fared well.

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.

H/T Hillary.

Government Efficiency: $111M in Stimulus Saved Just 55 Jobs

You know what this means, right? We need another stimulus! Of course if you complain about this outrageous waste of taxpayer money then you're reacist or something.

More than a year after Congress approved $800 billion in stimulus funds, the Los Angeles city controller has released a 40-page report on how the city spent its share, and the results are not living up to expectations.

"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," said Wendy Greuel, the city's controller. "With our local unemployment rate over 12 percent we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work."

According to the audit, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works spent $70 million in stimulus funds -- in return, it created seven private sector jobs and saved seven workers from layoffs. Taxpayer cost per job: $1.5 million.

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation created even fewer jobs per dollar, spending $40 million but netting just nine jobs. Taxpayer cost per job: $4.4 million.

Naturally this abysmal failure doesn't get a failing grade. Much like Obama these folks think way too highly of themselves.

"I would say maybe in a grade, a B- in creating the jobs," Greuel told Fox News.

Well, at least they're not blaming Bush.

Independent Investigation Slams IPCC Climate Scammers

The Great Global Warming Hoax took another one on the chin today. Not much left to this scam as their credibility has been close to zero since the ClimateGate emails first came to light late last year. Now that the clowns at the IPCC have een ordered to disclose their outside financial interest, expect a lot of sudden retirements.

An independent investigation into the UN’s climate change body has warned it to stop lobbying and to restrict its role to explaining the science behind any changes in global temperature.

Senior officials at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have also been ordered to disclose their outside financial interests to avert any allegations that they may have profited from policies to tackle global warming.

New controls should also be introduced to ensure that the scientific claims made in influential international reports are robust in future.

The independent inquiry which delivered the rebuke was ordered after the IPCC admitted it had exaggerated the pace at which Himalayan glaciers were melting. Several other errors in its recent report were also uncovered.

The admission threatened to undermine the scientific basis used by Governments around the world to justify spending billions of pounds tackling climate change.

A more blunt assessment:

Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”

Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.”

Taxpayers Pick Up $700K Tab for Obama to Pimp Out Andy Griffith

Of course $700,000 is mere pocket change considering Obama is recklessly racking up trillions in debt. But if ObamaCare is so wonderful, why does he have to prop up an aging actor to sell it for him?

Was it not enough for President Obama to saddle future Americans with billions of dollars in new health benefits and entitlements that they simply cannot afford?

He also had to go and corrupt one of America's most beloved figures of the last half-century. And stick you with the $700,000 bill.

Before Obama started pimping him out last week to sell the highly unpopular health-care law, actor Andy Griffith was about as all-American as you could get.

Grew up during the Great Depression.

Award-winning gospel singer.

As widower Sheriff Andy Taylor, he was thoughtful, big-hearted and always gently right.

As Matlock, he always won his cases.

Yet in a sick deal with the Obama administration, Griffith shatters his credibility, promising all roses with a health-care law that even Barney Fife could tell you is a disaster in the making.

"This year, like always, we'll have our guaranteed benefits," Griffith says in the gauzy ad, as if today's seniors are America's last generation.

"And with the new health-care law, more good things are coming. Free checkups, lower prescription costs. and better ways to protect us and Medicare from fraud."

Yeah, as if the real problem with today's economy is that people aren't paying enough in taxes and the government has too much money on its hands.

Here's a letter from five GOP senators to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius demanding answers. An excerpt:

We are writing to express our profound concern regarding the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) television ad campaign touting the benefits of the new health care law for seniors. According to press reports, the ad campaign cost taxpayers $700,000.

We request that you cease the ad campaign immediately and reimburse the U.S. Treasury for any expenditure of taxpayer funds related to this effort. We also request you provide documentation outlining which HHS account these funds came from.

We believe this ad is a clear violation of the spirit of federal laws that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes. The justification for this ad, as expressed by Stephanie Cutter, an Assistant to the President, demonstrates the clear political motivation for the ad.

