Congress Hands Out Bonuses

From Brody Mullins and Louise Radnofsky at The Wall Street Journal:

While Congress has been flaying companies for giving out bonuses while on the government dole, lawmakers have a longstanding tradition of rewarding their own employees with extra cash -- also courtesy of taxpayers.
Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data. That was the highest jump in the eight years LegiStorm has compiled payroll information. . . .

Last year alone, more than 200 House lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, awarded bonuses totaling $9.1 million to more than 2,000 staff members, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of office-disbursement forms. The money comes out of taxpayer-funded office budgets, and is surplus cash that would otherwise be forfeited if not spent.
Payments ranged from a few hundred dollars to $14,000. Lawmakers, at their own discretion, gave the money to chiefs of staff, assistants, computer technicians, and more than 100 aides who earned salaries of more than $100,000 a year. . . .

Disbursement forms show that dozens of aides working for the Financial Services Committee got a bonus from panel Chairman Barney Frank. Spokesman Steven Adamske said the Massachusetts Democrat gives bonuses to staffers because "government workers are pretty low paid." He said several aides who got bonuses had worked long hours during 2008 on the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Top Financial Services Committee Republicans also gave their aides bonuses. "These were merit bonuses for people who had performed especially well," said Larry Lavender, an aide to Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee. . . .

Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California handed out the largest payments, giving $14,000 apiece to three aides. Spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod said her boss is "proud of the bonuses she is able to give."
Last fall, Democratic Rep. Tom Udall left the House to run for New Mexico's Senate seat. Several members of his House staff took leaves from their government jobs to work for his campaign. When Mr. Udall won the race and returned to Washington, his office budget had accrued a large surplus. He decided to spend the surplus funds by increasing salaries for nearly his entire staff for a short time.
Disbursement forms show that in late December, Mr. Udall temporarily increased salaries for 19 of his 22 employees to an annualized rate of $163,795. Among those who earned the higher pay were staff assistants, a scheduler, an executive assistant and a part-time employee.

NY Democrat Denied Victory:

From Breitbard and the Asso0ciated Press:
After a frenzied, bruising special election, a New York congressional race that became linked to President Barack Obama's economic recovery efforts won't be decided for at least two more weeks.
Democrat Scott Murphy led Republican Jim Tedisco by a scant 65 votes out of more than 154,000 cast Tuesday.
After the count of machine votes in 610 voting precincts spread over the mostly rural, 10-county district, the unofficial count was 77,344 for Murphy to 77,279 for Tedisco. That puts the focus on the more than 10,000 absentee ballots mailed to voters who are registered in the district but were unable to vote in person on Tuesday.
It can be a laborious process to count all the paper ballots and those being mailed from overseas aren't due in New York until April 13. A lawsuit filed by state Republicans Tuesday night required all ballots to be impounded to ensure accuracy. It's not an unusual step in close elections.
Of the ballots mailed out, nearly 6,000 were returned by Tuesday but most had not yet been counted. . . .
"To even be competitive in a district like that, I think says a lot," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Air Force One as Obama traveled to London. . . .
Republicans were also optimistic, claiming that their polling showed an advantage of about 1,100 absentee ballots sent to registered Republicans, but that couldn't be independently verified.
"I believe, when the smoke clears, we'll have won a tremendous victory," Tedisco said.
Noting a dismal 2008 election cycle that saw three Republicans ousted from New York's congressional delegation, Pete Sessions, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, looked for the positive in Tedisco's showing.
"For the first time in a long time, a Republican candidate went toe-to-toe with a Democrat in a hard-fought battle over independent voters," Sessions said.

