When the City of Albany ripped up Delaware Avenue last summer, no cost was spared for the ARRA-backed project.  The project paved the road, replaced sidewalks and curbs, planted new trees, installed new crosswalks that “look” like bricks, fixed up the sewers, and more. ..including new street signs?

Why did we have to purchase new street signs, and pay people to rip out the old signs and concrete in the new ones?  There were dozens of signs that were replaced.  Sure seems like a waste of taxpayer money.  Were none of them functional any more?

In addition, and what really caught my eye, is that the new signs are harder to read!  They are in “mixed case,” as opposed to the old ones which were all in capital letters.

You be the judge…  If you are in your car, driving 30 miles per hour, is it easier to read “Delaware” or “DELAWARE”?

President Obama asked for an accounting of jobs saved or created.  Why not ask for an accounting of expenses avoided?

In this article, a topic that has yet to hit the mainstream liberal media, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber is revealed to be on contract under President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services while he publicly advocates for ObamaCare.

Gruber was contracted by HHS for $297,600 to provide “technical assistance” evaluating the various health reform proposals.  His function is to advise internal staff to make a more informed recommendation.

He has publicly defended his support of the tax on “Cadillac insurance plans.”  These public positions – talking to the press, writing articles, etc – were supposedly done on his own time.

So President Obama’s administration hires a non-objective economist to evaluate proposals?  Why?  Can’t we find an objective one that doesn’t need the spot light?

Also, nearly $297,600 was spent obtaining this one person for a short-term contract to evaluate these plans.  Is this cost being included in President Obama’s estimates of how much health care is costing us?  How many more contractors like him exist?  The people deserve to know.

Give us the full cost, President Obama.  Make it transparent, as promised.

We were very close to having another terrorist attack on our shores yesterday, on Christmas Day.  Thank God it was averted, and I pray that it was an isolated event.

The accused Islamic terrorist comes from Nigeria, is a student in London, and received training and materials from Yemen.

As a nation, we need to remember that our “#1 domestic policy” must be to protect our country from attacks.  It certainly properly focuses our attention and priorities.

Someone just reminded me of another segment of the population to add to the list that our President attacked:  Postal Workers.

On August 5th, 2009 President Obama said at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire:

“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

It is rather unbelievable that our President would insult yet another branch of government.  Earlier in the summer he insulted the Cambridge police force, saying they “acted stupidly.”

President Obama:  You are a proponent of a large federal government.  Why are you insulting federal employees?  And if federal employees are having so many problems and can’t compete with private industry, why do you keep proposing more federal programs?

Stop saying what you think people want to hear.  You insulted thousands of your federal employees in an attempt to sell ObamaCare.

Under President Obama’s leadership, the U.S. has suffered yet another problem with the H1N1 virus.

Not only has H1N1 claimed the life of hundreds of Americans, especially children, it also exposed a systemic problem with the government’s execution of health care in the country.

There have been shortages of the rushed H1N1 vaccine nationwide.  The shortages were compounded today when we learned that thousands of doses of the vaccine are not up to snuff, and that recipients of these defective shots are being encouraged to get another round of treatment.

Typically, I would not blame a President for this problem.  He’s not a scientist.  He did not make these faulty shots.  And even though Democrats in previous years harshly criticized President GW Bush for shortages under his watch, and now perhaps this Democratic President deserves a taste of his party’s own medicine, I still don’t think it is right to blame a President.

But with President Obama, it is different.

Our current President has set himself up to be the fallguy for all of the nation’s ills.  He actively gets involved in all aspects of American life.  Whether it’s commenting on police who “acted stupidly,” calling Kanye West a “jackass,” or proposing fines to those who don’t want health insurance, President Obama forces his way into our life.  And for that, he deserves criticism when things go wrong.

President Obama has also become actively involved in the fight against H1N1.  In October, he declared a state of emergency, granting hospitals additional freedoms to treat patients in otherwise non-ideal conditions.  In September, President Obama said he “strongly recommends” everyone get the vaccine.  In July, his administration began “aggressively” preparing for the fall season, including holding a “H1N1 Summit.”

I point out these actions to show that he did take steps to try to minimize the impact of H1N1.  He obviously would have wanted the credit if his actions did have a large positive impact.  Therefore, he must also accept the blame when they fall short.

Governor Paterson announced today that he is unilaterally cutting 10% of payments in aid to municipalities.

The Governor has proposed this before, however, and the NYS Legislature refused to approve such a move – fearing the political backlash of cutting funds to their constituents.  Governor Paterson, though, has proven that he is above the groaning of his constituents, and continues to do what he believes is best.

