TARP Losses ONLY $117 Billion

According to the Treasury Department spokesman, Andrew Williams, projected losses for the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) are only going to be $117 billion not the $341 billion earlier projected. What a relief. When this program was first debated, and tea party types objected, we were told this isn't government spending, it's just a loan; it won't add to the national debt; it will all get paid back. Right. It galls me that the so called elites don't think the average person can understand the workings of finance and financial regulation. (Meanwhile Fannie and Freddie unlimited bailout cash doesn't even make the TARP books, so even this figure is an underestimated lie.) Screw ups like TARP are predictable by everyone except these elites. And to remind every Republican running for office, this donkey of a program was initiated with Republican votes under a Republican administration. If you jackasses want any Tea Party votes, you better start doing some serious work in cutting spending.

Not supporting Jim Bunning isn't such a good start either. Get with the program, I know you can't shut down everything, but one Senator showed some principle in demanding some offsets to deficit expanding extension of unemployment benefits. No matter how popular the programs being halted, unless the Republicans can show some fortitude on deficit reduction, they aren't really catching the mood of the country. Bravo to Scott Brown for applauding Bunning's stand. I know Bunning has issues, but the leadership in the Senate should have gotten their caucus together and made a principled stand on the long avoided promise that all programs will be offset to ensure they don't increase the deficit.

Harry Reid Constitutional Update #2, #3 #4

Reuters is mindlessly parroting Harry Reid's assertion that he has the sole authority on whether or not to seat Roland Burris, Blago's pick for Illinois Senator. Read this quote:

Under the Constitution, Reid said, "We determine who sits in the Senate. And the House (of Representatives) determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to do. This goes back for generations."

As I posted earlier, this is so much rubbish and is settled case law at that. This is just further evidence of why the Democrat run Senate and House can't break 20% approval ratings. Clear legal authority to do what we want to do? So much for the constitution, so much for elections for that matter, why doesn't Harry just pick all the senators himself?

UPDATE #2

As expected today, the Secretary of the Senate refused to seat Roland Burris because "his credentials were not in order." Meanwhile Governor Blagojevich has called a special election to fill the vacated House seat of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. Is he governor or not? The Democrats only have themselves to blame for neither impeaching Blago immediately nor passing legislation to remove his power to fill the senate vacancy. From the Chicago CBS affiliate story:

Roosevelt University policy studies professor Paul Green said there is no reason why Burris should not be seated."One doesn't know what's going on, because legally, (Burris is) absolutely correct, and there should not be any debate; there should not be any discussion. Secretary of State White really has no function in this; the statute is clear. The governor makes the selection," Green said. "I don't know how you bar somebody from a sovereign state who was legally appointed not to go to the U.S. Senate – which, by the way, is not known for being the home of many vestal virgins – and all of a sudden you have everyone shocked, outraged by this process."

Exactly.




UPDATE #3

Rumor has it that Senate Democrats are seeing the writing on the wall and preparing themselves to seat Roland Burris. More here.

UPDATE #4

As legal analysts come around to my position, this from Greta Van Susteren this evening:

I wish the President-elect and Harry Reid would just say, we didn't have time to read the seventeenth amendment to the constitution.

I guess it's just asking too much for lawmakers to be versed at all in the consitution. Especially former consitutional law perfessers.