Dodd Put Squeeze On AIG

From Jennifer Haberkorn at the Washington Times:

As Democrats prepared to take control of Congress after the 2006 elections, a top boss at the insurance giant American International Group Inc. told colleagues that Sen. Christopher J. Dodd was seeking re-election donations and he implored company executives and their spouses to give.
Getty Images Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, has lost some political standing heading into re-election because of his ties to American International Group Inc.
The message in the Nov. 17, 2006, e-mail from Joseph Cassano, AIG Financial Products chief executive, was unmistakable: Mr. Dodd was "next in line" to be chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the insurance industry, and he would "have the opportunity to set the committee's agenda on issues critical to the financial services industry.
"Given his seniority in the Senate, he will also play a key role in the Democratic Majority's leadership," Mr. Cassano wrote in the message, obtained by The Washington Times.
Mr. Dodd's campaign quickly hit pay dirt, collecting more than $160,000 from employees and their spouses at the AIG Financial Products division (AIG-FP) in Wilton, Conn., in the days before he took over as the committee chairman in January 2007. Months later, the senator transferred the donations to jump-start his 2008 presidential bid, which later failed.
Now, two years later, Mr. Dodd has emerged as a central figure in the government's decision to let executives at the now-failing AIG collect more than $218 million in bonuses, according to the Connecticut attorney general - even as the company was receiving billions of dollars in assistance from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). He acknowledged that he slipped a provision into legislation in February that authorized the bonuses, but said the Treasury Department asked him to do it.
The decision has generated national outrage and put the Obama administration into the position of trying to collect the bonuses after they were distributed. It also endangers Mr. Dodd's re-election chances in 2010 as his popularity tumbles in his home state.
Despite all the claims that Washington has changed, the tale of Mr. Dodd's lucrative political ties to AIG is a fresh reminder that special interests continue to use donations and fundraising to sow good will with powerful lawmakers like Mr. Dodd.

McConnell Blasts Big Gov't.

From Walter Alarkon at The Hill:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he fears that President Obama's policies will lead to an "explosion of government" that the country didn't expect when they voted for him last fall.
"I mean they were angry with President Bush. They were not happy with the economy," McConnell said. "All of that we understand. Whether they intended to see America kind of turned into a western European country as a result of an explosion of spending and debt and regulation is another matter."
McConnell and other Republicans have repeatedly tried to portray Obama as a figure radically transforming the government. On Sunday, he also blasted the Democrats' budgets, saying that they'll lead to higher taxes.
Much of the criticism has centered on bailouts the government has provided to banks and other financial institutions, insurer AIG and two of the big three automakers. Much of the funds for these bailout came from the $700 billion package approved by the last Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Obama supported that package.
McConnell also criticized Democrats for suggesting new energy taxes could pay for healthcare legislation. That could be included in budget blueprints the House and Senate will take up this week.McConnell said he fears that the country won't be able to afford what Democrats want to do. He said lawmakers should focus on fixing the country's financial and housing systems."What we ought not to be doing is passing the budget that they propose we pass in the Senate and House next week that doubles the national debt the next five years and triples it in the next 10," he said. A massive tax increase, an energy tax of up to $3,100 per person. An effort we believe the nationalized health care, that has nothing to do with the economic dilemma which we confront at the moment."
McConnell said that he didn't think any Senate Republicans would vote for the Democrats' budget proposal. He suggested it's more likely to see Democrats vote against the budget plan.
"I think they have serious concerns on their side about this budget which is completely disconnected to and unrelated to the current economic crisis in which we're facing," McConnell said.

Tax Cut Pledge Fading?

From the Associated Press:
President Barack Obama says he's not ready to comment on a proposal from some Senate Democrats to scrap his middle-class tax cut after 2010. Obama says he hasn't yet seen what changes are coming out of the House and Senate.
But he delivered his bottom-line on the budget at a Tuesday evening news conference. Obama said the budget must move toward health care reform and include an energy policy that frees the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil. He also says he's looking for investment in education and a reduction in the deficit.
Obama said a middle-class tax cut is already in place through the recovery package for at least two years. And he said he never expected Congress to approve his plan without some changes.

Specter Against Card Check

From Americans for Tax Reform:
Senator Specter has confirmed to ATR that he will vote against both cloture and passage on the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as “card check” or the employee NO choice act). His vote is critical and this a major victory for freedom, as well as a stunning defeat for the other side.
Yes, the good news is that Specter is against this stupid piece of legislation.
The bad news is that he ever even considered voting for it.