Personally, I have not been a great supporter of the Governor, but if he follows through with this move, and cuts funding to the bloated schools and municipalities, I will need to seriously reconsider my opinion of him.  He is persistent, and honestly believes he is doing what is right.  He has many flaws though (such as trampling on the NYS constitution to appoint an illegal Lieutenant Governor), too many to earn my vote.  This act, if he follows through, will have earned my respect.

The reason I believe this cut is important is simple.  New York State should not be going in the red at the same time that local communities have enough money that they still have the luxury of “choices.”

New York City will not receive $84 million in aid.  Albany and Schenectady will not get $1.2 million each in aid.  Local governments across the state in total will not receive $1.9 billion in aid.

This is the type of cut that hopefully will make governments tighten up their budgets.  We need some consolidation of entities in order to survive these tougher financial times.  Many communities have separate City operations, Library services, school districts, water supply, etc.  This creates obvious inefficiencies, and therefore costs taxpayers more.

Hopefully Governor Paterson’s drastic 10% cut will yield the type of change necessary to bring financial stability to our state.

For some reason, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who represents parts of Silicon Valley, has decided the Federal government should be involved in deciding how loud your TV should be.

Congresswoman Eshoo is pushing to turn down the volume of television commercials down.  Why?

Is this our most pressing national issue?

Should the Federal government really be dictating the volume of our televisions?

And what about those who actually like the commercials?  Super Bowl watching sure would be different…

Yet again, Uncle Sam is busting into your living room and hogging the remote.

Despite resigning his position as Governor due to his involvement in a prostitution sting, Eliot Spitzer is considering running for Attorney General again, according to the New York Post.

Spitzer may have been a competent Attorney General, but New Yorkers have had a real shortage of honest, hard-working, transparent political leaders.  We don’t need to recycle one we finally got rid of.

New Yorkers have had two consecutive governors (Spitzer and Paterson) that have admitted to being unfaithful to their wife.  Spitzer admitted to hiring high-end prostitutes and narrowly avoided jail time.  Paterson, upon taking over when Spitzer resigned, admitted to cheating on his wife.  He also admitted to using Cocaine and Marijuana.

We had Comptroller Alan Hevesi convicted of using state employees for his personal use.  Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno recently convicted of Federal corruption charges.  Senator Pedro Espada, Jr is being investigated for various charges including living out of state, and has been videotaped with a colleague roughing up a Blogger saying that he is “trying to teach him manners.”  Senator Hiram Monserrate was convicted of assault of his girlfriend.

Of course, there are leaders like Assemblyman Jack McEneny.  He may look like an angel compared to the above-mentioned politicians, but it is unethical for McEneny to be collecting two checks from NYS in a time of financial crisis like this.

New York is in a crisis, and its financial issues are the least of its worries.

Despite a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama to stop funding ACORN with tax dollars, the Obama Administration still pushes for ways to fund the organization that helped elect him.

It is appalling that the Department of Justice used some very creative reasoning to justify the continued flow of money to ACORN.  The Congress has spoken, yet the Obama Administration wants to circumvent the voice of the people.

The DOJ focused on a phrase in the law that reads, “None of the funds made available by this joint resolution or any prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.”  The DOJ argued in their Memorandum Opinion to HUD that the phrase “provided to” does not exclude the possibility of funding existing contracts.

How?

“No funds … provided to … ACORN.”

The intent seems pretty clear to me.

Their memo even cites several dictionary sources to support their finding.  For example, the memo cites the American Heritage Dictionary (2006), which says “supply” or “furnish”.

“No funds … supplied to … ACORN.”

I still don’t see the ambiguity.  The memo essentially concedes the American Heritage Dictionary does not coincide with their findings, so the DOJ goes on to quote other dictionaries, such as the Oxford English Dictionary (1989).

The argument goes on to say the word “provide” has a “forward-looking aspect”, which makes the intent of the law unclear.  So let’s assume “provide” implies “in the future.”  So that could be interpreted as:

“No funds … provided (in the future) to … ACORN.”

I’m still not seeing the mystery.

I think the DOJ wanted the law to say “No contracts … provided (in the future) to … ACORN.”  Alas, it does not.

It is very clear that the intent of Congress was to cease the support of an organization which aided people to lie and deceive the government.

How anyone can interpret this law any other way just perplexes me.

I am sure President Obama will issue directives to his staff to stop all funding, in order to comply with the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

It is expected that President Obama will once again summon more troops to Afghanistan.

In March, President Obama ordered 20,000 troops into Afghanistan.  It is expected that on Tuesday, during his prime time speech, he will announce that he is sending another 34,000.  There are currently about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan.

I think it is great that President Obama is willing to win the war.  As public support for the war continues to slip (according to Tuesday’s CNN poll, 66% believe the war is going badly), we will see how committed he is to his victory.