Ms. Cutter wrote on the White House blog: “As we worked to pass the Affordable Care Act, seniors were the target of a major misinformation campaign that was designed to scare and confuse older Americans about the real impact of reform….We are committed to correcting the record and ensuring seniors have the information they need and get the high-quality care they have earned and deserve.”

The Administration’s claim to “correct the record” is misleading and offensive. We can debate the relative merits of the new law, but co-opting public funds during a recession, to make a political, poll-tested argument about the new law, is wrong. While we understand the intensity of the Administration’s faith in this new law, “correcting the record” through the use of a taxpayer-funded ad campaign is highly inappropriate and breaks with the spirit of the law.

They want an answer by tomorrow. Good luck with that.

Summer of Recovery Continues: $276,000 of Stimulus Money Created Six One-Hundredths of a Job

I figure at this rate of progress we should be easing out way out of The Great Recession somewhere in the fall of 9826, by which time memory of this disastrous presidency hopefully has faded.

On the upside, if you're one of the many who do ant research for a living, somewhere a fortune awaits you.

A couple of Republican senators put out a report today spelling out how they say a lot of the money taxpayers shelled out for the stimulus package was wasted. CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson Follows the Money.

It may be called the Recovery Act, but to Pastor Greg Sheets - it's the law of unintended consequences.

A well-meaning stimulus project to improve the road in front of his Newark, Ohio home has led the city to take part of his yard through eminent domain. Sheets got a restraining order when workers got too close to his house. The mess is now in its fourth month.

"My grandmother owned this house when I was a child," Sheets said. "There's not much left here to keep in the family."

In the state of Washington, another stimulus project may be hurting those it was designed to help. Construction began one year ago today in front of the Archery Bistro Restaurant. The owner says it's shut off business like a fly in a bowl of soup. He's had to stop serving lunch, close two days a week and, ironically, lay off 12 workers.

See, it was a "couple of Republican senators" who had to do the work CBS News should have long ago unearthed, but now they feel compelled to report. Why haven't they and other media outlets been doing their job in the 18 months since this trillion-dollar boondoggle passed?

You know that answer.

Now for some fun with numbers.

A new report from Republican senators Tom Coburn and John McCain says too much of the $862 billion in stimulus money is being spent with dubious results: $700,000 for a researcher to study improvised music. For a project on interactive dance, 44 percent of the money goes to "overhead."

The $1.9 million spent to photograph ants in foreign countries has created two jobs created so far. That's better than other ant research stimulus projects: $451,000 has created one job, $276,000 spent on another created six one-hundredths of a job, and the $800,000 spent on a different one created no jobs.

The $144,000 spent to study the behavior of monkeys on cocaine created four-tenths of a job.

To study why monkeys respond to unfairness cost $677,000 - and has created no jobs yet - except maybe for the monkeys.

Read that part again: To study why monkeys respond to unfairness cost $677,000.

I can't wait to see how liberals respond to the unfairness of Republicans pointing this out in television ads.

Naturally, Obama and his minions want us to still live in the Land of Make Believe, a place emptying out quickly judging by his anemic poll numbers.

Still, Obama Administration economists say all the projects have valid goals, and the Recovery Act has put three million people back to work.

Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser to Vice President Biden said, "If you look at the impact of the Recovery Act, including many of the projects that they're critiquing, these are projects that are creating jobs today, getting Americans back to work."

Back to work studying ants and crackhead monkeys whining about unfairness.

And they're the best and brightest.

In other reality-based news, a new poll shows two-thirds of the ruling class--that would be the Obama regime, Democrats and Journlisters--believe America is on the right track. That's apparently the fast track to statism. Meanwhile, 84% of Americans disagree with the elites. A slight divide there, it appears.

Surprise! ObamaCare Limits Patient Choice

As the private sector begins to digest and react to ObamaCare, the loss of choice is becoming more obvious, and the mainstream media whores try to spin this as a good thing in order to save money. Get a load of the spin from the New York Times.

As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.

But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.

The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain variety of health-care choices.