Dems Knew About Bonuses

From John Kass in the Chicago Tribune:
Obama told Jay Leno he was surprised that those greedy AIG executives who helped lead the country into financial ruin were in line to receive $165 million in bonuses paid for by bailout cash authorized by his administration."Stunned, stunned is the word," said Obama.Stunned?
It turns out that his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner—who didn't pay all of his federal taxes but was still deemed worthy by Obama of collecting yours—knew all about the AIG bonuses weeks ago.
That was long before Washington Democrats began shrieking in pretend outrage over the bonuses, as if they didn't vote for them, sort of like Chicago aldermen shrieking about corruption from the 5th Floor.
It's like Mayor Richard Daley saying, "Gee, I dunno" when news breaks that his nephews are in another multimillion-dollar government deal. Or that time that Daley gave $100 million in affirmative action contracts to men he knows well, yet was stunned to learn later that they were white guys, not black females.
These days, the Washington Way is looking just like the Chicago Way. Those of us from Illinois can see it, what with City Hall guys pulling White House strings. . . .
All this false congressional outrage and shrieking and fingerpointing should be understood for what it really is: Political buttocks-covering by Democrats who are worried about the 2010 elections, and afraid of losing their greatest symbolic weapon: The Evil Rich Guy.
That's another cartoon, like Mr. Burns on "The Simpsons," who steps on the backs of the humble working man. Now, though, the Democrats aren't fighting Mr. Burns, they're giving him a boost so he can step on our necks with a pair of snazzy AIG loafers. What they're trying to drown out with all their screaming is that the Democrats knew all about the $165 million to the AIG suits. And the Obama White House knew all about it too.
In fact, it was a rather brave New York Democrat, Rep. Joseph Crowley, who asked Geithner about the AIG bonuses in a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee. Not yesterday, or a couple days ago, but on March 3.
"Just last month," Crowley told Geithner, "AIG paid 343 employees of AIG FP—their Financial Products division that created the financial hole that AIG is in, and in turn a multibillion-dollar bill for American taxpayers—$56 million in bonuses and are slated to pay an additional $162 million in bonuses to 393 participants in the coming weeks," Crowley said.
"And there's more," Crowley said. "Further bonus payments totaling approximately $230 million are due to 407 participants at AIG's Financial Products division in March 2010. This makes no sense to my constituency.
"Sadly, it makes perfect sense back here . . . They cut the deal in some back room, and Geithner is being measured as the fall guy. It sounds just like Chicago's City Hall.
I'm stunned, really.

Bonfire Of Trvialities

From Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post:
A $14 trillion economy hangs by a thread composed of (a) a comically cynical, pitchfork-wielding Congress, (b) a hopelessly understaffed, stumbling Obama administration, and (c) $165 million.
That's $165 million in bonus money handed out to AIG debt manipulators who may be the only ones who know how to defuse the bomb they themselves built. Now, in the scheme of things, $165 million is a rounding error. It amounts to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget. It's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone. If Bill Gates were to pay these AIG bonuses every year for the next 100 years, he'd still be left with more than half his personal fortune.
For this we are going to poison the well for any further financial rescues, face the prospect of letting AIG go under (which would make the Lehman Brothers collapse look trivial) and risk a run on the entire world financial system?
And there is such a thing as law. The way to break a contract legally is Chapter 11. Short of that, a contract is a contract. The AIG bonuses were agreed to before the government takeover and are perfectly legal. Is the rule now that when public anger is kindled, Congress will summarily cancel contracts?
Even worse are the clever schemes being cooked up in Congress to retrieve the money by means of some retroactive confiscatory tax. The common law is pretty clear about the impermissibility of ex post facto legislation and bills of attainder. They also happen to be specifically prohibited by the Constitution. We're going to overturn that for $165 million?
Nor has the president behaved much better. He, too, has been out there trying to lead the mob. But it's a losing game. His own congressional Democrats will out-demagogue him and heap the blame on the hapless Timothy Geithner.
Geithner has been particularly maladroit in handling this issue. But the reason he didn't give the bonuses much attention is because he's got far better things to do -- namely, work out a rescue plan for a dysfunctional credit system that is holding back any chance of recovery.
It is time for the president to state the obvious: This recession is not caused by excessive executive compensation in government-controlled companies. The economy has been sinking because of a lack of credit, stemming from a general lack of confidence, stemming from the lack of a plan to detoxify the major lending institutions, mainly the banks, which, to paraphrase Willie Sutton, is where the money used to be.
Obama has been strangely passive about this single greatest threat to the country. In his address to Congress and his budget, he's been far more interested in his grand program for reshaping the American social contract in health care, energy and education.
Obama delegates to Geithner plans for a bailout -- and Geithner (thus far) delivers nothing. Obama delegates to Nancy Pelosi and her congressional grandees the writing of all things fiscal -- and gets a $787 billion stimulus package that is a wish list of liberal social spending, followed by a $410 billion omnibus spending bill festooned with pork and political paybacks.

