by: John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets, a senior economist with H.C. Wainwright Economics and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research and Trading. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.
The U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment is arguably the most important of all the amendments in the brilliant document that helped shape the United States. The 10th amendment made plain that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
What the 10th amendment tells us is that the powers of the federal government are quite limited, and that any powers not enumerated to Washington in the first nine amendments automatically revert to the states. This was the founders' way of keeping the federal government small so that individuals could choose the kind of government they wanted based on the state in which they chose to live.
Of course, with politicians on both sides of the aisle driven by incentives that have told them to ignore the 10th amendment, Americans suffer under laws and bureaucracies created in Washington that would not exist had politicians adhered to the Constitution's limiting ways. Simply put, nothing in the Constitution allows for the existence of the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy (to name a few), government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ), or ineffective bureaucracies such as the SEC and the FDA.
Throughout this decade, under Presidents Bush and Obama, economic "stimulus" packages have similarly been foisted on the U.S. economy by a federal government possessing nothing not already taxed or borrowed from the private sector. Nothing in the Constitution mentions "economic growth" as one of the federal government's powers--the founders knew that with freedom came economic growth--but politicians being politicians, they've never let economic crises of their own making go to waste--Constitution be damned.
Where simple spending is considered, Washington's disdain for the Constitution becomes even more unsettling. As the Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl recently noted in the Washington Times, federal spending includes $2.6 million for the training of "Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job," $3.9 million for the SEC to rearrange "desks and offices at its Washington headquarters" and nearly $1 million for the shipping of "two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas," along with the improper use of government credit cards for the purchase of goods including "lingerie, iPods, XBoxes, jewelry, Internet dating services and Hawaiian vacations."
Clearly none of this wasteful spending was needed for the federal government to handle the very limited powers enumerated to it by the Constitution, and that was the whole point of the 10th amendment. Washington's powers would be limited so that citizens could choose their governments locally while keeping an eye on their activities.
That there were no federal income taxes until early in the 20th century was a certain offshoot of the meaning of the 10th amendment. The Founders' knew well that governments only grow, so in explicitly limiting the role of the federal government in our lives, citizens could wisely choose the government regime (and the level of taxation) they would live under. If lots of services and powerful politicians floated their boats, they could live in New York, while if they wanted to live in a state that spent and taxed much less, they could, for instance, move to Texas.
With government activities and spending based locally, Americans were essentially free to choose how much or how little power they would hand over. The federal tax burden was meant to be the smallest of all, precisely because the Constitution made plain that Washington's powers would once again be limited to what the first nine amendments allowed.
At present, the vision of the founders has been turned on its head. Rather than being able to choose the government of their liking on a state-by-state or city-by-city basis, Americans are captives of a federal government that has blatantly ignored the Constitution on the way to ascribing itself myriad powers and a taxing authority meant to pay for activities that, at best, should be left to cities and states.
This should be remembered the next time there's a discussion of federal taxation in the U.S. Indeed, while the freedom-loving may long for a simplified federal flat tax, in ascribing the power of taxation to the federal government to pay for all sorts of unconstitutional programs, we are blindly handing Washington powers never intended for it.
The better path at this point would be for all of us to demand more from our elected leadership. Specifically, we should demand that they cease talking of reduced federal spending and taxes in favor of a real discussion of the proper role of the federal government itself. Politicians need to be reminded that the Constitution is real, and that as opposed to reducing various programs that are unconstitutional, those programs should be abolished.
So while the level of federal taxation is important when it comes to economic growth, it to some degree misses the point. Federal spending is an equally huge burden on the economy for Washington taxing and borrowing from the private sector in order to fund initiatives that a proper reading of the Constitution would not allow.
In short, if we truly desire a greatly reduced tax burden, it's well past time we force politicians to consider the constitutionality of the various spending programs and bureaucracies that burden us. Only then will we see power returned to the cities and states such that levels of taxation actually decline.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Nazi Party?
Thank You Newsmax.com
The mainstream media were quick to jump all over conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh when he likened President Barack Obama's healthcare logo to a swastika and compared the Democrats to the Nazis.
They were much quieter about Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reference to a swastika when she claimed that hecklers at a pro-Obamacare town hall meeting were carrying swastikas.
During her recent visit to a San Francisco hospital, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter asked her whether there is "legitimate grass-roots opposition" to the Democrats' healthcare plan.
"I think they are Astroturf," she responded.
Then she referred to hecklers at a town hall meeting: "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."
See the video here.
The Chronicle report on the hospital visit did not report the swastika comment.
Fox News and Newsmax were among the media that did report Pelosi's comment.
But when Limbaugh made similar comments Thursday, he set off a media firestorm.
Limbaugh told his radio audience: "Obama's got a healthcare logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook.
"Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business — they hated big business . . . They were insanely, irrationally against pollution . . . They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working . . . They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables, as we all know, and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare."
Limbaugh's remarks got such wide play that, for a time on Thursday, "Obama's healthcare logo" was the No. 1 search term on Google, according to Newsweek. The magazine pointed out that the logo for Obama's Organizing for Healthcare effort incorporates the caduceus, the ancient Greek symbol for medicine.
The Chicago Tribune was among the media attacking Limbaugh for his comments, citing a report that Wednesday's program "couldn't have been angrier, more mendacious, or more venomous" and adding that Thursday's show "surpassed even that for pure divisive poison as Limbaugh played an entire deck of Hitler cards."
The Boston Globe said Limbaugh's remarks were part of "the increasingly vicious war over healthcare," and quoted a Democratic official who said his statement was "as disgusting as it is shocking." The article made no mention of Pelosi's earlier remark about swastikas.
A U.S. News & World Report article called Rush's remarks "mind-numbingly nonsensical," but did not mention Pelosi's comment.
