For those still deluded enough to believe that the Dems are "looking out for the little guy", I submit as Exhibit "A" contra, the infamous Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). This ought to have been an eye-opener, but alas it's not a perfect world, and you better watch out for those dastardly Republicans who will (a) starve your kids; (b) kill your grandma; and (c) sick the Monopoly man on you.

For those interested in a little 5th Amendment glimpse into our brave new road to serfdom, there's now a book out detailing the trials of one Susette Kelo, entitled "Little Pink House", reviewed in yesterday's WSJ. For those unfamiliar with the tale, it is the saga of Ms. Kelo, a forty year-old, divorced EMT; the house she bought in 1997 in a blue-collar Connecticut neighborhood; a giant corporation (PFE ticker symbol), a grasping city council, and five liberal Supreme Court justices.

It seems that when Pfizer came a courtin' the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), whispering sweet nothings in its ear about a new plant in an older neighborhood adjacent to a recently closed naval facility, the NLDC swooned. But what to do? You can't make people abandon their homes just because you've cooked up a lovely development scheme that promises to fill the city coffers. Or can you?

The Fifth Amendment reads in pertinent part: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Thus, until Kelo, the Fifth Amendment takings clause had been understood, not unreasonably, to mean that a taking of private property may occur if (a) just compensation is paid; and (b) the taking was for use by the public. Such "uses" included all those things you would imagine - parks, highways, bridges, and the like.

Since Kelo, however, and thanks the five most "liberal" (Orwell alert) Supreme Court justices then sitting, "public use" now means "public benefit". What's a public benefit? Whatever City Hall says it is. As the dissenting opinions pointed out, this interpretation obliterated "for public use" from the text. It also made clear, for any who might care to see, that the liberal establishment is only too happy to crawl into bed with the biggest businesses and crush "the little guy" like a little bug if there's a fat commission involved.

The happy ending isn't, sadly, that Ms. Kelo kept her house. But neither was it demolished, as were the other holdout homes in her area. Ms. Kelo's was dismantled and re-assembled in another part of town, complete with commemorative plaque - can you just imagine the very same local political thugs who ran her out preening for the photo-op? No, the happy ending is that since Kelo, 43 states have enacted legislation clarifying that "public use" means "for use by the public". Who do you think opposed this legislation? On the other hand, when a similar law came up for vote in Congress, it was defeated. Who do you think defeated it? Getting the idea? Here's your news flash: your grandfather's Democrat party is dead and buried.

I've got to say, he's done it again. There's a reason why this guy, who I remember living in a tract house among a lot of state workers, is (and has been for a long time) in line to buy an NFL franchise. Rush's "bipartisan" stimulus proposal wonderfully highlights the fascistic tendencies of the Obamessiah and the single-brain-cell organisms that slobber over him in the MSM. Of course it is nothing new to note that "bipartisan" means Republicans back down and agree to go along with what the media and beltway libs want. Neither is it news that the government-media complex would love to silence, and seeks to marginalize, new media (shout out to Dan Rather!). So the Obamalama is just another thuggish Chicago pol in this tired old mold - where's the story?

What is new, and brilliant, is Rush's approach to Obama-speak. Don't just "just say no" to national socialism; and don't just say "me too (but less)". Call out the new- speak, and present an alternative (that highlights the farcical nature of Obamanomics). Finally, Reagan-style, explain how it will work, why it will work, and issue a challenge.

Thus the 54-46 Challenge, so-named for the approximate percentage of the vote going to Obama and McCain, respectively (rounding up slightly for Obama). Let the Dems take control of 54% of a stimulus package, and the Republicans 46%. Now there's a stimulus we can really call bipartisan! Astutely, Rush points out that among financial commentators, the supply-siders aren't violently opposed to Keynesian stimulus of some level; and the administration isn't completely opposed to tax cuts. Moreover, opinion polls show the public lacks confidence in the efficacy of government spending, yet has a degree of willingness to try a mix of demand and supply-side solutions.

So let's try a 54-46 solution. The administration, and the congressional majority, can figure out what they'd like to do with 54% of the money, and the congressional minority can do what it wants with 46%. Let us put 46% toward cap gains and corporate rate cuts, payroll tax holidays, housing, and suchlike. They can do what they want with their 56%, and all we'll do is say it won't work and I told you so.