But, but, but Obama, Pelosi and Reid said that I could keep my current doctor if I want! What the Three Stooges did not tell you is that you might have to pay the whole tab yourself for that choice, which you could always do anyway.

Imagine that. Obama, Pelosi and Reid conning you and lying to you about the health care legislation. Get ready to stand in line or pay through the nose.

The last time health insurers and employers sought to sharply limit patients’ choice was back in the early 1990s, when insurers tried to reinvent themselves by embracing managed care. Instead of just paying doctor and hospital bills, insurers also assumed a greater role in their customers’ medical care by restricting what specialists they could see or which hospitals they could go to.

“Back in the H.M.O. days, it was tight networks, and it did save money,” said Ken Goulet, an executive vice president at WellPoint, one of the nation’s largest private health insurers, which is experimenting with re-introducing the idea in California.

The concept was largely abandoned after the consumer backlash persuaded both employers and health plans that Americans were simply not willing to sacrifice choice. Prominent officials like Mr. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton learned to utter the word “choice” at every turn as advocates of overhauling the system.

You can already see that getting services under ObamaCare is going to be like getting your oil changed at one of those lube and go places. Pay your money, stand in line and get processed like a piece of machinery. You will be lucky to even know your doctor's name, and I bet more and more you will not even see a doctor.

And all the while the MSM will try to convince you that this is a good thing.

You Can Relax Now: Global Warming 'Tipping Point' Postponed Until 2200

So many tipping points, so little time. Well, actually, we've all got plenty of time and I now plan on increasing my carbon footprint to absurd levels.

Well, at least these self-proclaimed experts can now rest in eternal peace knowing none of them will still be around when they're all proven wrong.

The 14 scientists, all experts in their fields of climate research, were asked about the probability of a tipping point being reached some time before 2200 if global warming continued on the course of the worst-case scenarios predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Nine of the fourteen scientists said that the chances of a tipping point for the high scenario were greater than 90 per cent, with only one saying that the chances were less than 50:50. At current rates of CO2 emissions, the world is on course for following the higher trajectory on global warming suggested by the IPCC.

Via this hot tip.

Great News: Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac Fiasco Costing Us Trillions

Oddly enough those paragons of fiscal austerity in the Democratic Party don't seem to care and are happy to have you on the hook for trillions more. It's almost as if they have something to hide.

In 2008, during the height of the financial crisis, the government took ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, injecting cash to keep them afloat. Since the federal government now owns, manages and supplies the capital for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded last year that their cost to the American people should be accounted for in the federal budget. Unfortunately, President Obama's Office of Management and Budget ruled differently, preferring not to account for the risk these entities pose.

Yet that risk is huge. The federal government's explicit commitment to Fannie and Freddie now surpasses $2 trillion. On top of that are $8.1 trillion in Fannie and Freddie securities now outstanding -- obligations that both Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have stated their unwavering commitment to meeting, should Fannie and Freddie need assistance.

Foreign banks and governments hold some $1.3 trillion of those securities, so US taxpayers are on the hook for bailing out foreign governments should Fannie and Freddie default. We may end up sending China alone a check for $454 billion.

With the taxpayers as the $10 trillion backstop for these government-controlled misfits, there should be a significant drive in Congress to reform them and reduce the risk to the public. Yet the Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate have blocked every such effort -- even the most basic attempts at reform, such as legislation I offered to provide for an accurate accounting of Fannie and Freddie.

Why have my Democratic colleagues squelched even the most common-sense attempts at transparency? I can only conclude that they feel that they have something to hide -- that they fear that the American people, on discovering the true cost of Fannie and Freddie, will be alarmed; that, when the public sees the risks these entities pose, it will demand reform. And, perhaps, that when the taxpayers discover the Democrats' repeated attempts to stymie reform, they will be furious.

Problem is the public is largely ignorant of the incestuous relationship between Democrats and these outfits, due mostly to reportorial malfeasance by the media. You know if the GOP was bedded down with them it would be hung around their necks like a millstone.