Politico.com quoted a Democratic congressman who asserted that Limbaugh with his remarks has treated Holocaust survivors "with vile contempt."
The mainstream media were quick to jump all over conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh when he likened President Barack Obama's healthcare logo to a swastika and compared the Democrats to the Nazis.
They were much quieter about Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reference to a swastika when she claimed that hecklers at a pro-Obamacare town hall meeting were carrying swastikas.
During her recent visit to a San Francisco hospital, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter asked her whether there is "legitimate grass-roots opposition" to the Democrats' healthcare plan.
"I think they are Astroturf," she responded.
Then she referred to hecklers at a town hall meeting: "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."
See the video here.
The Chronicle report on the hospital visit did not report the swastika comment.
Fox News and Newsmax were among the media that did report Pelosi's comment.
But when Limbaugh made similar comments Thursday, he set off a media firestorm.
Limbaugh told his radio audience: "Obama's got a healthcare logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook.
"Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business — they hated big business . . . They were insanely, irrationally against pollution . . . They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working . . . They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables, as we all know, and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare."
Limbaugh's remarks got such wide play that, for a time on Thursday, "Obama's healthcare logo" was the No. 1 search term on Google, according to Newsweek. The magazine pointed out that the logo for Obama's Organizing for Healthcare effort incorporates the caduceus, the ancient Greek symbol for medicine.
The Chicago Tribune was among the media attacking Limbaugh for his comments, citing a report that Wednesday's program "couldn't have been angrier, more mendacious, or more venomous" and adding that Thursday's show "surpassed even that for pure divisive poison as Limbaugh played an entire deck of Hitler cards."
The Boston Globe said Limbaugh's remarks were part of "the increasingly vicious war over healthcare," and quoted a Democratic official who said his statement was "as disgusting as it is shocking." The article made no mention of Pelosi's earlier remark about swastikas.
A U.S. News & World Report article called Rush's remarks "mind-numbingly nonsensical," but did not mention Pelosi's comment.
Politico.com quoted a Democratic congressman who asserted that Limbaugh with his remarks has treated Holocaust survivors "with vile contempt."
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Why a Bill of Rights?
Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections.
After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others' insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. Those reservations weren't the result of a lack of concern for liberty. To the contrary, they were concerned about the loss of liberties.
Alexander Hamilton expressed his reservation in Federalist Paper No. 84, "(B)ills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done (by Congress) which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given (to Congress) by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gave it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of examining Hamilton's concern: Why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to picnic on our back porch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon that right in the first place?
Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would "contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more (powers) than were granted. ... (it) would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Going back to our picnic example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our right to have a picnic. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to have a picnic.
To mollify Alexander Hamilton's and James Madison's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Ninth Amendment was added that reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In essence, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the Ninth saying, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the states of the people.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean absolutely nothing today as Americans have developed a level of naive trust for Congress, the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court that would have astonished the founders, a trust that will lead to our undoing as a great nation.
After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others' insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. Those reservations weren't the result of a lack of concern for liberty. To the contrary, they were concerned about the loss of liberties.
Alexander Hamilton expressed his reservation in Federalist Paper No. 84, "(B)ills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done (by Congress) which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given (to Congress) by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gave it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of examining Hamilton's concern: Why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to picnic on our back porch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon that right in the first place?
Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would "contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more (powers) than were granted. ... (it) would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Going back to our picnic example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our right to have a picnic. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to have a picnic.
To mollify Alexander Hamilton's and James Madison's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Ninth Amendment was added that reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In essence, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the Ninth saying, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the states of the people.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean absolutely nothing today as Americans have developed a level of naive trust for Congress, the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court that would have astonished the founders, a trust that will lead to our undoing as a great nation.
Obama Repeal the 22nd for a third term?
You have to wonder if Obama is just trying to lay a foundation for not being a hypocrite when he tries to serve beyond 2016,” “I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment.”
Upon Obama's taking office, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced legislation in the House to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or 10 years in office. Serrano’s justification for the bill is that, until 1951, nothing prevented a president from serving more than two terms.
Additionally, a grass-roots movement is under way to make Obama's third term possible. A Web site, End22.com, is dedicated to abolishing the 22nd Amendment and is asking supporters for donations to make it happen.
"We are wise enough to choose our own leader and to decide how long that leader will serve," the Web site states, noting there was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents.
"With our current crises, the American People need to take back their right to elect the leader of their choice. The task is too large and the risk is too great. We must act now!"
Obama may not try to repeal the amendment on his own.
“He may not openly try to change the Constitution. But there might be this movement in the country from his ‘cult-like’ followers to support the notion that a democratically-elected leader who is ‘loved’ and ‘adored’ has carte blanche once elected — just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it.”
Obama has sympathy for dictators; he relates to them. He inherited his father's Marxism.
“I wouldn't put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016, and I think [that’s the reason for the] way he's reacting to what's happening in Honduras. They've got a constitution. They’re a democratically elected set of officials down there, and you had a guy running the country, Mel Zelaya, who was just going to basically rip that country's democracy to shreds and the country moved in to stop him from doing it. And Obama sides with the guy who wanted to rip up the constitution.”
Obama sides with other dictators in the region, as well, and “is nothing if not a hardcore liberal, always more sympathetic, appearing to side with the bad guys on the world stage.”
Obama's followers as a “cult-like bunch” whose “attachment to him is not political, it's not ideological, it is not issue-wise. It is cultish. It includes a wide percentage of minorities who, for different reasons, will come to think that he simply cannot be replaced.
“[If he] succeeds with amnesty, for example, and all the illegal aliens are instantly made citizens — he'll be too important. Just like right now — he's too big to fail as far as the drive-bys are concerned; he's too important to be replaced. No one else can lead the nation, they will say.”
