To ease my way back into regular blogging, I thought I'd point out that an Illinios State Senator is pursuing legislation that would have unrepetant terrorist Bill Ayers removed from his post at the University of Chicago?

State Sen. Larry Bomke, a Springfield-area Republican, wants Ayers removed from his university post under a proposal that says anyone who has committed an act of violence against the governments of the United States or Illinois cannot work at a public university.

Obama's proposal to stimulate the economy includes tax cuts of up to $300 billion — including $500 for most individuals and $1,000 for couples if one spouse is employed — as well as more than $100 billion for businesses, an Obama transition official said. The total value of the tax cuts would be significantly higher than had been signaled earlier. 

Of course, a big caveat for me will be whether the tax cuts are extended to individuals not paying income taxes. That wouldn't be a tax cut, but would instead be a "spread the wealth" income tax redistribution program.  Still, I'm pleased to hear that tax cuts will be a significant portion of the stimulus plan.

I also like this:

At his meeting with bipartisan leaders of Congress, Obama said he would make his stimulus proposal available on the Internet, with a Google-like search function to show each proposed project or program, by congressional district, according to three people who attended.

Nothing like a little disclosure.

Republican leaders are right to gripe about the overall price tag affixed to the package, but it must be remembered that the Democrats prevailed at the polls and the GOP doesn't have the right to expect the Dems to pursue an agenda whose cornerstone is limited government.  We GOPers will have to fight for and win those policies at the ballot box.

The politics of the moment make a federal stimulus package inevitable.  Tax cuts to businesses and individuals make it a little more palatable to swallow.  Let's just hope that there's not too much heartburn with the rest of the package, particularly if the House and Senate Democrats work to sweeten it.

While Saltsman is probably no racist, his decision to send the CD displays a frightening level of tone deafness on an issue for which many Americans have a certain degree of hypersensitivity.  Consequently, I think it would be a critical mistake for the RNC to elect Saltsman as its leader.  I'm especially troubled to read that some RNC members who will be voting on the next chairman don't seem to see anything wrong with Saltsman's action.  It tells me that influential members of the Republican Party simply don't get it, and their lack of comprehension could hurt future efforts of the Party to rebuild its brand and become more competitive in urban areas.

It's also unhelpful to the image of the Republic Party when another southern Republican seems to make light of the issue:

Alabama Republican committeeman Paul Reynolds said the fact the Saltsman sent him a CD with the song on it “didn’t bother me one bit.” 

“Chip probably could have thought it through a bit more, but he was doing everyone a favor by giving us a gift,” he said. “This is just people looking for something to make an issue of.”

This kind of comment feeds a stereotype that only complicates efforts to broaden the Party's support.  You can bet that the Democrats can capitalize on this seeming indifference to race if given the opportunity.  Politics is about perception, and the clear perception that comes across as a result of the Saltsman story is that the GOP is too southern and not serious about racial issues.  

The GOP must retain is core values while pursuing strategies to educate and expand its electorate.  In my opinion, Saltsman should no longer be a viable candidate to lead the GOP out of the wilderness.

But we’re not there yet. Warren’s defamation of gay people illustrates why, as does our president-elect’s rationalization of it. When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.

Actually, Obama's description of "a wide range of viewpoints" is exactly what diversity should be.  It doesn't mean that one has to accept a diverse viewpoint, but the true test of intolerance is to try to render a disagreeable view as being so unacceptable that its purveyors shouldn't be considered as legitimate members of polite, sophisticated society.  

By arguing that Warren should not have invited to participate in the inauguration, Rich is being more intolerant than open-minded.  After all, the issue that motivated his column was gay marriage.  It's not comparable to a call for genocide or a similar and dangerous form of extremism.  As Rich himself notes, most of America's prominent political leaders are opposed to gay marriage, as are the majority of Americans.  

Rich should also consider that homosexuals seeking to unite in holy matrimony are not denied any right that heterosexuals aren't themselves denied under the law.  

As a heterosexual man, I'm permitted to marry a woman, but am denied marriage to a man.  A homosexual man is perfectly free to marry a woman.  Some might believe this argument rings hollow, but it's valid insofar as it undermines the argument made by homosexuals that they are somehow uniquely denied from participation in the institution of marriage.  If the counter argument is that it's permissible to base marriage solely on emotional and physical attraction, then how does one possibly make a credible argument against something like polygamy?

The point is that Frank Rich has decided to use an odd issue to apparently criticize the leftist bone fides of President-elect Obama.   Rick Warren's position on gay marriage is exactly where the majority of Americans are on the issue.  If Rich was truly an adherent of diversity, he would respect that such a view may be abhorrent to him, but that, considering the facts, President-elect Obama has done nothing remotely intolerant in giving Warren such a prominent role.

If Rich is going to be this sensitive, he's going to have a really hard time coping if President-elect Obama governs from the center.

If anything, this story causes me to revisit one of my presumptions about Big Labor, which is that its members don't despise rich people as much as they despise that they themselves aren't, and are unlikely to ever become, rich.  

If the wealthy can have their limited membership country clubs, well, why can't they?  Big Labor feels entitled to the living the king's life without having to jump through the necessary hoops to earn it.  Big Labor wants to be compensated like management despite the fact that, unlike management, they don't take their jobs home with them.  Nor are they responsible for the operation and global competitiveness of the company.  Big Labor wants more and more power in how companies operate, but they have no obligation to the shareholders.  Big Labor wants management to sacrifice salary and benefits during tough times, but never suggest that they forego their own perks, which happens in this case to be a country club.   

The origin of the American labor movement was predicated upon a noble purpose.  

Once upon a time, the movement championed some basic rights and remedies necessary to end the abuse and exploitation of workers.  Pictures of such abuses have been novelized in such works as "The Grapes of Wrath" and "The Jungle."  The authors of these works, particularly "The Jungle," may have taken some literary license here and there, but the existence of the exploitation described within these books was very real.  

Having been successful in ending this once-existent exploitation, the labor movement became institutionalized and morphed into the creature known as "Big Labor." The Big Labor beast continues to use the language of exploitation and unfairness to manipulate huge concessions from corporate America.  

Big Labor actually undermines an essential ethos of American capitalism.  

The ambitious pursue the necessary education, training, and experience to win notable achievements and advance in the world.  This ambition serves as the engine that drives our economy.  Wider ambitions leads to achievements and, consequently, broader wealth creation.  

Big Labor convinces people that another route to advancement exists.  This route, however, decouples ambition from achievement. The strategy encourages organization and agitation aimed at a group extraction of something that should be earned through individual effort and merit.  To help facilitate this extraction of wealth, Big Labor pays off the political class to implement laws that lend themselves to additional future extractions.

Big Labor needs to be reformed, not bailed out.

Now there's bailout money for transit agencies in the House version of the bill?

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana announced he was against the measure because of a provision to bail out transit agencies. The bus and rail systems could be on the hook for billions of dollars in payments because exotic deals they entered into with investors — which have since been declared unlawful tax shelters — have gone sour.

This is a typical government spending orgy and an outrage!  Good to see that the Senate Republicans are holding firm...for now anyway.

Here's an even bigger outrage:

At the White House, Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters at a late-morning briefing that the administration had yet to read the fine print of its "conceptual agreement" with congressional Democrats.

However, he indicated clear support, saying Bush would personally lobby Republicans.

Nice attention to detail.  Oh well, they were going to support it anyway!

On the question of impeachment, I am prepared to discuss the suggestions of the House Republican Leader.