Is A Big, Bloated Federal Government Necessary?

Since the Obama Regime has shut down parts of the US government in order to hurt Americans and put the blame on the Republican Party, I have been wondering do we really need a big Federal government?  After all the National Parks are shut down, TSA agents are not being paid, families of troops killed in action aren't receiving any funds from the government, and private charities are stepping to fill the void.

Now it is announced that states will be allowed to open National Parks with their own money.

First, it was a foundation stepping up to cover the cost of death benefits for America's fallen soldiers.

Now, states are starting to come forward to fill the roles that the federal government has abandoned amid the partial government shutdown.

The latest example is Utah, whose governor announced overnight that the state struck a deal with the U.S. Department of Interior to re-open five national parks -- using Utah taxpayer dollars.

Gov. Gary Herbert signed an agreement to pay the National Park Service up to $1.67 million to re-open eight total sites in the state for up to 10 days.

"Utah's national parks are the backbone of many rural economies and hard-working Utahns are paying a heavy price for this shutdown," Herbert said in a written statement. His office said the parks -- including Zion and Bryce Canyon -- will start opening on Friday and be fully operational by Saturday.

The deal comes after the Interior Department agreed to let states use their own money to open some parks amid the partial shutdown. Governors from Utah and three other states -- South Dakota, Arizona and Colorado -- had asked for that authority.

Though the states would have to front their own money to the federal government, they acted in part out of concern that local communities were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost tourism revenue due to the parks' closure.

Figures compiled by a coalition of retired park service workers indicate that, in total, some 700,000 people a day would have been visiting the parks and that the surrounding areas are losing $76 million in visitor spending per day.

But the national parks are hardly the only function of the federal government affected by the partial shutdown -- or threatened by the possibility that Congress does not raise the debt ceiling by an Oct. 17 deadline. If that deadline is missed, the Treasury Department warned an array of payments might not be sent out, including Social Security checks, Medicare reimbursements and military salaries.

The Los Angeles Times reports that California is weighing whether to step up to cover the cost of some federal programs, like food stamps and assistance for pregnant women, if they are threatened in the coming weeks.

Earlier this week, charity group The Fisher House Foundation stepped in to cover the cost of the $100,000 death benefits that are typically paid to families of fallen soldiers. Those payments stopped after Congress and the White House failed to reach a spending agreement by midnight Oct. 1. President Obama, though, signed a bill late Thursday that would once again allow the federal government to pay those benefits.

Meanwhile, Republicans lawmakers and Obama are at last talking about a possible agreement to resolve the budget and debt stalemate.

A proposal from House Republicans to approve a short-term increase in the debt ceiling was met with resistance during a White House meeting on Thursday.

But as House Republicans continued to revise their plan, Senate Republicans were planning to meet with Obama on Friday morning.

SOURCE

Veterans and their families will not be receiving any checks next month if Obama doesn't get his way.  Fisher House is paying the families of the fallen instead of the government.  And now individual states are paying for the NATIONAL parks.

It is time to cut all the pork out of the budgets, cut the entitlement programs and come out with a leaner, trimmer, more financially sound budget and nation.

It Was This Big!

Take 1,000 gay and bisexual men, measure their penises, ask them questions on their sex life and spend $899,769 on it and what do you get?  The Association Between Penis Size and Sexual Health Among Men Who Have Sex with Men.

I kid you not!

The federal government helped fund a study that examined what effect a gay man's penis size has on his sex life and general well-being.

The study was among several backed by the National Institutes of Health that have come under scrutiny from a group claiming the agency is wasting valuable tax dollars at a time when the country is trying to control its debt. This particular research resulted in a 2009 report titled, "The Association Between Penis Size and Sexual Health Among Men Who Have Sex with Men."

The study reported, among its findings, that gay men with "below average penises" were more likely to assume a "bottom" sexual position, while those with "above average penises" were more likely to assume a "top" sexual position. Those with average penises identified themselves as "versatile" in the bedroom.

Though it's difficult to trace exactly how much federal funding went to the project, the study was one of many linked to an $899,769 grant in 2006. The grant was administered by NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse, and went first to a group called Public Health Solutions and a researcher with the National Development and Research Institutes before going to individual researchers.

Those researchers then compiled data from a survey of more than 1,000 gay and bisexual men at events in New York City for the gay community.

"This country is broke and we cannot spend money on this kind of stuff," said Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, which drew attention to the report as part of a six-month investigation into NIH grants for examples of "institutional waste."

"We're spending money on wacky stuff," Lafferty said.

But one of the researchers involved with the report told FoxNews.com that NIH funding was only used to help "analyze and write up" data that had already been collected without the use of taxpayer funds.

"The data were not collected using taxpayer funds," Jeffrey Parsons, a professor with Hunter College, said in an email. "NIH funds were not used to measure anyone's penis size."

"This study was funded by the Hunter College Center for HIV/AIDS Education Studies and Training," the National Institutes of Health said. "Dr. Christian Grov was supported as a postdoctoral research fellow at the time the research was conducted by a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded training grant."