During a news conference Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether Obama supports Serrano’s House Joint Resolution No. 5, which, if passed, could lead the way for an Obama run at a third term. It was noted that Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also supports repeal of the amendment.
“You're going to find I tend to get it mixed up with House Joint Resolution Four and Six,” Gibbs said, to laughter from the press corps.
“I think the president is firmly in support of an amendment that would limit his time in the presidency to eight years if he's given that awesome responsibility by the American people.”
“Anybody who thinks [Obama] intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts. I think that's what all this ACORN stuff is all about. I think given ACORN money and fraudulent voter registration — whatever it's going to take — these are people who seek power for reasons other than to serve. They seek to rule.”
Upon Obama's taking office, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced legislation in the House to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or 10 years in office. Serrano’s justification for the bill is that, until 1951, nothing prevented a president from serving more than two terms.
Additionally, a grass-roots movement is under way to make Obama's third term possible. A Web site, End22.com, is dedicated to abolishing the 22nd Amendment and is asking supporters for donations to make it happen.
"We are wise enough to choose our own leader and to decide how long that leader will serve," the Web site states, noting there was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents.
"With our current crises, the American People need to take back their right to elect the leader of their choice. The task is too large and the risk is too great. We must act now!"
Obama may not try to repeal the amendment on his own.
“He may not openly try to change the Constitution. But there might be this movement in the country from his ‘cult-like’ followers to support the notion that a democratically-elected leader who is ‘loved’ and ‘adored’ has carte blanche once elected — just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it.”
Obama has sympathy for dictators; he relates to them. He inherited his father's Marxism.
“I wouldn't put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016, and I think [that’s the reason for the] way he's reacting to what's happening in Honduras. They've got a constitution. They’re a democratically elected set of officials down there, and you had a guy running the country, Mel Zelaya, who was just going to basically rip that country's democracy to shreds and the country moved in to stop him from doing it. And Obama sides with the guy who wanted to rip up the constitution.”
Obama sides with other dictators in the region, as well, and “is nothing if not a hardcore liberal, always more sympathetic, appearing to side with the bad guys on the world stage.”
Obama's followers as a “cult-like bunch” whose “attachment to him is not political, it's not ideological, it is not issue-wise. It is cultish. It includes a wide percentage of minorities who, for different reasons, will come to think that he simply cannot be replaced.
“[If he] succeeds with amnesty, for example, and all the illegal aliens are instantly made citizens — he'll be too important. Just like right now — he's too big to fail as far as the drive-bys are concerned; he's too important to be replaced. No one else can lead the nation, they will say.”
During a news conference Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether Obama supports Serrano’s House Joint Resolution No. 5, which, if passed, could lead the way for an Obama run at a third term. It was noted that Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also supports repeal of the amendment.
“You're going to find I tend to get it mixed up with House Joint Resolution Four and Six,” Gibbs said, to laughter from the press corps.
“I think the president is firmly in support of an amendment that would limit his time in the presidency to eight years if he's given that awesome responsibility by the American people.”
“Anybody who thinks [Obama] intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts. I think that's what all this ACORN stuff is all about. I think given ACORN money and fraudulent voter registration — whatever it's going to take — these are people who seek power for reasons other than to serve. They seek to rule.”
Monday, June 22, 2009
Apology Tour part 3 Slavery and reparations
The Senate unanimously passed a resolution yesterday apologizing for slavery, making way for a joint congressional resolution and the latest attempt by the federal government to take responsibility for 2 1/2 centuries of slavery.
"You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), lead sponsor of the resolution, said after the unanimous-consent vote. "It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."
The Senate's apology follows a similar apology passed last year by the House. One key difference is that the Senate version explicitly deals with the long-simmering issue of whether slavery descendants are entitled to reparations, saying that the resolution cannot be used in support of claims for restitution. The House is expected to revisit the issue next week to conform its resolution to the Senate version.
Tashington, D.C. - The U.S. Senate resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation will be used as a lobbying tool to acquire reparations payments, say members of the black leadership network Project 21. The group urges the Senate to "move on," saying the apology will do little to heal perceived racial gaps.
On June 18, senators unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation in the United States. While the resolution was written with the intention that it could not be used to support claims for monetary reparations, reparations activists Randall Robinson told the Washington Post the legislation constitutes a "confession" that will aid the process of acquiring reparations. Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said the resolution should not be a substitute for reparations, saying "That battle will be prolonged."
Jerry Brooks (Auburn, WA): "I'll accept the Senate's apology, but let's move on already. This apology is something that might have been more appropriate long ago, and now it's likely going to be misused by those with a political axe to grind. In particular and despite its intention to the contrary, it is already being used to promote reparations. Not only is this an idea without merit, but an extremely foolish one to be clinging to while our nation is trying to recover from its current economic distress."
Brooks continued, "I also take offense to the ignorant partisan attacks involved in this debate. In trying to infer Republicans are responsible for slavery is downright silly considering that the party came about as part of the movement to abolish slavery."
Jimmie L. Hollis (Millville, NJ): "As an American of African ancestry, I think this apology is ridiculous and useless. It is just another 'feel good' action. If we are to start apologizing for every injustice and wrong done in the past, we will spend the next few decades just apologizing. Let's move on."
Bob Parks (Athol, MA): "Why the need to do this now? Are we attempting to keep the First Lady proud of her country?"
Parks added, "The problem is that, when you apologize, it's important that the recipient knows the reason for the apology and who is giving it. It wasn't the entire Senate whose former party slogan was 'the White Man's Party' or fostered the Ku Klux Klan or resisted black civil rights efforts until it was realized just how the black voting bloc could be used for political advantage. But why the entire Senate is apologizing for evil past doings, once supported by the Democrat Party, is a mystery to me."