C'mon Mr. President. Whining about Rush Limbaugh isn't very original, much less "post-partisan". Neither is lecturing the minority about who won the election and who didn't. By contrast, the 54-46 Challenge may be the most "post-partisan" idea I've ever heard. Want to be a real hero? Take Rush's advice and float it as a trial balloon, then watch what happens in the markets. You won't need to watch another opinion poll, and Rush has said he'll let you take all the credit.

Robert Reich, former Clinton administration Labor Secretary, who, as indicated in the Wikipedia post bearing his name "has dedicated his career to making worthless people more worthless", has done the country a tremendous favor. He has given us a most eye-opening glimpse into the true meaning of "economic stimulus" in Obamessiah speak. In so doing, he has hopefully provided the noose with which the current administration will be hanged in 2010 and 2012.

I am speaking, of course, of his recent "testimony" - presumably in his capacity as Obama economic advisor - before some banana-republic congressional conference chaired by congressman Charlie("let's reinstitute the draft so we can get more white kids killed")Rangel. This spectacle first came to my attention via Rush, and also was a hot topic on Tom Sullivan's show yesterday. Now, it can be found on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4

The lowlights are as follows. In opining on the objectives of the forthcoming "stimulus" legislation, Mr. (not, to my knowledge "Doctor", as suggested by the illiterate Rangel) Reich said that the money should be allocated with the greatest speed possible (good!), for "high social return" (?). Amplifying on this point, he infamously proclaimed that "the money should not go to highly-skilled professionals, or to white male construction workers." Instead, (presumably the preponderance of) stimulus money should be allocated to "the long-term unemployed... people who are not necessarily white construction workers or high-skilled professionals." For those still struggling to discern the direction in which the Obamalama wishes to take the country - whether his nods in the direction of moderation are mere head-fakes - the Reich Manifesto ought to provide a clue.

If I sound like I take offense at the notion of hundreds of billions of debt-financed federal expenditures being allocated on the basis of criteria other than the twin, and mutually-reinforcing, goals of economic recovery and taxpayer value, then I have succeeded in communicated my displeasure. And, with apologies to Seinfeld, I wish to make it crystal clear that I am not offended as a (mostly) white male; I am offended as an American and a taxpayer! Though offensive on many levels, the Reich Manifesto is offensive mostly because it reveals, with utmost and brazen clarity, that this claque of super-annuated student council candidates, that the below-the-median crowd has put into power, cares not a whit about economic recovery or getting the unemployment rate back to pre-recession levels. If they did, they would take the greatest pains to ensure that deficit-financed stimulus be allocated in ways that maximize (taxpayer) return. Like it or not, that goal would require putting the money in the hands of people who have the skills to create value. And, like it or not, in many cases, this would mean "white male construction workers".

For those of us who fancy themselves New Deal historians, the Reich video is no surprise. As is becoming increasingly clear via recent scholarship, the New Deal was an abject failure as an economic enterprise. It was, however, a masterful exercise in big-government propaganda. I'm reminded again of the famous encounter FDR had with his Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, in the latter's office. Morgenthau had a sign on his desk, intended to guide his subordinates, which read "does it contribute to the recovery?" When he saw this, FDR sniffed "this isn't about recovery; this is politics" - at a cost in human misery measurable on the cataclysmic scale. And so it is with the new administration. A President with no executive experience, who's goals in life appear to have been to (a) spend other people's money, and (b)"remake America", has been handed the opportunity of a lifetime. As his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, put it: "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste".

The public expects Washington to spend money, and Washington will be happy to oblige. The public thinks it's buying infrastructure, but it's only half right. It's going to buy the infrastructure of a political machine, whether it wants to or not, and at a very dear price. Further, as Congressman Rangel candidly explained in the video, the administration needn't worry about what the middle class might think of this mad (social) scientist experimentation - they'll be way to preoccupied with taking care of themselves to raise a fuss. Where does this leave us? A massive exercise in social engineering, doomed to fail as a massive subsidy to bad behavior, bad culture, bad thinking, and bad ideas, resulting finally in, as Holman Jenkins described it in the title of his recent WSJ piece, "A Lost Decade". Ten years from now, they'll still be saying it's Bush's fault, but I'm telling you now: by then, it won't be.