Parsons took issue with Lafferty's description of the grant.

A Traditional Values Coalition release stated that at least $9.4 million went to a 10-year study that included the penis-size research -- but Parsons said it appears that references a much broader "post-doctoral training program" of which the penis-study funding was a "small" part.

Other studies stemming from the same 2006 grant examined topics ranging from the drug market in Houston following Hurricane Katrina to the connection between contraceptives and STD prevention in Madagascar.

"To suggest that 9.4 million dollars was spent to study penis sizes is factually inaccurate and simply designed to create news," Parsons wrote.

The study, which last year was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, claimed there previously had been "little research among men who have sex with men assessing the association between penis size and socio-sexual health."

The study found that men with larger penises were more likely to contract certain sexually transmitted diseases. It also found that men with above-average penises enjoyed more satisfaction with their lifestyle.

The original survey had a relatively high response rate -- with 83 percent of those approached agreeing to participate. "As an incentive, those who completed the survey were given a voucher for free admission to a movie," the study said.

Lafferty's group drew attention to several other studies Monday that it claimed were "bizarre" in the current fiscal climate. Among them was one that asked individuals to "mail in their toenails" to measure "toenail nicotine," according to the values coalition.

"The president has said he's going to hunt down waste. Well, I'm going to give it to him on a platter," Lafferty said.

Full Story

We don't have the money to pay the elderly their Social Security checks, Veterans their VA checks, Military their pay but we have the funds to ask gay men how big they are?  I think the researchers of this project and other pork projects should pay the taxpayer back.

John Murtha Dead At 77.

Rep. John Murtha (D, Penn) died today from complications stemming from gall bladder surgery.  Congressman Murtha was 77.

Murtha was an mystery at times. Pro-life, anti-gun control, against NAFTA and CAFTA, Murtha seem more like a Republican than a Democrat.  Yet he voted for the stimulus package, and health care bills.  He also was in favor of Cap and Trade.

What John Murtha is best remembered for is the corruption that has been associated with him.

Murtha has been targeted by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington as one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress.

In September 2006 the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) listed Murtha under Five Members to Watch in its Second Annual Most Corrupt Members of Congress Report. The report cited Murtha's steering of defense appropriations to clients of KSA Consulting, which employed his brother Robert, and the PMA Group, founded by Paul Magliocchetti, a former senior staffer on the Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense.

In 2008, Esquire Magazine named him one of the 10 worst members of Congress because of his opposition to ethics reform and the $100 million a year he brings in earmarks to his district.The Wall Street Journal has called him "one of Congress's most unapologetic earmarkers."  According to the Pennsylvania Report, Murtha is one of "Pennsylvania’s most powerful congressman" and a "master of crossing the aisle and bringing pork into his district."

In February 2009, CQ Politics reported that Murtha was one of 104 U.S. representatives to earmark funds in the 2008 Defense appropriations spending bill for a lobbying group that had contributed to his past election campaigns. The spending bill, which was managed by Murtha in his capacity as Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, secured $38.1 million for clients of the PMA Group in the single fiscal law. The PMA Group is currently under investigation by the FBI.

In March 2009, the Washington Post reported that a Pennsylvania defense research center regularly consulted with two "handlers" close to Murtha while it received nearly $250 million in federal funding via Murtha's earmarks. The center then channeled a significant portion of the funding to companies that were among Murtha's campaign supporters.

Source: Wikipedia

John Murtha:  King of Pork



Then there was the infamous Haditha killings.

The Haditha incident occurred on 19 November, 2005, and since then there have been differing accounts of exactly what took place.

In November 2005 Murtha announced that a military investigation into the Haditha killings concluded U.S. Marines had intentionally killed innocent civilians. Referring to the first report about Haditha that appeared in Time magazine, Murtha said:

"It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell."

The Marine Corps responded to Murtha's announcement by stating that "there is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process." Murtha was criticized by conservatives for presenting a version of events as simple fact before an official investigation had been concluded.

In August 2006, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich filed a lawsuit against Murtha for character defamation during an ongoing investigation into the Haditha incident. In April 2009 this suit was dismissed by a federal appeals court, while ruled that Murtha could not be sued because he was acting in his official role as a lawmaker when he made the statements.

On December 21, 2006, the US military charged Wuterich with 12 counts of unpremeditated murder against individuals and one count of the murder of six people "while engaged in an act inherently dangerous to others". Charges were subsequently dropped against seven of the eight Marines involved: Capt. Lucas McConnell, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, Lance Corporal Stephen Tatum, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, Capt. Randy Stone and 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson. Only Sergeant Frank Wuterich is still facing trial on 9 counts of involuntary manslaughter.

A interview with Murtha on the subject is on record

Oh yes, he was up for re-election.  A re-election that was not a slam-dunk.

Gone now is the King of Pork, Defamer of Marines, Traitor to the Nation.  I wonder who will be taking his place, and how much will this one spend to keep the Murtha legend alive?