Randall Robinson, author of "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks," said he sees the Senate's apology as a "confession" that should lead to a next step of reparations. "Much is owed, and it is very quantifiable," he said. "It is owed as one would owe for any labor that one has not paid for, and until steps are taken in that direction we haven't accomplished anything."
Cohen said he and Harkin worked closely with the NAACP and other civil rights groups on language that would not endorse or preclude any future claims to reparations. "It will not harm reparations but won't give any standing to it," Cohen said.
"You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), lead sponsor of the resolution, said after the unanimous-consent vote. "It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."
The Senate's apology follows a similar apology passed last year by the House. One key difference is that the Senate version explicitly deals with the long-simmering issue of whether slavery descendants are entitled to reparations, saying that the resolution cannot be used in support of claims for restitution. The House is expected to revisit the issue next week to conform its resolution to the Senate version.
Tashington, D.C. - The U.S. Senate resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation will be used as a lobbying tool to acquire reparations payments, say members of the black leadership network Project 21. The group urges the Senate to "move on," saying the apology will do little to heal perceived racial gaps.
On June 18, senators unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation in the United States. While the resolution was written with the intention that it could not be used to support claims for monetary reparations, reparations activists Randall Robinson told the Washington Post the legislation constitutes a "confession" that will aid the process of acquiring reparations. Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said the resolution should not be a substitute for reparations, saying "That battle will be prolonged."
Jerry Brooks (Auburn, WA): "I'll accept the Senate's apology, but let's move on already. This apology is something that might have been more appropriate long ago, and now it's likely going to be misused by those with a political axe to grind. In particular and despite its intention to the contrary, it is already being used to promote reparations. Not only is this an idea without merit, but an extremely foolish one to be clinging to while our nation is trying to recover from its current economic distress."
Brooks continued, "I also take offense to the ignorant partisan attacks involved in this debate. In trying to infer Republicans are responsible for slavery is downright silly considering that the party came about as part of the movement to abolish slavery."
Jimmie L. Hollis (Millville, NJ): "As an American of African ancestry, I think this apology is ridiculous and useless. It is just another 'feel good' action. If we are to start apologizing for every injustice and wrong done in the past, we will spend the next few decades just apologizing. Let's move on."
Bob Parks (Athol, MA): "Why the need to do this now? Are we attempting to keep the First Lady proud of her country?"
Parks added, "The problem is that, when you apologize, it's important that the recipient knows the reason for the apology and who is giving it. It wasn't the entire Senate whose former party slogan was 'the White Man's Party' or fostered the Ku Klux Klan or resisted black civil rights efforts until it was realized just how the black voting bloc could be used for political advantage. But why the entire Senate is apologizing for evil past doings, once supported by the Democrat Party, is a mystery to me."
Randall Robinson, author of "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks," said he sees the Senate's apology as a "confession" that should lead to a next step of reparations. "Much is owed, and it is very quantifiable," he said. "It is owed as one would owe for any labor that one has not paid for, and until steps are taken in that direction we haven't accomplished anything."
Cohen said he and Harkin worked closely with the NAACP and other civil rights groups on language that would not endorse or preclude any future claims to reparations. "It will not harm reparations but won't give any standing to it," Cohen said.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
“The Emperor Has No Clothes!”
“The Emperor Has No Clothes!” – Ominous Poll Numbers for Obama
Cataloguing Barack Obama’s mendacity is like attempting to isolate individual pellets during a driving hailstorm.
Each of his fabrications is astonishing in its sheer audacity, but quickly fades into anonymity amid the endless barrage. And because he issues them with such rapidity, the effect is a contagion of mass amnesia that soothes the fawning “watchdog” media and induces stupor among the public.
Obama’s preposterous “jobs saved or created” artifice is merely the latest vivid example.
In January, while advocating its proposed “stimulus” legislation, the White House issued a report warning that unless the bill was passed, unemployment could reach 8.5% by this month on its way to a peak of 8.8% in 2010. If the legislation was passed, on the other hand, the White House promised that unemployment would top out at 7.8% before steadily declining.
Obama also issued his absurd promise to “save or create” 3.5 million jobs, even though neither the Department of Labor nor any other governmental agency has any idea how to measure “jobs saved.”
Well. Congress passed Obama’s stimulus bill, but something has gone awry along the way. Since the date of passage, the American economy has lost approximately 1.6 million more jobs. And this month, the Department of Labor reported that the nation’s unemployment rate has reached 9.4%, some 1.6% higher than Obama’s expected peak.
So how did Obama respond?
By brazenly contending that he had somehow “saved or created” 150,000 new jobs, with 600,000 more coming this summer. Even the New York Times acknowledged that Obama’s concoction is “based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs.”
That makes sense, of course, since “an actual counting of jobs” would reveal that Obama’s promise was demonstrably false.
It appears, however, that we’re beginning to hear the steadily-increasing murmur that “the emperor has no clothes!”
That adage, of course, derives from the classic 1837 fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen. In the story, the leader of a prosperous city habitually places greater emphasis upon his fashionability and popularity than upon sound leadership or effective governance.
Sound familiar?
Consumed by his frivolity, the emperor unwittingly hires two swindlers who convince him that they can produce the finest suit from the most exquisite fabric. The swindlers tell the emperor that the cloth is so elegant that it is invisible to stupid and incompetent people. When the emperor finally receives word that his new suit is finished and goes to try it on, however, he cannot see anything. Afraid of exposing themselves as stupid or incompetent by being unable to see it, the emperor and his ministers simply pretend to be awestricken by the non-existent new suit.
