Saturday, December 12, 2009
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Hero: Gy Sgt. Ralph Scott
Ralph Scott
Like hail during a thunderstorm, the bullets landed all around the Marine as he simultaneously fired two M-16 service rifles, one in each arm. Staff Sgt Ralph Scott was using his own weapon and the weapon of his platoon sergeant, who was busy carrying another wounded Marine on his back to safety. Both rifles continuously erupted as he methodically emptied magazine after magazine into the insurgent position.
It was November 12, 2004, and Scott was in the middle of his seventh deployment. He was the platoon commander for the 1st Platoon Company C, Battalion Landing Team 1/3.
On this particular day, Marines Sgt Jack Foster and LCpl Robert Carter were pinned down in an open field in Fallujah, Iraq, with no cover. Foster had gone to get Carter, who had been hit in the arm and was severely wounded.
Soon Foster ran out of bullets. That’s when Scott, along with his platoon sergeant Sgt Michael Chambers and Cpl Jason Bennett ran into the open field to retrieve them.
“Bennett and I stood up in the field to draw the enemy fire to give the others a chance to run for a covered position into of a school house full of Iraqi Army soldiers,” Scott said. “In order to help Chambers lighten his load, I took his rifle and used it with mine. That is how I came to have two rifles to fire at the enemy.”
It was later called a miracle that any of them survived, especially considering that two rocket-propelled grenades had also been fired upon them, the shrapnel going every which way but inexplicably missing their flesh.
“Anybody from that platoon, seeing what he did,” started Chambers, “My words can’t do him justice.”
Scott, who has served in the Marine Corps since enlisting at age 17 in 1989, earned a Bronze Star Medal with Valor for his actions that day and other combat he saw between November and December of 2004.
He is a man with an unyielding sense of duty toward his fellow Marines, according to Chambers.
“When Staff Sergeant Scott first came to us in Charlie Company, all he said to us was, ‘My whole entire job — I don’t care if it takes my life — is to bring you all home,’” said Chambers. “I’m here to tell you that he stood behind his word.”
“All I can say is you won’t meet another man like him,” Chambers said. “Every battle we were in, while Marines would naturally and instinctively hit the deck when the first barrage would hit, Staff Sergeant Scott would be there standing, already simultaneously returning fire. We would follow his lead. There’s no finer man, no fiercer warrior that the Marines have ever sent into battle than that man. I would go back to combat with him in a second.”
“In my heart, I’m still with Charlie Company,” said Scott. “Whatever job the Marine Corps gives me, I will do it to the best of my ability, but I’d be lying if I said I’d rather be here than back with the grunts.”
“I wake up every morning, and I come to work,” said Scott. “Whether work happens to be behind a desk in Hawaii or on a battlefield in Iraq isn’t really the point. The point is to do your best and give your best effort at all times and in all situations.”
Friday, October 30, 2009
Hero: Navy HM2 Joshua Simson
In 2007, Navy HM2 Joshua Simson was embedded with a joint U.S. military and Afghan National Army patrol to conduct key leader engagements in the village of Saret Kholet. Simson was serving as an advisor on how to be a medical first responder.
On July 27, Simson demonstrated what committed first responders do when he repeatedly placed himself in the line of fire from machine guns, AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades to single-handedly provide aid to more than a dozen wounded U.S. and Afghan National Army soldiers during an attack.
“After talking with the elders, we pushed further east to establish an observation post to watch a certain river crossing. A squad of Afghan National Army had pushed across the river to clear two houses and spotted bad guys,” Simson explained. “The Afghans fired at them, causing the Anti-Afghan Forces to initiate their ambush prematurely.”
“We were in the kill zone, but since we hadn’t pushed as far down the road as we had intended, we weren’t entirely surrounded,” said Simson, who joined the Navy in September 2005 out of a sense of obligation and ‘to pay back a small part of the debt towards the cost of freedom.’
“I knew about the heritage of corpsmen before I joined and the job appealed to me…taking care of my brothers on the battlefield,” Simson stated.
The ambush led to a seven-and-a-half hour battle. At one point, Simson pulled a wounded soldier into a nearby bunker to provide cover. Immediately after entering the bunker, it suffered a direct hit. Dazed, but undeterred, Simson finished treating the Afghan soldier.
“We were caught in a very deadly crossfire. We took a lot more casualties during this phase of the movement.” Simson said. “I was taking care of casualties as best I could during the march out without becoming one myself.”
Throughout the ordeal, Simson said he repeated a sequence of tasks over and over. “See or hear somebody need help, put out suppressive fire, move the man to cover if possible, and render lifesaving aid.”
Eventually the unit got to a clearing where it was safe to evacuate the injured.
“I was just trying to help out,” Simson recalled. “We were all a little exhausted by the end of the day.”
Simson was awarded the Silver Star for his actions on the battlefield; his willingness to expose himself repeatedly to potential injury or death coupled with his composure under fire was exemplary and inspiring to his fellow servicemen and the Afghan soldiers.
“There are many, many other sailors out there who perform incredible acts but fail to get properly recognized,” he said of the medal. “It feels weird to have the attention for just trying to do the job that was required of me. The men with me that day displayed great courage and determination in the face of withering fire. This is what gave me the strength to do my job…my buddies who were right there with me.”
Excerpts from an article by Loren Stanton, Sun Publications, Sept. 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Obamacare: It's Even Worse Than You Think
President Obama's strategy to pass sweeping health care legislation rested on stealth and speed. The idea was to fill the conversation for months on end with vague talk about expanding coverage, "bending the cost-curve," improving quality, and rooting out waste, without showing the public how the plan would actually work or what it would cost. Legislation, meanwhile, would be composed behind closed doors, and the bills would be introduced as close as possible to when they might come up for a vote to minimize the time in which they could actually be read and thought about by those who would vote on them and those who would live under them. By the time the details emerged, maybe momentum and being "closer than ever before" would be enough to overcome the torrent of objections that were sure to be raised when people got a real look at the nuts and bolts.....
Rove v. Biden...What could be said?
TALKER -- THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS AN OP-ED IN THE TIMES -- “What You Might Not Know About the Recovery,” by Joe Biden: “The actions we took — passing the Recovery Act, stabilizing the banking system, pressing to get credit flowing again and helping responsible homeowners — brought us back from the precipice. … The Recovery Act is not the cure for all our economic ills — no single piece of legislation could be. But how many government initiatives can point to both large numbers of projects coming in under budget and a Government Accountability Office finding that we are ahead of schedule in key areas? … [T]he way I see it, our balanced approach recognizes that there is no silver bullet, no single thing, that can address the many and complex needs of America’s vast economy. We need relief, recovery and reinvestment to cope with our multifaceted crisis — and only 159 days after it was signed by President Obama, the Recovery Act is already at work providing all three.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/opinion/26biden.html
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Has Liberalism Jumped the Shark?
by Leigh Scott
The term “Jump the Shark” has been with us for a while. The clever metaphor is used for the moment when something of cultural significance begins to lose its luster, and descends into lameness. It is a reference to the T.V. show “Happy Days,” specifically the episode when Fonzie water skied over shark infested waters. This is the precise moment where the show began to decline.
Republicans and conservatives are dancing with glee every time a new poll comes out showing Obama’s poll numbers going down faster than a Hilton (Perez or Paris) after a nice dinner and a couple of cocktails. The support for things like Universal Health Care, closing Gitmo, and Cap and Trade are sinking even faster. Yet, that’s not the whole story. Something else is going on here. Something that begs the question: Has Liberalism “Jumped the Shark”?
