Get ready for round two of YET another spending bill. Another one after the President decided to sign off in secret (cough*more transparency, yeah, right!*cough) last night what he deemed an “imperfect” appropriations bill because it had too many earmarks. (Side rant: I love how now he acknowledges ‘earmarks’ after claiming the ‘no earmark’ defense on the last bill which was nearly 80% earmarks)

As Ed at HotAir notes, wasn’t the first stimulus supposed to create 2, err, 3, uuuuh, I mean 4 million jobs according to President Obama. So why can’t we wait at least ONE MONTH to see how it’s going before our government forces us to flush more money down the drain???  Oh, that’s because it turns out they don’t know what they’re doing or even saying when they are selling their “projections for the stimulus plan.” Remember with the first stimulus when President Wizard said we need to stop asking questions because they’ve got the best economists around – Gee, real glad he never got around to answering the tough questions for the American public who’s funding his pet projects.

“I think our focus is ensuring that that money gets out there as quickly as possible so that we can get our economy turned around again.”

Again, want a direct impact on how to get money in the economy without forcing taxpayers to give up their money before receiving any (and really IF any) benefit after it circulates through the government. Geee, what worked  in the 80s when we faced a very similar recession…Oh! That’s right – tax cuts, especially many for small businesses. And it’s estimated that 40 million jobs were created as a result of Reagan’s tax cutting policies. I’m sure if you state that to a liberal they’ll be real quick to tell you how supply-side economics are a failed policy. Ummm – let’s take a trip down memory lane on government spending vs. tax cuts, shall we?

Say it with me – Hooooope & Chaaaaaange!

Oh, and looks like most of Americans except the ones in the Beltway are not fans of the additional proposed spending (according to Rasmussen)

Just 27% of voters nationwide favor passage of a second economic stimulus package. The latest Rasmussen Reports nationwide telephone survey found that 55% are opposed and 19% are not sure.

During the election last year, it was a weekly occurrence that Obama would throw some “acquaintance” (i.e., close family-friend, personal advisor, mentor for 20+ years) under the bus in order to save his reputation with independents and basically score votes. Trust me, the far leftists could care less on who their nominee cohorts with as long as it’s not somebody who is smart enough to figure out that Saddam Hussein IS NOT the Abraham Lincoln of Iraq.

Anydelusion, a lot of conservative pundits were notorious for jumping ship and defending Obama as well as their upcoming vote for him. They believed he was the “change” that Washington needed or the “hope” of a new era of politics – we conservatives who criticized him were just party poopers of history being made (ooookay!). Where they saw unicorns and fairies, we saw a smooth-talking, used-car salesman type of campaign rhetoric that didn’t match up with Obama’s political votes/positions and policy legislation.  Where they saw themselves as being bi-partisan and not allowing race to get in the way of an historic vote; we real conservatives saw traitors to conservative principles and our own falling for race-baiting tactics that used fear to manipulate people into voting for the Democratic candidate (”Don’t be a racist – vote Obama!”,  ”Why would you be against making history – better vote Obama!”)

So now those chiiiiiiiiickens are coming home to roost! Can I get a Aaaaaaaamen, Rev. Wright? Oh, too busy building your multi-million dollar mansion paid for by the donations of the oppressed folks you claim to be helping get out of poverty while you live like you’re on an episode of Lifestyles of The Rich and Famous? Okay, another time then.

Anyways, I guess buyers’ remorse isn’t just brewing with actual voters. It took a while but looks like some of those conservative pundits, the ones my liberal friends liked to use as “proof ” that Obama was the one to save (SAVE ME! SAVE ME, OBAMA!) our nation, are now thinking twice about their too-quick-to-judge votes.

Can I get a round of kool-aid shots for my friends Christopher Buckley and David Brooks???  Drink up, boys.

Here’s Buckley -

Hold on—there’s a typo in that paragraph. “$3.6 trillion budget” can’t be right. The entire national debt is—what—about $11 trillion? He can’t actually be proposing to spend nearly one-third of that in one year, surely. Let me check. Hmm. He did. The Wall Street Journal notes that federal outlays in fiscal 2009 will rise to almost 30 percent of the gross national product. In language that even an innumerate English major such as myself can understand: The US government is now spending annually about one-third of what the entire US economy produces.

Here’s Brooks -

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses.

Oh, Chris “Thrill Up My Leg” Matthews wants to get in on the free kool-aid shots to celebrate buyers’ remorse TOO???  Uh, he’s such a mooch. Okay, Thrill Boy, let’s hear it!

So the House today voted on another $410 spending bill. Yes, ANOTHER spending bill. Oh, the first one was just a “stimulus” and didn’t contain any “earmarks.” Or wait, then Obama said a stimulus bill WAS spending. Good grief, I love it when our political leaders play Russian Roulette with our money. Only I don’t get to play but sit in front of my computer cringing in agony.  Ummmm….I know you’re jealous, Smancy Pelotox!

As for the spending bill that passed the House this afternoon, there are literally almost 9,000 earmarks in it — and it still drew more than a dozen GOP votes. It’s an amazing testament to the confidence Obama and the Democrats have in their popularity right now that they’re willing to hit the public with another trillion in future spending so soon after dropping $800 billion on the stimulus and with another round of TARP on the way.

Plus on the horizon is a $600+++ billion healthcare “fund.” Ohhh, can’t freaking wait for those tax raises to come in. Yes, like when you, myself and anyone else who makes over $42,000/year got when the Bush tax cuts kicked in. I know it’s hard to get around that liberal propaganda talking point, but it’s true. And even those tax increases won’t hold off the massive spending and programs we’ll have to cover as long as the majority keep electing leaders who don’t know what it means to have a balanced budget.

Eventually, the foreign investors lending the federal government billions of dollars every week — to make up for the current gap between taxes and spending — will need a reason to believe that those loans will be repaid. Otherwise, they will begin demanding much higher interest rates. That could create a new financial crisis.

Double Gulp.

Also, TryingtoGrok had Tom Coburn hitting the nail on the head with some of this frivolous spending.

We are going to spend $448 million to build the Department of Homeland Security a new building. We have $1.3 trillion worth of empty buildings right now, and because it has been blocked in Congress we can’t sell them, we can’t raze them, we can’t do anything, but we are going to spend money on a new building here in Washington. We are going to spend another $248 million for new furniture for that building; a quarter of a billion dollars for new furniture. What about the furniture the Department of Homeland Security has now? These are tough times. Should we be buying new furniture? How about using what we have? That is what a family would do. They would use what they have. They wouldn’t go out and spend $248 million on furniture.

Bottom line – this porkulus plan is going to cost an average of $10,000 from each household in America. Do you have an extra $10,000 you’d like to just hand over to the govt. and never see any of the benefit of it? I find it hard to believe if any people would be happy with that scenario. And if you need a lesson in how govt. spending doesn’t cure economic woes, then take a look at Japan in the 1990s.

The recession that happened in 2001/2002 was helped by the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the roaring US economy in the late 90s was helped in part to the driving interest of dotcom stocks but also the 1997 Tax Reform bill. I don’t think tax cuts are the only answer but at least we should have temporary ones put in place to give immediate and direct relief to families as well as business to help them keep employees or create new jobs. Not spending $500 million on the National Endowment for the Arts or HIV testing.  If we’re going to have to spend money under this administration let’s make it about funding more manufacturing, infrastructure and technology. 95% of that bill should go toward those initatives – not just 5%!