Oblivious to the swindle, the emperor proudly proceeds to exhibit his new “clothes” to the town. Afraid to speak up, the town’s citizens similarly pretend to see the wonderful suit, until an undaunted child exclaims, “the emperor has nothing on!” Although the crowd realizes that the child is correct, the emperor continues in his vain oblivion.
Andersen’s tale about exposing the emptiness and pretensions of the ruling class is obviously instructive today. From his “jobs saved or created” fiction to his assertion that he has no interest in running an automobile company while he does precisely that, the sycophantic media imitates the timid townspeople.
Accordingly, we await the collective realization that Emperor Obama has no clothes. But the murmur appears to be getting steadily more audible.
After Obama delivered his latest “American Apology Tour ‘09” address in Cairo, for instance, an observer in the United Arab Emirates noted, “he seems to say everything without actually promising anything.”
And here in the United States, scientific surveys provide ominous news for Obama. For the first time, a June 5, 2009 Rasmussen poll revealed that Obama’s “strong disapproval” percentage has equaled his “strong approval” rating at 34% apiece. To provide perspective, Obama enjoyed a +28% margin the day after entering office, with 44% strongly approving and only 16% strongly disapproving.
And in Europe, voters this week overwhelmingly rejected left-leaning and socialist candidates. It appears that people who have actually seen socialism in practice have developed a distaste for it. Foreign leaders such as Israel’s Netanyahu, France’s Sarkozy and Germany’s Merkel have already begun to criticize Obama’s directives, and this week’s election results portend even greater friction.
The chorus of people pointing out the emptiness and pretensions of Obama’s agenda is growing larger, and the consensus that the emperor has no clothes draws nearer.
Cataloguing Barack Obama’s mendacity is like attempting to isolate individual pellets during a driving hailstorm.
Each of his fabrications is astonishing in its sheer audacity, but quickly fades into anonymity amid the endless barrage. And because he issues them with such rapidity, the effect is a contagion of mass amnesia that soothes the fawning “watchdog” media and induces stupor among the public.
Obama’s preposterous “jobs saved or created” artifice is merely the latest vivid example.
In January, while advocating its proposed “stimulus” legislation, the White House issued a report warning that unless the bill was passed, unemployment could reach 8.5% by this month on its way to a peak of 8.8% in 2010. If the legislation was passed, on the other hand, the White House promised that unemployment would top out at 7.8% before steadily declining.
Obama also issued his absurd promise to “save or create” 3.5 million jobs, even though neither the Department of Labor nor any other governmental agency has any idea how to measure “jobs saved.”
Well. Congress passed Obama’s stimulus bill, but something has gone awry along the way. Since the date of passage, the American economy has lost approximately 1.6 million more jobs. And this month, the Department of Labor reported that the nation’s unemployment rate has reached 9.4%, some 1.6% higher than Obama’s expected peak.
So how did Obama respond?
By brazenly contending that he had somehow “saved or created” 150,000 new jobs, with 600,000 more coming this summer. Even the New York Times acknowledged that Obama’s concoction is “based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs.”
That makes sense, of course, since “an actual counting of jobs” would reveal that Obama’s promise was demonstrably false.
It appears, however, that we’re beginning to hear the steadily-increasing murmur that “the emperor has no clothes!”
That adage, of course, derives from the classic 1837 fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen. In the story, the leader of a prosperous city habitually places greater emphasis upon his fashionability and popularity than upon sound leadership or effective governance.
Sound familiar?
Consumed by his frivolity, the emperor unwittingly hires two swindlers who convince him that they can produce the finest suit from the most exquisite fabric. The swindlers tell the emperor that the cloth is so elegant that it is invisible to stupid and incompetent people. When the emperor finally receives word that his new suit is finished and goes to try it on, however, he cannot see anything. Afraid of exposing themselves as stupid or incompetent by being unable to see it, the emperor and his ministers simply pretend to be awestricken by the non-existent new suit.
Oblivious to the swindle, the emperor proudly proceeds to exhibit his new “clothes” to the town. Afraid to speak up, the town’s citizens similarly pretend to see the wonderful suit, until an undaunted child exclaims, “the emperor has nothing on!” Although the crowd realizes that the child is correct, the emperor continues in his vain oblivion.
Andersen’s tale about exposing the emptiness and pretensions of the ruling class is obviously instructive today. From his “jobs saved or created” fiction to his assertion that he has no interest in running an automobile company while he does precisely that, the sycophantic media imitates the timid townspeople.
Accordingly, we await the collective realization that Emperor Obama has no clothes. But the murmur appears to be getting steadily more audible.
After Obama delivered his latest “American Apology Tour ‘09” address in Cairo, for instance, an observer in the United Arab Emirates noted, “he seems to say everything without actually promising anything.”
And here in the United States, scientific surveys provide ominous news for Obama. For the first time, a June 5, 2009 Rasmussen poll revealed that Obama’s “strong disapproval” percentage has equaled his “strong approval” rating at 34% apiece. To provide perspective, Obama enjoyed a +28% margin the day after entering office, with 44% strongly approving and only 16% strongly disapproving.
And in Europe, voters this week overwhelmingly rejected left-leaning and socialist candidates. It appears that people who have actually seen socialism in practice have developed a distaste for it. Foreign leaders such as Israel’s Netanyahu, France’s Sarkozy and Germany’s Merkel have already begun to criticize Obama’s directives, and this week’s election results portend even greater friction.