Over the last sixty days or so, we’ve seen some amazing things. We saw a “wise Latina,” a self-described “affirmative action baby” claim that her statements were taken out of context or merely “meant to inspire,” and that race has nothing to do with her job performance. The White House has re-branded the $787 billion “stimulus package” a “stabilization package.” Our Vice-President, devious genius that he is, stated that we need to, “crazy as it sounds,” spend like lunatics to avoid bankruptcy. A gay blogger and gay civil rights champion called a black guy “the worst thing [he] could think of…a faggot.” We saw our government allow Iranian protesters, who peacefully challenged a rigged election, get shot in the street. Concurrently, we demanded that a tin-pot dictator be reinstated after his government got wise to his schemes and legally booted him.
All of these little vignettes, as well as countless others over the last month or two, do not bold well for our little leftist friends. They are examples of liberalism in action, naked and unfiltered. They are the equivalent of an “unforced error” in tennis. There is no opposition baiting these mistakes and revelations. This is in their own voices, not through the analysis of a Rush Limbaugh “teachable moment,” a Glenn Beck meltdown, or Hotair.com “quote of the day.”
It is liberalism unplugged, on display for all to see.
Identity politics, when viewed in its purest form, is racism. Keynesian economics, when distilled to its basic concepts, flies in the face of common sense. Re-branding political policy doesn’t change its ultimate effectiveness. Hypocrites are hypocrites regardless of the causes they support, or claim to champion. The U.S. should not be about “nuance” when it comes to foreign policy. We must always stand on the side of freedom and democracy.
For the first time in a long time even a casual observer can clearly see what modern liberalism is all about.
In an episode of “South Park” the boys encounter the Underwear Gnomes. They are a society of magical little creatures who steal your underwear in the middle of the night. When the boys ask the Gnomes about their motivation, they explain that they are doing it for “profit.” The first step is to steal underpants. The third step is profit. When pressed about the second step there is only silence. The Gnomes don’t know how to transform the stolen underwear into profit, but they continue to steal it anyway. They work tirelessly, stealing underpants in their quest for profit. But without that second step, they will get nothing. Hmmm, what does that sound like? Great goals, but no solid plan of getting there? That’s modern liberalism. It’s an ideology that lacks principles No step two. To make matters worse, most of the very mechanisms of liberalism (unions, racially segregated interest groups, attacks on capitalism) act counter intuitively to its goals.
I say its “jumped the shark” because, without a strong set of timeless principals to guide it, this political ideology is a fad. It’s had a lot of great, good looking, and popular spokespeople. Last November it had an awesome ad campaign (one so good, Pepsi apparently felt the need to steal it). It’s all style and no substance. And like the Spice Girls, Beany Babies, Cabbage Patch Kids, and the leisure suit it is destined to fade into obscurity.
Young people, you know those folks who haven’t lived as much as you but know better than you, have always been the bread and butter of hippie liberalism. But they have a very short attention span, especially the kids today. During the election, they were all about it. But now they are really into Adam Lambert and “Twilight”. Obama and Co. had hoped that the kids would stay in the mix, using the twitter and the Facebook to keep it real and spread their positive message of nationalization of private industry and wealth redistribution. Sadly, the kids have chucked Obama into the virtual trash bin, right next to the video of the Ally McBeal dancing baby.
Troll traffic on conservative sites is down. Look at Facebook, MySpace, YouTube etc. The number of political postings supporting hippie liberalism is almost non-existent. Even more remarkable, the message boards and postings on non-political sites is trending libertarian and conservative when political topics come up. Perhaps most humorous of all, the State Run Media has failed to make any recent conservative “scandals” or “revelations” stick. People just don’t care to hear it. They want results not more talk. Bush isn’t the president, Sarah Palin resigned, Rush Limbaugh isn’t backing down. Dare I say that people want to “move on”?
Make no mistake, they aren’t going to evaporate right away. Even “Happy Days” went on for 100 episodes after the infamous moment (and we got two seasons of “Joanie Loves Chachi”), but the end is nigh. At some point in the near future (probably in the lead up to the 2010 mid-terms) the pundit class is going to have to ask “can the Democratic Party relate to voters?” Can the party of Howard Dean, the Daily Kos and Keith Olbermann remain relevant?
With the kids bouncing onto the next big thing, and without any real successes to point to, the hippie liberals are left with their usual crew: trial lawyers, race hustlers, and unions. There are a few hard-core ideologues out there, but the true, honest liberals who are all about those lofty goals will soon abandon the freak show assembled in Washington.
With hippie liberalism “jumping the shark”, people are going to need a new fad. It has to be bold, fresh, and at least on paper, original. A new form of “pop politics” will emerge. The good news for everyone, is that the Republicans “jumped the shark” at some point in 2005. We are heading towards a whole new era in American politics.
Hopefully it will be more effective than this whole Pepsi, I mean Obama thing.
The term “Jump the Shark” has been with us for a while. The clever metaphor is used for the moment when something of cultural significance begins to lose its luster, and descends into lameness. It is a reference to the T.V. show “Happy Days,” specifically the episode when Fonzie water skied over shark infested waters. This is the precise moment where the show began to decline.
Republicans and conservatives are dancing with glee every time a new poll comes out showing Obama’s poll numbers going down faster than a Hilton (Perez or Paris) after a nice dinner and a couple of cocktails. The support for things like Universal Health Care, closing Gitmo, and Cap and Trade are sinking even faster. Yet, that’s not the whole story. Something else is going on here. Something that begs the question: Has Liberalism “Jumped the Shark”?
Over the last sixty days or so, we’ve seen some amazing things. We saw a “wise Latina,” a self-described “affirmative action baby” claim that her statements were taken out of context or merely “meant to inspire,” and that race has nothing to do with her job performance. The White House has re-branded the $787 billion “stimulus package” a “stabilization package.” Our Vice-President, devious genius that he is, stated that we need to, “crazy as it sounds,” spend like lunatics to avoid bankruptcy. A gay blogger and gay civil rights champion called a black guy “the worst thing [he] could think of…a faggot.” We saw our government allow Iranian protesters, who peacefully challenged a rigged election, get shot in the street. Concurrently, we demanded that a tin-pot dictator be reinstated after his government got wise to his schemes and legally booted him.
All of these little vignettes, as well as countless others over the last month or two, do not bold well for our little leftist friends. They are examples of liberalism in action, naked and unfiltered. They are the equivalent of an “unforced error” in tennis. There is no opposition baiting these mistakes and revelations. This is in their own voices, not through the analysis of a Rush Limbaugh “teachable moment,” a Glenn Beck meltdown, or Hotair.com “quote of the day.”
It is liberalism unplugged, on display for all to see.
Identity politics, when viewed in its purest form, is racism. Keynesian economics, when distilled to its basic concepts, flies in the face of common sense. Re-branding political policy doesn’t change its ultimate effectiveness. Hypocrites are hypocrites regardless of the causes they support, or claim to champion. The U.S. should not be about “nuance” when it comes to foreign policy. We must always stand on the side of freedom and democracy.
For the first time in a long time even a casual observer can clearly see what modern liberalism is all about.
In an episode of “South Park” the boys encounter the Underwear Gnomes. They are a society of magical little creatures who steal your underwear in the middle of the night. When the boys ask the Gnomes about their motivation, they explain that they are doing it for “profit.” The first step is to steal underpants. The third step is profit. When pressed about the second step there is only silence. The Gnomes don’t know how to transform the stolen underwear into profit, but they continue to steal it anyway. They work tirelessly, stealing underpants in their quest for profit. But without that second step, they will get nothing. Hmmm, what does that sound like? Great goals, but no solid plan of getting there? That’s modern liberalism. It’s an ideology that lacks principles No step two. To make matters worse, most of the very mechanisms of liberalism (unions, racially segregated interest groups, attacks on capitalism) act counter intuitively to its goals.
I say its “jumped the shark” because, without a strong set of timeless principals to guide it, this political ideology is a fad. It’s had a lot of great, good looking, and popular spokespeople. Last November it had an awesome ad campaign (one so good, Pepsi apparently felt the need to steal it). It’s all style and no substance. And like the Spice Girls, Beany Babies, Cabbage Patch Kids, and the leisure suit it is destined to fade into obscurity.
