Choice

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood told The Daily Caller that he is “very proud” of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009 that put 65,000 people to work with $48 billion in federal funds for the Department of Transportation, amounting to $738,461 per job.

The Recovery Act of 2009, which in total cost taxpayers $825 billion, has been criticized because it did not prevent the unemployment rate from rising above 8 percent, contrary to what the Obama administration predicted.

“Yeah, we spent $48 billion and we put 65,000 people to work in 15,000 projects in two years with no problems,” LaHood told The Daily Caller in a video interview in Alexandria, Va., on Friday. “I’m very proud of that. I know that the governors can spend this money because over two years we gave them $48 billion, they created 65,000 jobs in 15,000 projects. This is doable. We’re going to get the money out and get people to work.” (DC)

So with around 13 million unemployed this is doable. 🙂 That’s only 96,000 Billion!!!

$96,000,000,000,000

The Liberals were right, the Stimulus was too small! 🙂

On Monday’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “The Five,” co-host Greg Gutfeld said Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter wasn’t that far off when she told CNN’s “State of the Union” that entertainment media outlets and national press outlets are equally important.

What she said (and look for the childish attack at the end): According to Cutter, making time for those outlets is as important as focusing on traditional media.

“I don’t think that they’re more important, but I think that they’re equally important,” Cutter said. “I think that’s where a lot of Americans get their news. And I think the president’s going to continue doing that. You know, Mitt Romney might have had two media availabilities, but what did he tell you, Jim, in those media availabilities?

“He told you he wasn’t going to release his taxes because he was afraid of getting attacked. And you know, he spouted off lies [about] the president’s Medicare system. So, do you find that media availability really useful if he is not being transparent about his own policies and distorting the president’s? ”(DC)

Gutfeld explained that Hollywood, and by extension the Hollywood press, both want Obama re-elected.

“The reason Obama prefers Tinseltown rags to national press is simple: If Hollywood is the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, then the Hollywood press is the propaganda arm for the propaganda arm,” Gutfeld said.

“It’s just another vehicle to make a political disaster tastier to a dismayed public,” said Gutfeld “And since entertainment hacks must kiss the stars’ behind to survive they must embrace the pet causes, too. Before it was global warming, but now it’s Obama, who is bigger than the globe. It’s another Obama first — a U.S. president who finds the job too local for him. Be honest, Jasper [‘The Five’ co-host Dana Perino’s dog] knows more about politics than the Hollywood act. Look at him.”

“But the biggest joke in all of this — that the national press thinks it’s different. No guys, you’re not. You’re every bit as shallow and coopted as the typical entertainment reporter fawning over Ryan Gosling’s chiseled pecks — they are chiseled,” Gutfeld added.

“So Cutter is right, there is no difference between the news press and the entertainment press. They are two industries united by hero worship, protecting the president’s flanks when they should be challenging him. And the public ends up with a presidency that feels like another summer repeat that needs canceling because in the real world, you can’t turn turkey into a blockbuster no matter how many positive reviews you buy.” (DC)

So if Obama wants to hang out with Entertainment Tonight and People Magazine rather than, say, a Press Conference. It really doesn’t matter because they are all fluff all the time for him anyhow and he’s going to stay in the fluff.

VOTER ID

On August 15, a Pennsylvania judge upheld the Commonwealth’s new law requiring one of a plethora of forms of identification — including a driver’s license, accredited school ID, government employee badge and a new voter-specific ID, among others — be used at a polling place to certify a voter is who they say they are.

The next day, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit got the ID she needed to vote despite the alleged hurdles her ACLU lawyers said stood in her way.

Viviette Applewhite took two public buses to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation office on her own. In its filing on her behalf, the ACLU insisted the elderly civil rights movement veteran whose purse was stolen years ago and lacks a birth certificate “has been unable to obtain photo identification required by Pennsylvania’s photo ID law” and “will no longer be able to vote.”

Yet a frayed, partially legible Medicare card and copies of correspondence from Pennsylvania’s welfare office and elsewhere was enough for the clerks to give Applewhite the ID she can use to vote in November.

The ACLU, planning to appeal the ruling, is unsure if Applewhite will remain a plaintiff. The answer seems obvious.

This episode should end all arguments that voter ID is voter suppression. Applewhite’s ability to easily get an ID card is a complete repudiation of the vicious campaign of deceit against voter ID that has seen ample plays of the race card (Applewhite is black) and the age card (she is 93 and uses a wheelchair), as well as the amplification of the left’s class-warfare strategy (she is poor).

Viviette Applewhite didn’t need an army of ACLU lawyers to secure her vote — but she could have used a ride. Therein lies the inherent irresponsibility of liberal voter ID complaints.

Liberals appear adept at registering people to vote. The NAACP, for instance, has a website dedicated to helping people register. Groups such as the Voter Participation Center are sending out absentee ballots to seemingly every mailing list they can find with such zeal that family pets are receiving VPC’s partially completed requests for ballots. Similar groups are devoting significant resources to educating potential voters about liberal candidates and issues. And there will undoubtedly be massive get-out-the-vote efforts in November.

Yet there never seems to be a point where potential voters are asked: “Do you know you need proper ID to vote? Can we help you get that ID?”

The ACLU has lawyers. The NAACP has lawyers. The Brennan Center for Justice and other groups against voter ID have lawyers who should be able to help those who think they may have trouble obtaining proper ID on a case-by-case basis.

Judge Robert E. Simpson, Jr., in his ruling, called the Pennsylvania law a “reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life.”

Do voter ID opponents want to keep people who don’t have photo IDs from entering the 21st century? More likely, they want an excuse. In 2000, liberals blamed their electoral loss on the design of certain ballots. In 2004, it was electronic voting machinesmade by a company owned by a Republican. With so many close races to be decided this November, it appears liberals are looking for a handy excuse to challenge their losses.

And anyway they can cheat the system. After all, if you have no morals about voter fraud then y6ou want to strike down as many Voter ID laws as possible and “racism” and “grandma” are always your go-to weapons of choice.