The chorus of people pointing out the emptiness and pretensions of Obama’s agenda is growing larger, and the consensus that the emperor has no clothes draws nearer.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
This was an excellent article and worth reading- Thanks Jonah Goldberg
The government effectively owns General Motors and controls Chrysler, and the president is deciding what kind of cars they can make. Uncle Sam owns majority stakes in American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and controls large chunks of the banking industry. Also, President Obama wants government to take over the business of student loans. And he's pushing for nationalized health care. Meanwhile, his Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that it reserves the right to regulate any economic activity that has a "carbon footprint." Just last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said climate change requires that "every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory." Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has his eye on regulating executive pay.Of course, nationalization of industry is only one kind of socialism; another approach is to simply redistribute the nation's income as economic planners see fit. But wait, Obama believes in that, too. That's why he said during the campaign that he wants to "spread the wealth" and that's why he did exactly that when he got elected. (He spread the debt, too.)
And yet, for conservatives to suggest in any way, shape or form that there's something "socialistic" about any of this is the cause of knee-slapping hilarity for liberal pundits and bloggers everywhere.
For instance, last month the Republican National Committee considered a resolution calling on the Democratic Party to rename itself the "Democrat Socialist Party." The resolution was killed by RNC Chairman Michael Steele in favor of the supposedly milder condemnation of the Democrats' "march toward socialism."
THE HOPE FOR SOCIALISM
The whole spectacle was just too funny for liberal observers. Robert Schlesinger, U.S. News & World Report's opinion editor, was a typical giggler. He chortled, "What's really both funny and scary about all of this is how seriously the fringe-nuts in the GOP take it."
Putting aside the funny and scary notion that it's "funny and scary" for political professionals to take weighty political issues seriously, there are some fundamental problems with all of this disdain. For starters, why do liberals routinely suggest, even hope, that Obama and the Democrats are leading us into an age of socialism, or social democracy or democratic socialism? (One source of confusion is that these terms are routinely used interchangeably.)
For instance, in a fawning interview with President Obama, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham mocks Obama's critics for considering Obama to be a "crypto-socialist." This, of course, would be the same Jon Meacham who last February co-authored a cover story with Newsweek's editor at large (and grandson of the six-time presidential candidate for the American Socialist Party) Evan Thomas titled -- wait for it -- "We Are All Socialists Now," in which they argued that the growth of government was making us like a "European," i.e. socialist, country.
Washington Post columnists Jim Hoagland (a centrist), E.J. Dionne (a liberal) and Harold Meyerson (very, very liberal) have all suggested that Obama intentionally or otherwise is putting us on the path to "social democracy." Left-wing blogger and Democratic activist Matthew Yglesias last fall hoped that the financial crisis offered a "real opportunity" for "massive socialism." Polling done by Rasmussen -- and touted by Meyerson -- shows that while Republicans favor "capitalism" over "socialism" by 11 to 1, Democrats favor capitalism by a mere 39 percent to 30 percent. So, again: Is it really crazy to think that there is a constituency for some flavor of socialism in the Democratic Party?
When the question is aimed at them like an accusation, liberals roll their eyes at such "paranoia." They say Obama is merely reviving "New Deal economics" to "save" or "reform" capitalism. But liberals themselves have long seen this approach as the best way to incrementally bring about a European-style, social democratic welfare state. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (Robert's father) wrote in 1947, "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals."
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE
Part of the problem here is definitional. No mainstream liberal actually wants government to completely seize the means of production, and no mainstream conservative believes that there's no room for any government regulation or social insurance. Both sides believe in a "mixed economy" but disagree profoundly about where to draw the line. One definition of social democracy is the peaceful, democratic transition to socialism. A second is simply a large European welfare state where the state owns some, and guides the rest, of the economy. Many liberals yearn for the latter and say so often -- but fume when conservatives take them at their word.
Personally, I think socialism is the wrong word for all of this. "Corporatism" -- the economic doctrine of fascism -- fits better. Under corporatism, all the big players in the economy -- big business, unions, interest groups -- sit around the table with government at the head, hashing out what they think is best for everyone to the detriment of consumers, markets and entrepreneurs. But, take it from me, liberals are far more open to the argument that they're "crypto-socialists."
The government effectively owns General Motors and controls Chrysler, and the president is deciding what kind of cars they can make. Uncle Sam owns majority stakes in American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and controls large chunks of the banking industry. Also, President Obama wants government to take over the business of student loans. And he's pushing for nationalized health care. Meanwhile, his Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that it reserves the right to regulate any economic activity that has a "carbon footprint." Just last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said climate change requires that "every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory." Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has his eye on regulating executive pay.Of course, nationalization of industry is only one kind of socialism; another approach is to simply redistribute the nation's income as economic planners see fit. But wait, Obama believes in that, too. That's why he said during the campaign that he wants to "spread the wealth" and that's why he did exactly that when he got elected. (He spread the debt, too.)
And yet, for conservatives to suggest in any way, shape or form that there's something "socialistic" about any of this is the cause of knee-slapping hilarity for liberal pundits and bloggers everywhere.
For instance, last month the Republican National Committee considered a resolution calling on the Democratic Party to rename itself the "Democrat Socialist Party." The resolution was killed by RNC Chairman Michael Steele in favor of the supposedly milder condemnation of the Democrats' "march toward socialism."
THE HOPE FOR SOCIALISM
The whole spectacle was just too funny for liberal observers. Robert Schlesinger, U.S. News & World Report's opinion editor, was a typical giggler. He chortled, "What's really both funny and scary about all of this is how seriously the fringe-nuts in the GOP take it."
Putting aside the funny and scary notion that it's "funny and scary" for political professionals to take weighty political issues seriously, there are some fundamental problems with all of this disdain. For starters, why do liberals routinely suggest, even hope, that Obama and the Democrats are leading us into an age of socialism, or social democracy or democratic socialism? (One source of confusion is that these terms are routinely used interchangeably.)
For instance, in a fawning interview with President Obama, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham mocks Obama's critics for considering Obama to be a "crypto-socialist." This, of course, would be the same Jon Meacham who last February co-authored a cover story with Newsweek's editor at large (and grandson of the six-time presidential candidate for the American Socialist Party) Evan Thomas titled -- wait for it -- "We Are All Socialists Now," in which they argued that the growth of government was making us like a "European," i.e. socialist, country.