Young people, you know those folks who haven’t lived as much as you but know better than you, have always been the bread and butter of hippie liberalism. But they have a very short attention span, especially the kids today. During the election, they were all about it. But now they are really into Adam Lambert and “Twilight”. Obama and Co. had hoped that the kids would stay in the mix, using the twitter and the Facebook to keep it real and spread their positive message of nationalization of private industry and wealth redistribution. Sadly, the kids have chucked Obama into the virtual trash bin, right next to the video of the Ally McBeal dancing baby.
Troll traffic on conservative sites is down. Look at Facebook, MySpace, YouTube etc. The number of political postings supporting hippie liberalism is almost non-existent. Even more remarkable, the message boards and postings on non-political sites is trending libertarian and conservative when political topics come up. Perhaps most humorous of all, the State Run Media has failed to make any recent conservative “scandals” or “revelations” stick. People just don’t care to hear it. They want results not more talk. Bush isn’t the president, Sarah Palin resigned, Rush Limbaugh isn’t backing down. Dare I say that people want to “move on”?
Make no mistake, they aren’t going to evaporate right away. Even “Happy Days” went on for 100 episodes after the infamous moment (and we got two seasons of “Joanie Loves Chachi”), but the end is nigh. At some point in the near future (probably in the lead up to the 2010 mid-terms) the pundit class is going to have to ask “can the Democratic Party relate to voters?” Can the party of Howard Dean, the Daily Kos and Keith Olbermann remain relevant?
With the kids bouncing onto the next big thing, and without any real successes to point to, the hippie liberals are left with their usual crew: trial lawyers, race hustlers, and unions. There are a few hard-core ideologues out there, but the true, honest liberals who are all about those lofty goals will soon abandon the freak show assembled in Washington.
With hippie liberalism “jumping the shark”, people are going to need a new fad. It has to be bold, fresh, and at least on paper, original. A new form of “pop politics” will emerge. The good news for everyone, is that the Republicans “jumped the shark” at some point in 2005. We are heading towards a whole new era in American politics.
Hopefully it will be more effective than this whole Pepsi, I mean Obama thing.
You Stay Here While I Swim and Get Us Some Universal Health Care - Iowahawk
Special Guest Commentary
by Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
The statistics are sobering: the cost of American heath care is rising almost as fast as the cold, briny water bubbling up from our floorboards. So far we have already lost the 8-track player and several Vic Damone tapes, and if allowed to continue these trends threaten to engulf all of us within the Oldsmobile. We must quickly wake up and face the facts: inaction is no longer an option. That is why it is critical for the future of all the occupants that one of us swim off and get us some kind of free health care program. I nominate me.
by Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
The statistics are sobering: the cost of American heath care is rising almost as fast as the cold, briny water bubbling up from our floorboards. So far we have already lost the 8-track player and several Vic Damone tapes, and if allowed to continue these trends threaten to engulf all of us within the Oldsmobile. We must quickly wake up and face the facts: inaction is no longer an option. That is why it is critical for the future of all the occupants that one of us swim off and get us some kind of free health care program. I nominate me.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Saturday, July 04, 2009
My Hero: James M. Irvine
A Quiet Man
My father was a quiet man. He didn't speak of his adventures, he didn't brag of his triumphs. My father was a graduate of the Naval Academy. The Naval Academy at that time was one of the most difficult of schools to get into. It is by invitation only, only the best of the best. It was by congressional appointment to the sons of the best and brightest our country had to offer.
My grandfather was instrumental in the cure for syphilis during world war one. Back then; it killed almost as men as the Germans. Therefore earning the placement for my father to attend the Naval Academy to pursue a engineering degree.
Now, after graduation my father was denied his commission as an officer because he wore glasses and at that time before our entrance to the war the armed forces could still be kind of picky who they wanted commanding their ships. When my father was called to active duty, he was 24. he was to fight in World War II, as the commander of a destroyer in the north Atlantic.
The German submarines at that point had decimated allied shipping, navies and ruled the seas. There was no radar, there was no sonar, and you knew a submarine was around when its first torpedo hit you or your colleague.
My father watched as ship after ship went down around him. He rescued all the men he could but he watched many others die; the surviving ships often turned and headed home, battered and beaten. My father, his best friend, and a group of other ship captains came up with the combat convoy formation they still use today. One that would offer some protection to some of the ships and they went out yet again, to avenge with murderous intent.
The war was starting to turn by then, but the German navy still dominated the seas. The Nazis decided to launch a huge winter offensive; they were counting on the weather, Mother Nature to assist them. They were relying on weather reports from a submarine in the north Atlantic to launch and to facilitate their attack and victory. Equipped with their new combat formation and our newest technology, a most basic radar and sonar my father detected the nazi sub. For three days they hunted the sub, playing cat and mouse or "search and attack" off the coastline of Europe, then a sister ship reestablished contact with the new underwater sound equipment. Commander James M. Irvine directed his ship into the field of fire and launched his depth charge attacks. The sinking of this sub was a key part in our victory in "The battle of the bulge", contributing materially to sealing our victory in WW2, My father was awarded the Legion of Merit with the combat V, the third highest award our navy awarded. The war for him was not over yet, on his last missions, he forced the surrender of two other nazi subs, and escorted one of them back where it is on display in the Chicago museum of science and industry.
Dad never told me these stories, like I said he was a quiet man. My dad died July 4th weekend in 1988, My son was 9 months old, and my father never saw his only grandson.
I was a different man back then. My ego, my pride, the anger of a young man had driven a wedge between my dad and me. So we had not spoken for a while, July 4th weekend meant I was working. July 4th weekend meant nothing to me, except work and everybody complaining we had to work on a holiday. I liked the fireworks and the parties even though I worked through most of that too. But I never thought about the sacrifice for freedom, his sacrifice for freedom.
My mother gave a call that weekend to let us know my father had died. Mom gave me his medals, the letter from the President and secretary of the navy for his legion of merit, and the navies "action report".
As the years have passed I have grown, I have come to better understand my quiet father by reading those letters of award, by gazing at his medals, and the memories of a quiet man who sacrificed along with the tens of thousands before and since. The tens of thousands who paid the ultimate price for our freedom that I so carelessly enjoy.
The fourth of July is a day of parades, fireworks and celebration in the United States. Someone in your family, or the family of someone you know are grieving for every freedom we enjoy. Please share a moment of remembrance for the cost of our freedom.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Virgin-Americans Vow Fight Against Cap-and-Trade's Blood Sacrifice Amendment - Iowahawk
WASHINGTON - The President's landmark 'Cap and Trade' bill faces an uncertain fate this week, as congressional backers of the carbon-limiting legislation face mounting opposition from a myriad of interest groups angered by its controversial ritual virgin sacrifice provision.
"We are asking our members to send a strong message to Washington that this bill is wrong for America's energy future, and wrong for the virgin community," said Bret 'Aslan' Crawford, a spokesman for the Action Figure Collectors of America. "Power virgins, activate!"
The 87,492 page bill -- official designated as the American Patriotic Renewal Act of 2009 for Carbon Reduction, Energy Independence, Heathy Climate, Sustainable Job Growth, Adorable Puppies, and Earthly Paradise -- is a keystone in President Obama's first year legislative agenda, and was originally anticipated to get swift congressional passage. Instead, it faced a unexpectedly tough vote in the House last week after coal state Democrats complained it would place an unfair economic burden on their home districts.
"I am as interested in reversing global climate change as anyone, but I fail to see how increasing taxes and random machete attacks on Ohio coal producers alone will solve the problem," said Marcy Kaptur (D-OH). "Come on people, there are plenty of other industries who deserve machete attacks too."