GOP Leader: Can Geithner

From Glenn Thrush at Politico:
Rep. Connie Mack IV (R-Fla.) is the first member (we think) to call for Tim Geithner's head.
Bear in mind that many Republicans, including Mack, have been sour on the Treasury Secretary from jump and 34 Senators, including Mack's fellow Florida Republican Mel Martinez, voted against Geithner's confirmation.
Mack's press release:

Well before Timothy Geithner became Secretary of the Treasury, he was
working hand-in-hand with AIG and other financial institutions to provide them
hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money as one of the key architects
of the financial sector bailout. I was outspoken against the bailouts then, and
I’m even more outraged now.“I’ve had serious concerns about Secretary Geithner
from the moment he was nominated. In the months since, he has shown us time and
again why he was the wrong choice for this critical post.“This week’s news on
the AIG bonus scandal is but the latest fiasco under his watch and he has lost
the confidence of the American people.“Quite simply, the Timothy Geithner
experience has been a disaster. The Treasury Department is in disarray. Taxpayer
dollars are being wasted. America’s economy hangs in the balance. America needs
and deserves a Treasury Secretary who can truly lead us forward.“Timothy
Geithner should either resign or be fired for the good of the country, and
President Obama should nominate a new Treasury Secretary with the experience and
leadership skills America deserves.”

Congress: GOP Takes Lead

From Rasmussen Reports:
Support for the Democratic Congressional candidates fell to a new low over the past week, allowing the GOP to move slightly head for the first time in recent years in the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat.
Investors now favor Republicans by a 46% to 36% margin, while non-investors would vote Democratic by a 45% to 33% margin.
Democrats began the year holding a six or seven point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009. Over the past month, the gap has been smaller, with Democrats holding a two-to-four point lead.

AIG: Dems In Disarray

From Lisa Lerer, Victoria McGrane at Politico and Yahoo News:
Congressional Democrats careened between the circular firing squad and the three-ring circus Tuesday as they struggled with their new reality: playing defense on the economy.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) blamed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for letting bailed-out insurance giant American International Group pay $165 million in bonuses to its employees, saying he wrote a letter to Geithner two weeks ago warning him of just such a possibility.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), tagged by Republican aides for sponsoring an amendment to the stimulus bill that allowed the bonuses, shifted the blame to the Treasury Department and “the bill conferees,” saying he had no idea that the AIG bonuses were coming.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), joined by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), introduced a bill that would impose a 70 percent tax on “excessive” compensation paid to employees of all bailed-out companies. President Barack Obama has said the White House would use all legal means possible to get the bonuses back, but House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) acknowledged that there were “some questions” as to whether Congress could do anything at all.
And while Hoyer begged AIG execs to give up the money voluntarily, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just tried to change the subject. Asked about Geithner’s role in failing to stop the bonuses, Reid said: “Let’s talk about what we have accomplished this Congress.”
Nice try.
For the second day in a row, the AIG bonuses were just about the only subject of conversation at the Capitol. At press conferences throughout the day — and as members filed in and out of a St. Patrick’s Day lunch — outrage over bonuses was on everyone’s lips.
And that suited long-suffering Republicans just fine.
“This latest flap involving AIG, I think, is very troubling,” crowed House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). “What’s going on in this administration? It seems like an administration in disarray.”