Perhaps the GOP Congress next year can start investigating this mess and hold hearings so the public can realize they've been had. But don't hold your breath on the news leaking out.

Great News: Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac Bailout Could Reach $1 Trillion

This Democrat boondoggle is too big to fail or something. And we're on the hook for it.

The cost of fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that last year bought or guaranteed three-quarters of all U.S. home loans, will be at least $160 billion and could grow to as much as $1 trillion after the biggest bailout in American history.

Fannie and Freddie, now 80 percent owned by U.S. taxpayers, already have drawn $145 billion from an unlimited line of government credit granted to ensure that home buyers can get loans while the private housing-finance industry is moribund. That surpasses the amount spent on rescues of American International Group Inc., General Motors Co. or Citigroup Inc., which have begun repaying their debts.

“It is the mother of all bailouts,” said Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer at Fannie Mae, who is now a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry.

Fannie, based in Washington, and Freddie in McLean, Virginia, own or guarantee 53 percent of the nation’s $10.7 trillion in residential mortgages, according to a June 10 Federal Reserve report. Millions of bad loans issued during the housing bubble remain on their books, and delinquencies continue to rise. How deep in the hole Fannie and Freddie go depends on unemployment, interest rates and other drivers of home prices, according to the companies and economists who study them.

The Congressional Budget Office calculated in August 2009 that the companies would need $389 billion in federal subsidies through 2019, based on assumptions about delinquency rates of loans in their securities pools. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget estimated in February that aid could total as little as $160 billion if the economy strengthens.

If housing prices drop further, the companies may need more. Barclays Capital Inc. analysts put the price tag as high as $500 billion in a December report on mortgage-backed securities, assuming home prices decline another 20 percent and default rates triple.

Sean Egan, president of Egan-Jones Ratings Co. in Haverford, Pennsylvania, said that a 20 percent loss on the companies’ loans and guarantees, along the lines of other large market players such as Countrywide Financial Corp., now owned by Bank of America Corp., could cause even more damage.

“One trillion dollars is a reasonable worst-case scenario for the companies,” said Egan, whose firm warned customers away from municipal bond insurers in 2002 and downgraded Enron Corp. a month before its 2001 collapse.

Over a 20-year period ending in 2008 Democrats were the top recipients of donations from these corrupt organizations, led by Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Now we're left bailing them out.

Headline of the Day: 'Scam alert issued on new health care law'

The whole damn thing is a scam, which makes this the perfect headline. Imagine the shock of this dimwit Sebelius to find out scammers are trying to scam people over a scam pulled by scammers.

It's scam-tastic!

President Barack Obama's top health official says scam artists are taking advantage of the new insurance law to peddle phony policies.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Tuesday she's writing state officials about a proliferation of scams involving the new health care law, which Obama signed March 23. Federal fraud investigators are also on the lookout.

Of course we don't get to enjoy the wondrous "benefits" of this scam until 2014.

In fact, the big expansion of coverage won't come until 2014. And door-to-door salespeople are unlikely to be part of the plan.

Of course that'll probably change since about 20 million more people will be unemployed by then and the gubmint can use some of them as muscle for the IRS agents that will be coming door-to-door to make sure you're signing up.

UN Orders 'Independent' Panel to Review IPCC Procedures

Raise you hands all of you who think for a second this will be anything but a whitewash?

In an apparent slap at the embattled chief of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has ordered a newly formed outside scientific panel to review its "procedures and practices" -- and more significantly, its management.

The hastily assembled panel will be headed by Prof. Robbert H. Dijkgraaf, head of the Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and co-chairman of the InterAcademy Council. The investigation will be carried out by the Council and will be composed of unpaid volunteer scientists. The panel's formation, it was acknowledged at a press conference Wednesday, was a direct reaction to criticism of the way the IPCC put together its last report on climate change.

Of course this "independent" panel won't have anything to do with all the junk science already promulgated by the discredited IPCC.

So what's the point?