In order to secure the votes of wavering Democrats, House leaders Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman inserted several last minute amendments to the legislation, including provisions for national oxygen rationing, witch burnings, dousings, and phrenology research. But the one that has seemingly stoked a grassroots backlash is the controversial Sexually Inexperienced Citizen Environmental Volunteer Amendment. The wording of the amendment calls for all American virgins over the age of 21 to register with the Selective Sacrifice Board, for possible use as victims in nationally televised vivisections intended to "supplicate the Earth-Spirits."
Reaction, in some quarters, was swift and harsh. Robert 'Shadowfyre' Jardocki of the Wizard and Warlocks Guild called it "an affront to all Virtual America, from Second Life to World of Warcraft," and vowed his group would cast the "most powerful lobbying spell the country has ever seen." Denise 'Lady Gwynnethynn' Kelly of the American Society of Renaissance Faire Royalty decried it as "a unconstitutional attack on our members and their ladies in-waiting." The National Association of Space Fantasists made an impassioned "call to light sabers," while the Brotherhood of Sports Bar Regulars vowed a "million replica jersey march" on Washington to stop its passage. Other groups uniting to oppose the bill include MENSA, the Society for the Identification of Motion Picture Continuity Problems, and the American Association of Anonymous Comment Thread Trolls.
"Congress and the Administration really stirred up a hornet's nest of virgins with this bill," said longtime Washington-watcher Michael Barone. "The response really caught them flat-footed. I don't think they realized just how adept the virgin community is at computers, and how much time they have between ComiCons or SpaceCons or whatever-cons. Instead of calling into sports radio shows, now they're calling the capitol switchboard."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) defended the bill, saying that "it is critical that we do something immediately to show we are serious about solving this climate crisis. Without burnt offerings of taxes and virgins, Gaia will smite us all in her angry burning wrath. So let me just say to the corporate and virgin special interest groups -- don't come crying to us in 400 years, when our temperatures are up almost 1 degree celsius."
Pelosi denied the bill was anti-consumer, pointing out it contains specific infrastructure and job creation funds. It specifies 500,000 unionized positions to construct a planned 300-foot tall National Eco Pyramid and Virgin Sacrifice Altar in Youngstown, Ohio, as well as funds to train over 20,000 youth volunteer earth-priests in live beating heart removal.
House Energy Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) defended the bill's controversial 'virgin exclusions' rider, which specifies sacrificial exemptions for certain religious orders, members of Congress, and Keith Olbermann.
"The rider simply recognizes that virgin members of Congress are often so busy doing the work of the people that we have little opportunity for actual sexual intercourse," said Waxman. "For example, were I not focusing on this crucial legislation, I would totally be porking some sexy, sexy ladies. No, really, I'm serious. I would be. Stop laughing."
Bill co-sponsor Edward Markey (D-MA) said that even if enacted into law, the bill allows a 9 month grace period for current virgins to change their sacrifice eligibility status.
"Easy for him to say," complained Kevin Warren, a 34-year old Green Bay Packer fanatic from Fon du Lac, Wisconsin. "You try getting laid with a foam rubber cheese hat, green face paint and Favre jersey."
Whether Warren and other Virgin-Americans have the clout to scuttle the bill remains to be seen. It is scheduled for Senate deliberations as soon as the House Sergeant-at-Arms can locate a crane powerful enough to move the entire document to the Senate chamber. If passed there, it is expected to be quickly signed into law by President Obama.
Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs, himself a well-known virgin, sought to allay fears about the bill.
"Look, I know this bill has been the subject of wild rumors and speculation, but let's all just sit back and see how it plays out," said Gibbs. "The bottom line is that the virgin community has nothing to worry about. Believe me, if this thing passes, I promise everybody's going to get screwed."
"We are asking our members to send a strong message to Washington that this bill is wrong for America's energy future, and wrong for the virgin community," said Bret 'Aslan' Crawford, a spokesman for the Action Figure Collectors of America. "Power virgins, activate!"
The 87,492 page bill -- official designated as the American Patriotic Renewal Act of 2009 for Carbon Reduction, Energy Independence, Heathy Climate, Sustainable Job Growth, Adorable Puppies, and Earthly Paradise -- is a keystone in President Obama's first year legislative agenda, and was originally anticipated to get swift congressional passage. Instead, it faced a unexpectedly tough vote in the House last week after coal state Democrats complained it would place an unfair economic burden on their home districts.
"I am as interested in reversing global climate change as anyone, but I fail to see how increasing taxes and random machete attacks on Ohio coal producers alone will solve the problem," said Marcy Kaptur (D-OH). "Come on people, there are plenty of other industries who deserve machete attacks too."
In order to secure the votes of wavering Democrats, House leaders Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman inserted several last minute amendments to the legislation, including provisions for national oxygen rationing, witch burnings, dousings, and phrenology research. But the one that has seemingly stoked a grassroots backlash is the controversial Sexually Inexperienced Citizen Environmental Volunteer Amendment. The wording of the amendment calls for all American virgins over the age of 21 to register with the Selective Sacrifice Board, for possible use as victims in nationally televised vivisections intended to "supplicate the Earth-Spirits."
Reaction, in some quarters, was swift and harsh. Robert 'Shadowfyre' Jardocki of the Wizard and Warlocks Guild called it "an affront to all Virtual America, from Second Life to World of Warcraft," and vowed his group would cast the "most powerful lobbying spell the country has ever seen." Denise 'Lady Gwynnethynn' Kelly of the American Society of Renaissance Faire Royalty decried it as "a unconstitutional attack on our members and their ladies in-waiting." The National Association of Space Fantasists made an impassioned "call to light sabers," while the Brotherhood of Sports Bar Regulars vowed a "million replica jersey march" on Washington to stop its passage. Other groups uniting to oppose the bill include MENSA, the Society for the Identification of Motion Picture Continuity Problems, and the American Association of Anonymous Comment Thread Trolls.
"Congress and the Administration really stirred up a hornet's nest of virgins with this bill," said longtime Washington-watcher Michael Barone. "The response really caught them flat-footed. I don't think they realized just how adept the virgin community is at computers, and how much time they have between ComiCons or SpaceCons or whatever-cons. Instead of calling into sports radio shows, now they're calling the capitol switchboard."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) defended the bill, saying that "it is critical that we do something immediately to show we are serious about solving this climate crisis. Without burnt offerings of taxes and virgins, Gaia will smite us all in her angry burning wrath. So let me just say to the corporate and virgin special interest groups -- don't come crying to us in 400 years, when our temperatures are up almost 1 degree celsius."
Pelosi denied the bill was anti-consumer, pointing out it contains specific infrastructure and job creation funds. It specifies 500,000 unionized positions to construct a planned 300-foot tall National Eco Pyramid and Virgin Sacrifice Altar in Youngstown, Ohio, as well as funds to train over 20,000 youth volunteer earth-priests in live beating heart removal.
House Energy Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) defended the bill's controversial 'virgin exclusions' rider, which specifies sacrificial exemptions for certain religious orders, members of Congress, and Keith Olbermann.
"The rider simply recognizes that virgin members of Congress are often so busy doing the work of the people that we have little opportunity for actual sexual intercourse," said Waxman. "For example, were I not focusing on this crucial legislation, I would totally be porking some sexy, sexy ladies. No, really, I'm serious. I would be. Stop laughing."
Bill co-sponsor Edward Markey (D-MA) said that even if enacted into law, the bill allows a 9 month grace period for current virgins to change their sacrifice eligibility status.
"Easy for him to say," complained Kevin Warren, a 34-year old Green Bay Packer fanatic from Fon du Lac, Wisconsin. "You try getting laid with a foam rubber cheese hat, green face paint and Favre jersey."
Whether Warren and other Virgin-Americans have the clout to scuttle the bill remains to be seen. It is scheduled for Senate deliberations as soon as the House Sergeant-at-Arms can locate a crane powerful enough to move the entire document to the Senate chamber. If passed there, it is expected to be quickly signed into law by President Obama.
Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs, himself a well-known virgin, sought to allay fears about the bill.
"Look, I know this bill has been the subject of wild rumors and speculation, but let's all just sit back and see how it plays out," said Gibbs. "The bottom line is that the virgin community has nothing to worry about. Believe me, if this thing passes, I promise everybody's going to get screwed."
Monday, May 18, 2009
Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich
With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we're seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich. Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the "fair" way to close his state's gaping deficit.
Chad Crowe
Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."
Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.
And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.
Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.
Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.
Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."
More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.
Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.
This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars. Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation.
We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.
Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.
They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.
Or consider the fiasco of New Jersey. In the early 1960s, the state had no state income tax and no state sales tax. It was a rapidly growing state attracting people from everywhere and running budget surpluses. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation yet it suffers from perpetual deficits and its schools rank among the worst in the nation -- much worse than those in New Hampshire. Most of the massive infusion of tax dollars over the past 40 years has simply enriched the public-employee unions in the Garden State. People are fleeing the state in droves.
One last point: States aren't simply competing with each other. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently told us, "Our state is competing with Germany, France, Japan and China for business. We'd better have a pro-growth tax system or those American jobs will be out-sourced." Gov. Perry and Texas have the jobs and prosperity model exactly right. Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year.
The Texas economic model makes a whole lot more sense than the New Jersey model, and we hope the politicians in California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota and New York realize this before it's too late.
Mr. Laffer is president of Laffer Associates. Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal. They are co-authors of "Rich States, Poor States" (American Legislative Exchange Council, 2009).
Chad Crowe
Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."
Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.
And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.
Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.
Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.
Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."
More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.
Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.
This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars. Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation.
We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.
Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.
They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.
Or consider the fiasco of New Jersey. In the early 1960s, the state had no state income tax and no state sales tax. It was a rapidly growing state attracting people from everywhere and running budget surpluses. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation yet it suffers from perpetual deficits and its schools rank among the worst in the nation -- much worse than those in New Hampshire. Most of the massive infusion of tax dollars over the past 40 years has simply enriched the public-employee unions in the Garden State. People are fleeing the state in droves.
One last point: States aren't simply competing with each other. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently told us, "Our state is competing with Germany, France, Japan and China for business. We'd better have a pro-growth tax system or those American jobs will be out-sourced." Gov. Perry and Texas have the jobs and prosperity model exactly right. Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year.
The Texas economic model makes a whole lot more sense than the New Jersey model, and we hope the politicians in California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota and New York realize this before it's too late.
Mr. Laffer is president of Laffer Associates. Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal. They are co-authors of "Rich States, Poor States" (American Legislative Exchange Council, 2009).
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
NY Times: White House Forecasts No Job Growth Until 2010
This is the New York Times for crying out loud, geez at least they could have said "Job Growth Keeping Steady Pace" His Highness shall definately bring out the big teleprompter on this one!!!!!
David Frum: Something Bad is Happening in Obama's America
Something bad and dangerous is happening in Barack Obama's America.
The powers that the Obama administration claimed in order to arrest the financial crisis and mitigate the recession are being used and abused in ways that are underming the legal and financial stability of the United States. Investors: You are warned.
The first warning was the attempt to snatch Chrysler's assets away from their rightful owners to pay off administration friends and supporters.
The Obama plan to save Chrysler would have sold Chrysler's most valuable assets into a new company co-owned by the U. S. and Canadian governments, Fiat and the United Auto Workers (UAW) -- with the UAW getting the biggest piece, 55%.
The trouble was: those assets belonged to somebody else. They belonged to the company's bondholders, who had a legal first claim. Under the administration's plan, those senior-secured creditors would have received just 29¢ on the dollar.
For a failing company to shuffle assets so as to favor some creditors over others with a stronger claim is a very serious wrong, potentially even a crime. There's a sound economic reason for this rule of law: Bondholders accept lower returns in good times in exchange for greater security in bad times. Protecting bondholders in bad times ensures that future borrowers will be able to borrow in good times.
The bondholders squawked. Well -- not all the bondholders. Bondholders who had previously taken government bailouts for themselves, via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), kept quiet. That's bad enough. It means that these major lenders were breaching their fiduciary duty to their shareholders in order to placate their new masters in Washington.
But what happened to the non-TARP bondholders was even worse. When they squawked, the administration tried to muscle them. Lawyers for the bondholders contend that senior representatives of the Obama administration threatened them. Michael Barone, the ultra-knowledgeable (and normally unflappable) editor of the Almanac of American Politics called it "gangster government."
The Obama administration denies it threatened anyone. And yet over the past week, one by one, formerly protesting bondholders have abruptly gone silent. Last week, the non-TARP group represented bondholders holding $1-billion in Chrysler bonds. By the end of this week, the group had shrunk to represent only $300-million in bonds. As one commenter observed: that shrinkage suggests that the threats were real.
Then, on Thursday, another alarm sounded.
The state of California faces a desperate fiscal situation. California now has the worst credit rating of any American state. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic majority legislature have struggled to balance the books, as they are constitutionally obliged to do. They have raised taxes dramatically, but they have also cut some programs. Among the cuts: a $2-an-hour cut in the wages of home health-care workers.
Those workers were unionized, and their union -- the Service Employees International Union - carries clout in Obama's Washington. On Thursday, California state officials told the Los Angeles Times that they had received a warning: The federal government would deny California $6.8-billion in stimulus funds unless the wage cut was rescinded. Since the wage cut will save only about $74-million, the state will have little choice but to surrender.
That missing money will have to be compensated for. Already, California's budget plans rely overwhelmingly on a mix of accounting tricks (selling future lottery revenues for an up-front payment) and tax increases. Now the state will need more tricks and more tax increases.
And so will the other states, as they too get the message: no pay cuts for unionized workers will be tolerated by Obama's Washington.
So, result:
In barely four months, Barack Obama has nudged the United States toward a future in which government will be bigger and more assertive -- where taxes will be higher and government unions more powerful -- where legal rights are less secure and contracts more uncertain.
In California, he is pushing a state toward the fiscal edge in order to favour a union ally. At Chrysler, he has put at risk the security of every contract in the country to please another union.
Meanwhile, his administration is planning changes to the regulation of finance that are likely to leave the United States less dynamic and less innovative in the years ahead -- at the same time as taxes rise and educational levels decline. (Already the Educational Testing Service-- the people who run America's SAT exam -- predicts a less skilled U. S. workforce in 2030 than today, with literacy rates declining by an average of 5% as unskilled immigration and rising rates of single parenthood take their toll.)
It's easy to lose sight of these wrong and costly choices in the turmoil of the immediate crisis. But it is these decisions of today that are preparing the crisis of tomorrow.
The powers that the Obama administration claimed in order to arrest the financial crisis and mitigate the recession are being used and abused in ways that are underming the legal and financial stability of the United States. Investors: You are warned.
The first warning was the attempt to snatch Chrysler's assets away from their rightful owners to pay off administration friends and supporters.
The Obama plan to save Chrysler would have sold Chrysler's most valuable assets into a new company co-owned by the U. S. and Canadian governments, Fiat and the United Auto Workers (UAW) -- with the UAW getting the biggest piece, 55%.
The trouble was: those assets belonged to somebody else. They belonged to the company's bondholders, who had a legal first claim. Under the administration's plan, those senior-secured creditors would have received just 29¢ on the dollar.
For a failing company to shuffle assets so as to favor some creditors over others with a stronger claim is a very serious wrong, potentially even a crime. There's a sound economic reason for this rule of law: Bondholders accept lower returns in good times in exchange for greater security in bad times. Protecting bondholders in bad times ensures that future borrowers will be able to borrow in good times.