Pigs At The Trough

Cartoon by Michael Ramirez, Investor's Business Daily

Obama Honeymoon Over?

From Alexander Bolton at The Hill:
President Obama’s honeymoon is beginning to fade.
Members of Congress and old political hands say he needs to show substantial progress reviving the economy soon.
Some Democrats have started to worry that voters don’t and won’t understand the link between economic revival and Obama’s huge agenda, which includes saving the banking industry, ending home foreclosures, reforming healthcare and developing a national energy policy, among much else.
While lawmakers debate controversial proposals contained in the new president’s debut budget — cutting farm subsidies, raising taxes on charitable contributions, etc. — there is a growing sense that time is running out faster than expected.
Democrats from states racked by recession say Obama needs to produce an uptick by August or face unpleasant consequences. Others say that there is more time, but that voters need to see improvement by the middle of next year.
The most optimistic say Obama and Democrats in Congress will face a political backlash unless the economy improves by Election Day 2010.
“We’ve got to see an uptick by August or the Democratic majority is in jeopardy,” said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose state had an 11.6 percent unemployment rate in January.
Stupak doesn’t fault Obama for pursuing healthcare reform, because high medical costs are intertwined with the economic difficulties, he said.
But Obama must move quickly, he added, saying, “By summer there is no more honeymoon. Period.”
Other Democrats and some Republicans question whether Obama’s attention is too thinly spread — whether his economic message may be diminished by forays into healthcare, education and energy reform.
“I think any political honeymoon has a short life, and in this economic climate it’s dictated by the public’s perception of hope for the economy,” said former Democratic Sen. Richard Bryan, who represented Nevada for 12 years. . . .
Obama’s push along a wide policy front has begun to alienate admirers on the other side of the political spectrum.
“I fear that in trying to do everything at once, they will do nothing well,” wrote conservative columnist David Brooks, a self-described Obama fan, in a recent column in The New York Times. “I fear that we have a group of people who haven’t even learned to use their new phone system trying to redesign half the U.S. economy.”
Obama’s wide-ranging vision has soured commentators who had earlier praised his job performance. “Obama’s proposals for many hundreds of billions in additional spending on universal healthcare, universal postsecondary education, a massive overhaul of the energy economy, and other liberal programs seem grandiose and unaffordable,” wrote Stuart Taylor in the National Journal.
Don Fowler, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said he supported Obama’s approach but acknowledged that the debate over healthcare reform could drag down his administration.
“Healthcare is an incredible political morass,” said Fowler, noting that Obama will have to take on powerful interests such as hospitals, insurance companies and the American Medical Association.

In Praise Of Pi

From David Rogers at Politico:

With the world swirling about it, the House took a moment Thursday to honor pi, the Greek letter symbolizing that great constant in mathematics representing the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. An irrational number that has been calculated to more than 1 trillion digits, pi is a concept not totally foreign to today’s Washington.

But in this case, the goal was to promote efforts by the National Science Foundation to improve math education in the United States, especially in the critical fourth to eighth grades.

Rounded off, pi equates to 3.14, hence the designation of March 14 as Pi Day under the resolution. Informal celebrations have been held around the country for at least 20 years, but Thursday’s 391-10 vote is the first time Congress has joined the party.

“I’m kind of geeked up about it,” Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) told Politico. “It’s crazy, but I’m a whole lot more excited about that than congratulating the winner of last year’s Rose Bowl.