But the IPCC has faced a torrent of criticism since November, when leaked e-mails raised doubts about its handling of data and its fairness. At least five significant errors have been reported in the panel's findings, and its credibility has been severely undermined both among scientists and the public.

On several occasions during Wednesday's press conference, Dijkgraaf said that the mandate of the new panel is not to look at past mistakes but to ensure that the IPCC's next report, its fifth, on the state of climate science will be accepted by the public and the scientific community.

Without admitting their previous reports were bogus, do they really expect people to accept their next report? Oh, and don't expect skeptics to be included in this "independent" report.

The assessment is to be completed by late August so that the findings can be used at the Oct. 5 meeting that will begin the effort to put out the latest report. Dijkgraaf admitted it will be a hurried task since no other members have been appointed and there still isn’t a budget for the panel.

Asked if there will be an effort to include climate change skeptics in the internal debates over which data are used, Dijkgraaf declined to answer.

"All scientists are skeptics," he said.

Can you say whitewash, boys and girls?

What Spending Freeze? Stimulus to Cost Another $75 Billion

Smoke, meet mirror.

Last year's $787 billion economic stimulus bill is going to be even more expensive — $75 billion more.

The new Congressional Budget Office estimate, released Tuesday, provides more ammunition for Republicans who say the stimulus has been long on spending and short on creating promised jobs. The additional cost also eats into the savings forecast from the budget freeze President Barack Obama is expected to propose Wednesday night during his State of the Union address.

Almost half of the additional cost, $34 billion, is because the food stamp program won't be able to take advantage of lower-than-expected inflation rates and will instead have benefits set by the stimulus bill.

Higher unemployment insurance costs added $21 billion to the bill, and stimulus-subsidized bonds to pay for infrastructure projects have proven more popular than expected with state and local governments.

The $75 billion increase would erase one-third of the $250 billion in 10-year savings that would come from the partial domestic spending freeze being proposed by Obama. The boost in unemployment payments alone would more than erase the $10 billion to $15 billion in first-year savings from such a freeze.

More nonsense from Teleprompter Man.

U.S. President Barack Obama will freeze the salaries of senior White House officials and other top political appointees for savings of $4 million in fiscal 2011, a senior administration official said on Tuesday.

The official told Reuters that Obama, in his State of the Union address on Wednesday, would likely mention the move, which will expand on the pay freeze he ordered last year.

Wow, a whole $4 million a year from now. A regular fiscal conservative, this one.

Maybe Joe Wilson can interrupt the SOTU tomorrow and let him know he's still lying.

Only 6.1 Million Jobs Not Saved or Created Since Stimulus

You know what this means, don't you? We need another stimulus!.

Heckuva job, Barack.

According to the data, 49 States have lost jobs since the stimulus was enacted as unemployment has skyrocketed to 10 percent. Only North Dakota and the District of Columbia have seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus (though both fall short of seeing the promised level of job creation). While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost over 2.6 million – a difference of 6.1 million jobs.

Change is coming next November.

Click the image to see how truly disastrous Obama's jobs record is.

Democrat Pollster Got $6 Million in Stimulus Money

Here I thought the money spent on clown shows was bad. This should really make your blood boil.

Nearly $6 million in stimulus money was paid to two firms run by Mark Penn (photo above), Hillary Clinton’s pollster in 2008.

Federal records show that $5.97 million from the $787 billion stimulus helped preserve three jobs at Burson-Marsteller, the global public-relations and communications firm headed by Penn.

Burson-Marsteller won the contract to work on a public-relations campaign to advertise the national switch from analog to digital television. Nearly $2.8 million of the contract was issued to Penn’s polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, according to federal records.

Wow. Three whole jobs save for a mere $6 million. How stimulating.

Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said the three jobs saved at Burson-Marsteller represented a poor value for taxpayers.

“It illustrates a very poor way to create jobs,” Kyl said.

Kyl said the appropriateness of Democratic strategists receiving funds “depends on whether they exerted some influence.”

Well, I'd recommend Congressional hearing on this, but you expect the Democrats to go along with that when their own pollsters are raking in the money?