The bondholders squawked. Well -- not all the bondholders. Bondholders who had previously taken government bailouts for themselves, via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), kept quiet. That's bad enough. It means that these major lenders were breaching their fiduciary duty to their shareholders in order to placate their new masters in Washington.
But what happened to the non-TARP bondholders was even worse. When they squawked, the administration tried to muscle them. Lawyers for the bondholders contend that senior representatives of the Obama administration threatened them. Michael Barone, the ultra-knowledgeable (and normally unflappable) editor of the Almanac of American Politics called it "gangster government."
The Obama administration denies it threatened anyone. And yet over the past week, one by one, formerly protesting bondholders have abruptly gone silent. Last week, the non-TARP group represented bondholders holding $1-billion in Chrysler bonds. By the end of this week, the group had shrunk to represent only $300-million in bonds. As one commenter observed: that shrinkage suggests that the threats were real.
Then, on Thursday, another alarm sounded.
The state of California faces a desperate fiscal situation. California now has the worst credit rating of any American state. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic majority legislature have struggled to balance the books, as they are constitutionally obliged to do. They have raised taxes dramatically, but they have also cut some programs. Among the cuts: a $2-an-hour cut in the wages of home health-care workers.
Those workers were unionized, and their union -- the Service Employees International Union - carries clout in Obama's Washington. On Thursday, California state officials told the Los Angeles Times that they had received a warning: The federal government would deny California $6.8-billion in stimulus funds unless the wage cut was rescinded. Since the wage cut will save only about $74-million, the state will have little choice but to surrender.
That missing money will have to be compensated for. Already, California's budget plans rely overwhelmingly on a mix of accounting tricks (selling future lottery revenues for an up-front payment) and tax increases. Now the state will need more tricks and more tax increases.
And so will the other states, as they too get the message: no pay cuts for unionized workers will be tolerated by Obama's Washington.
So, result:
In barely four months, Barack Obama has nudged the United States toward a future in which government will be bigger and more assertive -- where taxes will be higher and government unions more powerful -- where legal rights are less secure and contracts more uncertain.
In California, he is pushing a state toward the fiscal edge in order to favour a union ally. At Chrysler, he has put at risk the security of every contract in the country to please another union.
Meanwhile, his administration is planning changes to the regulation of finance that are likely to leave the United States less dynamic and less innovative in the years ahead -- at the same time as taxes rise and educational levels decline. (Already the Educational Testing Service-- the people who run America's SAT exam -- predicts a less skilled U. S. workforce in 2030 than today, with literacy rates declining by an average of 5% as unskilled immigration and rising rates of single parenthood take their toll.)
It's easy to lose sight of these wrong and costly choices in the turmoil of the immediate crisis. But it is these decisions of today that are preparing the crisis of tomorrow.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Saturday, May 09, 2009
First Episode Of Gangster Government- Barone
Last Friday, the day after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, I drove past the company's headquarters on I-75 in Auburn Hills, Mich. As I glanced at the pentagram logo, I felt myself tearing up a little bit. Anyone who grew up in the Detroit area, as I did, can't help but be sad to see a once-great company fail.
But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning.
"One of my clients," Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight."
Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.
Gross Violation
This, of course, is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who loaned money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they'd get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything.
Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.
After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as "speculators" by Barack Obama in his press conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown.
The White House denied that it strong-armed Perella Weinberg. The firm issued a statement saying it decided to accept the settlement, but it pointedly did not deny that it had been threatened by the White House. Which is to say, the threat worked.
The same goes for big banks that have received billions in government TARP money. Many of them want to give back the money, but the government won't let them. They also voted to accept the Chrysler settlement. Nice little bank ya got there, wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
Left-wing bloggers have been saying that the White House's denial of making threats should be taken at face value and that Lauria's statement is not evidence to the contrary. But that's ridiculous. Lauria is a reputable lawyer and a contributor to Democratic candidates. He has no motive to lie. The White House does.
Think carefully about what's happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored.
In the process it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House's power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.
Michigan politicians of both parties joined Obama in denouncing the holdout bondholders. They point to the sad plight of UAW retirees not getting full payment of the health care benefits the union negotiated with Chrysler.
But the plight of the beneficiaries of the pension funds represented by the bondholders is sad, too. Ordinarily you would expect these claims to be weighed and determined by the rule of law. But apparently not in this administration.
What 'Empathy' Really Means
Obama's attitude toward the rule of law is apparent in the words he used to describe what he is looking for in a nominee to replace Justice David Souter. He wants "someone who understands justice is not just about some abstract legal theory," he said, but someone who has "empathy."
In other words, judges should decide cases so that the right people win, not according to the rule of law.
The Chrysler negotiations will not be the last occasion for this administration to engage in bailout favoritism and crony capitalism. There's a May 31 deadline to come up with a settlement for General Motors. And there will be others.
In the meantime, who is going to buy bonds from unionized companies if the government is going to take their money away and give it to the union? We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government. It is likely to be part of a continuing series.
But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning.
"One of my clients," Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight."
Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.
Gross Violation
This, of course, is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who loaned money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they'd get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything.
Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.
After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as "speculators" by Barack Obama in his press conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown.
The White House denied that it strong-armed Perella Weinberg. The firm issued a statement saying it decided to accept the settlement, but it pointedly did not deny that it had been threatened by the White House. Which is to say, the threat worked.
The same goes for big banks that have received billions in government TARP money. Many of them want to give back the money, but the government won't let them. They also voted to accept the Chrysler settlement. Nice little bank ya got there, wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
Left-wing bloggers have been saying that the White House's denial of making threats should be taken at face value and that Lauria's statement is not evidence to the contrary. But that's ridiculous. Lauria is a reputable lawyer and a contributor to Democratic candidates. He has no motive to lie. The White House does.
Think carefully about what's happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored.
In the process it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House's power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.
Michigan politicians of both parties joined Obama in denouncing the holdout bondholders. They point to the sad plight of UAW retirees not getting full payment of the health care benefits the union negotiated with Chrysler.
But the plight of the beneficiaries of the pension funds represented by the bondholders is sad, too. Ordinarily you would expect these claims to be weighed and determined by the rule of law. But apparently not in this administration.
What 'Empathy' Really Means
Obama's attitude toward the rule of law is apparent in the words he used to describe what he is looking for in a nominee to replace Justice David Souter. He wants "someone who understands justice is not just about some abstract legal theory," he said, but someone who has "empathy."
In other words, judges should decide cases so that the right people win, not according to the rule of law.
The Chrysler negotiations will not be the last occasion for this administration to engage in bailout favoritism and crony capitalism. There's a May 31 deadline to come up with a settlement for General Motors. And there will be others.
In the meantime, who is going to buy bonds from unionized companies if the government is going to take their money away and give it to the union? We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government. It is likely to be part of a continuing series.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Monday, May 04, 2009
Obama to Secured Creditors: Drop Dead
By Bill Frezza
Are you following the disembowelment of Chrysler’s secured creditors with an eye not just toward what it means for the moribund car company but for what it could do to the very concept of secured debt? Has it dawned on you what the consequences will be if the President gets his way and consideration is given to creditors not according to contracts, rules, and established legal precedents but according to which group is most politically favored? And do you believe the President advanced the cause of economic recovery by publicly excoriating “speculators” who once hoped to profit by lending money against hard assets to an ailing company?
Profit? There’s no profit to incentivize risk taking in this country, only sacrifice!
Law? There’s no law to protect the politically unfavored in this country, only derision!
Are you following the disembowelment of Chrysler’s secured creditors with an eye not just toward what it means for the moribund car company but for what it could do to the very concept of secured debt? Has it dawned on you what the consequences will be if the President gets his way and consideration is given to creditors not according to contracts, rules, and established legal precedents but according to which group is most politically favored? And do you believe the President advanced the cause of economic recovery by publicly excoriating “speculators” who once hoped to profit by lending money against hard assets to an ailing company?