“I’m not making this up. I have been fascinated by pi since I was a kid. It blows my mind. It’s lovely. The fact that it’s sort of this infinite number. I just think it’s this magical thing. ... There’s a real beauty to mathematics.”

Obama Budget In Trouble

President Obama’s $410 billion omnibus spending bill has been approved. But his overall proposed budget could still be in trouble.
Here's the report from Walter Alarkon at The Hill:
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he has spoken to enough colleagues about several different provisions in the budget to make him think Congress won’t pass it.
Conrad urged White House budget director Peter Orszag not to “draw lines in the sand” with lawmakers, most notably on Obama’s plan for a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions.
“Anybody who thinks it will be easy to get the votes on the budget in the conditions that we face is smoking something,” Conrad said. . . .
Conrad joined Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Budget Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in criticizing the administration’s cap-and-trade proposal for not doing enough to counterbalance increases in energy costs that will be felt by consumers and companies, especially those in energy states such as North Dakota.
Conrad said that it would be a “distant hope” to expect the climate change plan to pass unless it includes help for industries that would be hit hard by limits on carbon emission production.
The North Dakota Democrat also knocked the Obama administration’s plan to cut subsidies for farmers with incomes of more than $500,000. He noted that Congress just rewrote its agricultural policies last year in a bill that received 81 votes in the Senate. The administration has said that it could save taxpayers nearly $10 billion over the next decade from stopping direct federal payments to wealthy farmers, but Conrad denied that the farm policies were not fiscally responsible.
“The Farm Bill was paid for. We made a lot of tough choices. We raised money. We made spending reductions,” Conrad said. “Those who suggest that not fiscally responsible — I don’t think they’re very aware of the history of how we got a Farm Bill passed.”
Conrad said that he hopes the administration understands that “accomplish[ing] big things takes compromise around here.”

Rangel: Mind Your GD Business!

Obama Retreats On Earmarks

From Andrew Taylor at the Associated Press:
Despite campaign promises to take a machete to lawmakers' pet projects, President Barack Obama is quietly caving to funding nearly 8,000 of them this year, drawing a stern rebuke Monday from his Republican challenger in last fall's election.
Arizona Sen. John McCain said it is "insulting to the American people" for Obama's budget director to indicate over the weekend that the president will sign a $410 billion spending bill with what Republicans critics say is nearly $5.5 billion in pet projects known as earmarks.
"So much for the promise of change," McCain said in the first of many assaults he is likely to make against pork-barrel spending this year.
Democrats contend that earmarks in the bill total only $3.8 billion, less than 1 percent of the amount Congress is approving to finance government programs through September. Taxpayers for Common Sense, an anti-earmark watchdog group, counts them differently and found $7.7 billion worth. . . .
"I just went through a campaign ... where both candidates promised change in Washington, promised change from the wasteful, disgraceful, corrupting practice of earmarked, pork-barrel spending," McCain said. "So what we doing here? Not only business as usual, (but) an outrageous insult to the American people."
Only a week ago, Obama was pressing Democratic leaders in Congress to pare back the earmarks at a private White House meeting.
The president, however, hit a brick wall with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other Democrats who treasure their right to send taxpayer money to their states and districts for park improvements, university research grants, equipment for police departments and redevelopment projects.
"I'm here to tell everyone that we have an obligation as members of Congress to help direct spending to our states," Reid told reporters last week.

St. Louis Tea Party Rocks!

From Tim O'Neil at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Critics of President Barack Obama's stimulus plan gathered beneath the Arch Friday to cheer speeches over a bullhorn and toss tea into the Mississippi River.

A few conservative activists organized and promoted the rally, with help from talk-radio hosts. Pleased with the turnout in 35-degree bluster, leaders said they had stolen a page from liberal tradition by taking to the streets with homemade signs."If I had known this many people would show up, I'd have charged admission," said Bill Hennessy of Ballwin, the lead organizer. "

We'll do this every chance we get until Congress repeals the pork — or we retire them from public life."