Profit? There’s no profit to incentivize risk taking in this country, only sacrifice!
Law? There’s no law to protect the politically unfavored in this country, only derision!
How's that $787 billion stimulus plan working out?
One of President Obama's accomplishments during his first 100 days was the passage of a $787 billion stimulus plan. I think the idea of economic stimulus makes sense when an economy is in the middle of a deflationary spiral. As I posted, that's when a drop in demand leads to excess productive capacity, causing companies to cut prices and fire workers, which further lowers demand as more workers -- whose consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of GDP growth -- have less to spend.
So far, only about 10 percent of the stimulus money has been doled out and it's not having much effect in counteracting this deflationary spiral. How so? First quarter GDP plunged 6.1 percent -- compared to a 6.3 percent decline in 2008's fourth quarter -- and the preliminary numbers are usually adjusted downward. The unemployment rate is expected to hit 8.9 percent in April from 8.5 percent in March.
So far, only about 10 percent of the stimulus money has been doled out and it's not having much effect in counteracting this deflationary spiral. How so? First quarter GDP plunged 6.1 percent -- compared to a 6.3 percent decline in 2008's fourth quarter -- and the preliminary numbers are usually adjusted downward. The unemployment rate is expected to hit 8.9 percent in April from 8.5 percent in March.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Change We Can Believe In: Taxpayers to get rude surprise
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring.
The government is going to want some of that money back.
The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in the past month.
But new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time....
The government is going to want some of that money back.
The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in the past month.
But new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time....
Christine M. Flowers: Sen. Weather Vane
THERE are two schools of thought about Arlen Specter's defection (or rather, homecoming) to the Democrats.
The first is that he was so desperate to keep his spot in Congress, so incapable of hearing his name without the honorific "Sen." before it, that he jumped ship to avoid being destroyed in the GOP primary.
That's probably true.
The other is that he no longer felt at home in a party that had become increasingly conservative, rejecting his views on abortion, stem-cell research and trillion-dollar budgets, etc.
That's also probably true.
And guess what? The party is better off without him.
Specter is a weather vane, yielding to the strongest political wind. While he considers himself a "maverick" like his friend John McCain, the truth is that our senior senator is an opportunist.
Or, in his lexicon, a "moderate."
Moderates say they're for limited government spending, but then cast tie-breaker votes for trillion-dollar budgets.
Or think that subsidizing people who bought houses they couldn't afford is the right thing to do, even if those who lived within their means have to pay the bill...
The first is that he was so desperate to keep his spot in Congress, so incapable of hearing his name without the honorific "Sen." before it, that he jumped ship to avoid being destroyed in the GOP primary.
That's probably true.
The other is that he no longer felt at home in a party that had become increasingly conservative, rejecting his views on abortion, stem-cell research and trillion-dollar budgets, etc.
That's also probably true.
And guess what? The party is better off without him.
Specter is a weather vane, yielding to the strongest political wind. While he considers himself a "maverick" like his friend John McCain, the truth is that our senior senator is an opportunist.
Or, in his lexicon, a "moderate."
Moderates say they're for limited government spending, but then cast tie-breaker votes for trillion-dollar budgets.
Or think that subsidizing people who bought houses they couldn't afford is the right thing to do, even if those who lived within their means have to pay the bill...
Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.
Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.The second exception to torture rule is extraction of= information from a value enemy in possession likely save this case lacks white clarity ticking time bomb we know less about length fuse or nature next but do danger must act have no idea where how and t that until.
Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding.
Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."
Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.
Asserts Blair's predecessor, Mike McConnell, "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened." Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy's plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture.
Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a Washington Post report that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."
Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.
On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."
But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying "Don't do it."
On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."
style="margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; ">More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009" (the words are Blair's) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
You Could Hear A Pin Drop
When in England, at a fairly large conference, Condi Rice was asked by the
Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire
building by George Bush.
She answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its
fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our
borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to
bury those that did not return." You could hear a pin drop.
There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were
taking part, including French and American. During the break, one of the
French engineers came back into the room saying "Have you heard the latest dumb
stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the
tsunami victims. What does he intend to do, bomb them?"
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: "Our carriers have three
hospitals on board that treat several hundred people, they are nuclear powered
and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three
cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day; they can
produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and
they carry half dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured
to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships, how many does France
have?" You could hear a pin drop.
taking part, including French and American. During the break, one of the
French engineers came back into the room saying "Have you heard the latest dumb
stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the
tsunami victims. What does he intend to do, bomb them?"
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: "Our carriers have three
hospitals on board that treat several hundred people, they are nuclear powered
and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three
cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day; they can
produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and
they carry half dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured
to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships, how many does France
have?" You could hear a pin drop.
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals
from the US, English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail
reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that
included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in
English as they sipped their drinks, but a French admiral suddenly complained
that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.
He then asked, "Why is it that we always have to speak English in these
conferences rather than speaking French?"
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, "Maybe it’s because the
Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to
speak German." You could hear a pin drop.
Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At
French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.
"You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked
sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.
"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready…"
The American said, "The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it"
"Impossible. Americans always have to show their passports on arrival to
France!"
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look then quietly
explained,"Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help
liberate this country, I couldn’t find a single Frenchman to show a passport to."
You could hear a pin drop.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Ronald Reagan
We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
2 Corinthians 12:9-10
2 Corinthians 12:9-10 "But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong."Author/Writer: God and The Apostle PaulContext: II CORINTHIANS. Written to correct erroneous views arising out of the first epistle, and emphasizing Satanic counterfeit (2 Cor. 11).Read the Chapter >II Corinthians 11
A World Of Trouble For Obama
New American presidents typically begin by behaving as if most of the world's problems are the fault of their predecessors -- and Barack Obama has been no exception. In his first three months he has quickly taken steps to correct the errors in George W. Bush's foreign policy, as seen by Democrats. He has collected easy dividends from his base, U.S. allies in Europe and a global following for not being "unilateralist" or war-mongering or scornful of dialogue with enemies. ..
Sunday, April 19, 2009
- Thomas Edison
"Many of life's failures are people who
did not realize how close they were
to success when they gave up."
- Thomas Edison
did not realize how close they were
to success when they gave up."
- Thomas Edison
I wish to apologize to you for my behavior last week.
On Tuesday, I learned that I am a right-wing hack. I am not a journalist. I am typical of the right wing. I am why newspapers are going broke. I write garbage. I am angry with Barack Obama. I misquote Obama. I am bitter. I am a certified idiot. I am lame. I am a Republican flack.
On Thursday, I realized that I am a media pimp with my lips on Obama's butt. I am a bleeding-heart liberal who wants nothing more than for the right to fall on its face. I am part of the ObamaMedia. I am pimping for the left. I am carrying water for Obama. Lord, am I an idiot...
On Thursday, I realized that I am a media pimp with my lips on Obama's butt. I am a bleeding-heart liberal who wants nothing more than for the right to fall on its face. I am part of the ObamaMedia. I am pimping for the left. I am carrying water for Obama. Lord, am I an idiot...
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Mark Steyn: Tea Party animals not boiling over
Our lesson today comes from the old British novelty song:
"I like A Nice Cup Of Tea in the morning
Just to start the day, you see
And at half-past-eleven
My idea of heaven
Is A Nice Cup Of Tea …"
In other cultures, tea is a soothing beverage, a respite from the cares of the world. "A Nice Cup Of Tea And A Sit-Down" is a British best-seller offering advice on tea, biscuits (that's "cookies" in American) and comfy chairs by the husband-and-wife team of "Nicey" and "Wifey," which sobriquets suggest that these are not the folks to turn to for societal insurrection.
George Orwell – the George Orwell of "Animal Farm" and "1984" – wrote a famous essay called "A Nice Cup Of Tea," all about the best way to warm the pot, and the defects of shallow cups. Is it some sort of political allegory for impending civil war set in a household torn between those who put the milk in before the tea and those who do so after? No, Orwell liked a good cuppa (as they say in England) and was eager to pass on his advice for extracting maximum satisfaction from the experience...
"I like A Nice Cup Of Tea in the morning
Just to start the day, you see
And at half-past-eleven
My idea of heaven
Is A Nice Cup Of Tea …"
In other cultures, tea is a soothing beverage, a respite from the cares of the world. "A Nice Cup Of Tea And A Sit-Down" is a British best-seller offering advice on tea, biscuits (that's "cookies" in American) and comfy chairs by the husband-and-wife team of "Nicey" and "Wifey," which sobriquets suggest that these are not the folks to turn to for societal insurrection.
George Orwell – the George Orwell of "Animal Farm" and "1984" – wrote a famous essay called "A Nice Cup Of Tea," all about the best way to warm the pot, and the defects of shallow cups. Is it some sort of political allegory for impending civil war set in a household torn between those who put the milk in before the tea and those who do so after? No, Orwell liked a good cuppa (as they say in England) and was eager to pass on his advice for extracting maximum satisfaction from the experience...
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS
The Constitution Is A Subversive Manifesto Per DHS
The Department of Homeland Security Report titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" was first brought to light by Stephen Gordon at The Liberty Papers Blog. The Report was issued a week before the scheduled Tea Parties across the country, and is all over the news today. Reading the report is depressing, not because it reveals any current threat, but because of the shoddy definitions and analysis....
The Department of Homeland Security Report titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" was first brought to light by Stephen Gordon at The Liberty Papers Blog. The Report was issued a week before the scheduled Tea Parties across the country, and is all over the news today. Reading the report is depressing, not because it reveals any current threat, but because of the shoddy definitions and analysis....
American Legion to Napolitano: Apologize
Of all the smears listed in the new DHS warning about “right-wing extremism,” none are more dastardly and despicable than the insinuation that returning military veterans represent a security threat to the nation they willingly served. The Commander of the American Legion has sent the following letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano explaining to her that military veterans are not the enemy:
New Ethics Office, Established Last Year, Open for Business
More than a year after the House created the Office of Congressional Ethics, the quasi-independent panel is beginning to show signs that it is tackling investigative duties assigned to it by lawmakers, some of whom had raised questions about what the office was doing.
It was disclosed last week — though not by the ethics office, which is bound by secrecy rules — that the office had begun reviewing possible contacts between associates of Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. and then-Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich over naming Jackson to Barack Obama ’s old Senate seat.
Blagojevich was indicted April 2 on 16 felony counts including allegations that he sought to use his power of appointing Obama’s Senate successor for personal and political gain.
Jackson, who confirmed the probe after it was leaked to the press, maintained he has done nothing wrong and said he is cooperating with the new ethics office....
It was disclosed last week — though not by the ethics office, which is bound by secrecy rules — that the office had begun reviewing possible contacts between associates of Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. and then-Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich over naming Jackson to Barack Obama ’s old Senate seat.
Blagojevich was indicted April 2 on 16 felony counts including allegations that he sought to use his power of appointing Obama’s Senate successor for personal and political gain.
Jackson, who confirmed the probe after it was leaked to the press, maintained he has done nothing wrong and said he is cooperating with the new ethics office....
Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real
Yesterday, Roger Hedgecock and the Liberty Papers posted an unclassified DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis report titled:
Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.
The “report” (PDF file here) was one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda I’d ever read out of DHS. I couldn’t believe it was real.
I spent the day chasing down DHS spokespeople, who have been tied up preparing for a very important homeland security event later today: The First Lady is coming to visit their Washington office. Priorities, you know.
Well, the press office got back to me and verified that the document is indeed for real......
Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.
The “report” (PDF file here) was one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda I’d ever read out of DHS. I couldn’t believe it was real.
I spent the day chasing down DHS spokespeople, who have been tied up preparing for a very important homeland security event later today: The First Lady is coming to visit their Washington office. Priorities, you know.
Well, the press office got back to me and verified that the document is indeed for real......
'Say on Pay' and Other Bad Ideas
By JONATHAN MACEY
To socialize the American economy, it is not necessary to nationalize every business in the United States. All it requires is to put the corporations that control the finances of all of the companies in the economy under government control. And that is what is happening now.
Recall that very early in the bailout process, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and then New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner gathered CEOs of the nation's largest banks into a room at the New York Fed and insisted that they take massive sums of public money by selling preferred stock to the government. Some of these firms, most notably well-managed Wells Fargo, resisted. But they were coerced into taking the money by the farcical argument that if they turned down the money, then the companies that needed a bailout (i.e., Citigroup) would be stigmatized.
But how much worse could Citigroup's stigma be? Nobody really believes that the bank is anything but a zombie as it is....
To socialize the American economy, it is not necessary to nationalize every business in the United States. All it requires is to put the corporations that control the finances of all of the companies in the economy under government control. And that is what is happening now.
Recall that very early in the bailout process, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and then New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner gathered CEOs of the nation's largest banks into a room at the New York Fed and insisted that they take massive sums of public money by selling preferred stock to the government. Some of these firms, most notably well-managed Wells Fargo, resisted. But they were coerced into taking the money by the farcical argument that if they turned down the money, then the companies that needed a bailout (i.e., Citigroup) would be stigmatized.
But how much worse could Citigroup's stigma be? Nobody really believes that the bank is anything but a zombie as it is....
How did we get here? Ben Bernanke
At the most basic level, the role of banks and other financial institutions is to take the savings generated by households and businesses and put them to use by making loans and investments. In our global financial system, saving need not be generated in the country in which it is put to work. In the past 10 to 15 years, the United States and some other industrial countries have been the recipients of a great deal of foreign saving. Indeed, the net inflow of foreign saving to the United States reached about 6% of national output in 2006, an amount equal to about $825 billion in today's dollars.....
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Barack Obama: President Pantywaist - new surrender monkey on the block
President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it....
Well, at least the French still love him
Well, at least the French still love him
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Last Supper - Ruben
This is one of Rubens's versions of theLast Supper. It shows Judas looking away, absent-mindedly, as the others are shocked to learn about the pending betrayal.
The painting was originally an altar-piece in the Saint Rombout Church in Mechelen. Two pre-studies are known – one in Moscow, the other in a private collection.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Monday, April 06, 2009
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
Thursday, April 02, 2009
G-20 to give $1 trillion to IMF, World Bank
LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Gordon Brown says leaders at the G-20 summit have agreed to give $1 trillion to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to help struggling nations around the world.
Brown also says the 20 countries at the summit will enact common policies to crack down on tax havens, regulate hedge funds, and rebuild trust in the financial system to "prevent a crisis such as this from happening again."
PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke
WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich...
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Stem cells put to the test for stroke treatment in Houston
Houston doctors have launched the nation’s first experimental trial treating stroke with a patient’s own stem cells, following similar pioneering work in the Texas Medical Center with heart patients and brain-damaged children.
A University of Texas Medical School at Houston team last week injected stem cells taken from bone marrow of the trial’s first patient, who arrived at Memorial Hermann Hospital’s emergency department too late to receive tissue plasminogen activator, the clot-busting drug proven to treat stroke if given promptly.
“We’re just at the beginning, but this could an exciting new area of therapeutic intervention for stroke,” said Dr. Sean Savitz, a neurology professor and the study’s lead investigator. “It could be the next frontier.”
Although the trial is open only to those patients who don’t receive the clot-busting drug, Savitz said it could eventually also be used with the one-third of patients who get the drug but don’t improve.
Only about 3 percent of stroke patients get the drug.
Stroke is the nation’s third leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer.
It occurs when blood flow to the brain is interrupted or severely reduced, depriving brain tissue of oxygen and nutrients.
A tissue plasminogen activator is the only treatment for strokes....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