Hennessy estimated that more than 1,000 people showed up. There was no official count, but the crowd spilled across roughly one-fourth of the grand staircase from the Arch to Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard.

Former state Sen. John Loudon, R-Chesterfield, said, "We conservatives are usually pretty pathetic at making crowds. But this one's good."Hennessy said he got the idea after Rick Santelli, a CNBC market commentator in Chicago, last week called for a tea party to protest Obama's anti-recession plan. Santelli's comments became a YouTube hit, and similar "tea parties" were planned in other cities.

The original took place on Dec. 16, 1773, when American patriots dumped imported tea from merchant ships into Boston harbor to protest British colonial taxes.

Dana Loesch, a radio host on 97.1 FM, had talked up Friday's rally and served as emcee. Signs waved around her included, "Pork, the new 'Red' meat," and "King Barack III and the House of Lards."

Jackie Smith, former tight end for the old St. Louis football Cardinals, said, "We are mad as hell and we need to stay mad as hell. Don't let up."

Megan Dunham of Maplewood brought her four daughters with some painted signs "because it's important that the kids take part." She said it was her first protest. "All I'd ever done before is yell at the TV. This is exciting."

Next: Casual Fridays?

From John Hendren at ABC News:
Call it the audacity of informality.
First, GOP firebrand and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lamented the informal rhetoric and body language of President Barack Obama's address Tuesday in an equally informal Twitter message during the speech.
"Nobody messes with joe and the smiles and nancy handshake resembled a democratic pep rally not a state of the union," Gingrich typed in a capital-letter- and punctuation-free "tweet," apparently reacting to Obama's "Nobody messes with [Vice President] Joe" Biden reference, among other things.
"sophomoric and silly," Gingrich wrote.
Then came the tut-tutting from Democrats and Republicans alike over first lady Michelle Obama's sleeveless purple frock.
Hip 26-year-old designer Jason Wu, who fashioned FLOTUS' white, off-the-shoulder inaugural gown, called her "the ultimate muse." But some were murmuring that the first lady revealed not merely bare arms beneath the dome of the nation's shrine to democracy but an unseemly lack of reverence.
"It was an unusual choice," a Democratic Capitol Hill staffer confessed to a male reporter oblivious to the nuances of Capitol garb.
ABC News' Cokie Roberts, author of "Ladies of Liberty: The Women Who Shaped Our Nation," said she fielded an e-mail from a staunch feminist fan of the first lady's who nevertheless added, "but enough with the sleeveless dresses."
"It does raise some hackles. I'm a little curious about it because it's cold in the House gallery," Roberts said. "I suppose that the sense of sleeveless dress being somewhat inappropriate comes from churches. ... There does seem to be some sense of decorum having to do with covering your shoulders."
During the election campaign, the Obamas' celebrated "no-drama" style became a visible asset for the once-working-class Chicago couple. Michelle Obama's J. Crew dress drew applause from an audience on "The View" enduring the closest thing to a depression since the Great Depression.
But in Washington, aptly pegged as a city of "northern charm and southern efficiency" by Mark Twain, breaking with the capital's stodgy sartorial traditions is enough to give the city's pleats-and-gold-buttoned-blazer-crowd the vapors.
Dancing a few steps to pander to the middle-American viewers of "Ellen" during the campaign was one thing, but bare arms and Oprah-esque phrases like "I get it" during a congressional address are quite another.
What's next? White House casual Fridays?

Happy Talk!

Happy talk*, keep talkin' happy talk,

Talk about things you'd like to do.

You got to have a dream,

If you don't have a dream,

How you gonna have a dream come true?

Talk about the moon floatin' in the sky

Lookin' at a lily on the lake;

Talk about a bird learnin' how to fly.

Makin all the music he can make.

Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk,

Talk about things you'd like to do.

You got to have a dream,If you don't have a dream

How you gonna have a dream come true?

If you don't talk happy,

And you never have dream,

Then you'll never have a dream come true!

*with apologies to Rodgers & Hammerstein