Washington Post columnists Jim Hoagland (a centrist), E.J. Dionne (a liberal) and Harold Meyerson (very, very liberal) have all suggested that Obama intentionally or otherwise is putting us on the path to "social democracy." Left-wing blogger and Democratic activist Matthew Yglesias last fall hoped that the financial crisis offered a "real opportunity" for "massive socialism." Polling done by Rasmussen -- and touted by Meyerson -- shows that while Republicans favor "capitalism" over "socialism" by 11 to 1, Democrats favor capitalism by a mere 39 percent to 30 percent. So, again: Is it really crazy to think that there is a constituency for some flavor of socialism in the Democratic Party?
When the question is aimed at them like an accusation, liberals roll their eyes at such "paranoia." They say Obama is merely reviving "New Deal economics" to "save" or "reform" capitalism. But liberals themselves have long seen this approach as the best way to incrementally bring about a European-style, social democratic welfare state. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (Robert's father) wrote in 1947, "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals."
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE
Part of the problem here is definitional. No mainstream liberal actually wants government to completely seize the means of production, and no mainstream conservative believes that there's no room for any government regulation or social insurance. Both sides believe in a "mixed economy" but disagree profoundly about where to draw the line. One definition of social democracy is the peaceful, democratic transition to socialism. A second is simply a large European welfare state where the state owns some, and guides the rest, of the economy. Many liberals yearn for the latter and say so often -- but fume when conservatives take them at their word.
Personally, I think socialism is the wrong word for all of this. "Corporatism" -- the economic doctrine of fascism -- fits better. Under corporatism, all the big players in the economy -- big business, unions, interest groups -- sit around the table with government at the head, hashing out what they think is best for everyone to the detriment of consumers, markets and entrepreneurs. But, take it from me, liberals are far more open to the argument that they're "crypto-socialists."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Soda Tax To Pay For Obama-Care?
A Soda Tax To Pay For Obama-Care?
So as described in the news today the same government that stated that Social Security will be insolvent by 2031 and medicare a government run health care will be insolvent by 2017, and not to mention VA hospitals which are among the worst health care in the country also government run, now they want to run the entire health care system? This is like asking GM to run the oil companies too.
Late last year, New York Governor David Paterson proposed a 15% "obesity tax" on non-diet soda to help close the state budget gap. The idea was so unpopular, Paterson had to axe the idea in March. Despite the warning, Democrats in congress, determined to find a way to pay for Barack Obama's ridiculous health care plan, are considering a federal tax on soda and other sugary beverages. Right now the number being thrown out is 3 cents for every 12 fluid ounces of those sinful sugary beverages, but we don't know how big a tax they are considering. Early estimates put the cost of Obama's health care plan at about $1.2 trillion... but such plans always cost more than the estimates, so, expect that number to grow, as well as the size of the proposed soda tax. Just as Governor Paterson had to find another way to close the budget gap, I suspect hat Barack Obama will have to find other ways to pay for his health care plan. A Rasmussen poll from earlier this year showed that 70% of Americans oppose a tax increase on soda. Supporters of the tax argue about the health benefits.
Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
We've heard similar argument about raising taxes on tobacco products. But, let's not be fooled. the motivation of the tax is to collect more revenue, and consumers who want soda will drink their soda... And guess who will be hit hard with this tax increase? Lower-income Americans. So, while Barack Obama promise tax cuts for 95% of Americans, with proposals like these, most Americans will find the small increase in their pay check will be quickly offset and eclipsed by higher taxes they pay at the supermarket and elsewhere on products Big Brother says isn't good for them. And it doesn't end with soda and other sugary beverages.
Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.
The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They're expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.
Hear than? Hundreds of ideas to raise your taxes. If it's not sugar it is alcohol, trans fat, salt... anything the government says is bad for you they will consider taxing, to pay for Obama's health care plan... which they think will cost only 1.2 trillion now... don't be surprised if that estimates goes up signifcantly, and many of those "hundreds of ideas" to raise your taxes that are being weighed will become a reality... if we don't stop it.
So as described in the news today the same government that stated that Social Security will be insolvent by 2031 and medicare a government run health care will be insolvent by 2017, and not to mention VA hospitals which are among the worst health care in the country also government run, now they want to run the entire health care system? This is like asking GM to run the oil companies too.
Late last year, New York Governor David Paterson proposed a 15% "obesity tax" on non-diet soda to help close the state budget gap. The idea was so unpopular, Paterson had to axe the idea in March. Despite the warning, Democrats in congress, determined to find a way to pay for Barack Obama's ridiculous health care plan, are considering a federal tax on soda and other sugary beverages. Right now the number being thrown out is 3 cents for every 12 fluid ounces of those sinful sugary beverages, but we don't know how big a tax they are considering. Early estimates put the cost of Obama's health care plan at about $1.2 trillion... but such plans always cost more than the estimates, so, expect that number to grow, as well as the size of the proposed soda tax. Just as Governor Paterson had to find another way to close the budget gap, I suspect hat Barack Obama will have to find other ways to pay for his health care plan. A Rasmussen poll from earlier this year showed that 70% of Americans oppose a tax increase on soda. Supporters of the tax argue about the health benefits.
Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
We've heard similar argument about raising taxes on tobacco products. But, let's not be fooled. the motivation of the tax is to collect more revenue, and consumers who want soda will drink their soda... And guess who will be hit hard with this tax increase? Lower-income Americans. So, while Barack Obama promise tax cuts for 95% of Americans, with proposals like these, most Americans will find the small increase in their pay check will be quickly offset and eclipsed by higher taxes they pay at the supermarket and elsewhere on products Big Brother says isn't good for them. And it doesn't end with soda and other sugary beverages.
Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.
The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They're expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.
Hear than? Hundreds of ideas to raise your taxes. If it's not sugar it is alcohol, trans fat, salt... anything the government says is bad for you they will consider taxing, to pay for Obama's health care plan... which they think will cost only 1.2 trillion now... don't be surprised if that estimates goes up signifcantly, and many of those "hundreds of ideas" to raise your taxes that are being weighed will become a reality... if we don't stop it.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Why Obamacare will NOT work
New Public Plan “Option” Will Not Improve America’s
Health Care
Health care reform is becoming a major topic of discussion in Washington. In particular, there has been a lot of talk about creating a new public plan “option” to compete with private insurance plans. But there is one major problem: there is no such thing as a fair competition when the government is both a competitor, and the referee.
The creation of a public plan would allow the federal government to both compete in the market (by having its own plan), and to regulate that same market (by making the laws that govern it). In the absence of a level playing field, a public plan would increasingly crowd out private health care options, paving the way to a single-payer, or government-controlled, health care system.
Read More:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/upload/bg_2267.pdf
Health Care
Health care reform is becoming a major topic of discussion in Washington. In particular, there has been a lot of talk about creating a new public plan “option” to compete with private insurance plans. But there is one major problem: there is no such thing as a fair competition when the government is both a competitor, and the referee.
The creation of a public plan would allow the federal government to both compete in the market (by having its own plan), and to regulate that same market (by making the laws that govern it). In the absence of a level playing field, a public plan would increasingly crowd out private health care options, paving the way to a single-payer, or government-controlled, health care system.
Read More:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/upload/bg_2267.pdf
Friday, May 8, 2009
Union NON disclosure? Who Obama really works for
Fifty years ago, Congress passed the landmark Landrum-Griffin Act to protect rank-and-file union members from malfeasance by union leaders. Senate hearings had uncovered serious corruption and other unethical practices inside the labor movement, and a bipartisan coalition emerged to shine the light of disclosure on union practices.
Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress and in the executive branch have often attempted to undercut that law's financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Prior to reforms adopted in the George W. Bush administration, for example, one union could get away with reporting a $62 million expenditure as nothing more than "contributions, gifts, and grants to local affiliates" -- with no further explanation. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already showing that it wants to return to this nontransparent standard of financial disclosure.
Within days of the inauguration, the new leadership at the Labor Department moved to delay implementing a regulation finalized in January that would have shed much needed light on how union managers compensate themselves with union dues. The regulation required disclosure of receipts for expenditures and for the purchase and sale of union assets -- disclosures that would help deter embezzlement.
The Labor Department's Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS), created to enforce the 1959 law, also recently announced that it would not enforce compliance with the conflict-of-interest disclosure form (the "LM-30" form) that was revised in 2007. Labor's Web site states that "it would not be a good use of resources."
Instead, union managers will be able to file decades-old, less enlightening disclosure forms while the department considers whether to "revise" (i.e., gut) the current disclosure requirements. But what could be a better use of department resources than enforcing the laws under its jurisdiction?
From 2001-2008, the Labor Department secured more than 1,000 union fraud-related indictments and 929 convictions. This enforcement record was accomplished even though the enforcement office accounts for less than 0.1% of the department's budget. OLMS is the lone federal agency with the job of protecting worker interests in how their unions are managed. The last Congress increased President Bush's budget request for the Labor Department by $956 million even as it targeted OLMS for a budget cut.
Union membership peaked in the 1950s, when more than one-third of American workers belonged to a union. Today, just 7.6% of American private-sector workers belong to a union. A Rasmussen Research survey conducted in March found that 81% of nonunion members do not want to belong to a union.
The response by union leaders and their Democratic allies to declining union membership is the Employee Free Choice Act. To increase unionization, it would deprive workers of private balloting in organizing elections, and it would substitute a signature-card process that would expose workers to coercion. The bill would also deny workers the right to ratify, or not ratify, labor contracts drafted by government arbitrators when negotiations in newly unionized workplaces exceed the bill's rigid timetable.
The Obama administration likes to say that it is "pro-worker." But something is amiss when its labor priorities are forcing unionization and labor contracts on American workplaces, and denying union members information on how their dues money is spent.
Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress and in the executive branch have often attempted to undercut that law's financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Prior to reforms adopted in the George W. Bush administration, for example, one union could get away with reporting a $62 million expenditure as nothing more than "contributions, gifts, and grants to local affiliates" -- with no further explanation. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already showing that it wants to return to this nontransparent standard of financial disclosure.
Within days of the inauguration, the new leadership at the Labor Department moved to delay implementing a regulation finalized in January that would have shed much needed light on how union managers compensate themselves with union dues. The regulation required disclosure of receipts for expenditures and for the purchase and sale of union assets -- disclosures that would help deter embezzlement.
The Labor Department's Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS), created to enforce the 1959 law, also recently announced that it would not enforce compliance with the conflict-of-interest disclosure form (the "LM-30" form) that was revised in 2007. Labor's Web site states that "it would not be a good use of resources."
Instead, union managers will be able to file decades-old, less enlightening disclosure forms while the department considers whether to "revise" (i.e., gut) the current disclosure requirements. But what could be a better use of department resources than enforcing the laws under its jurisdiction?
From 2001-2008, the Labor Department secured more than 1,000 union fraud-related indictments and 929 convictions. This enforcement record was accomplished even though the enforcement office accounts for less than 0.1% of the department's budget. OLMS is the lone federal agency with the job of protecting worker interests in how their unions are managed. The last Congress increased President Bush's budget request for the Labor Department by $956 million even as it targeted OLMS for a budget cut.
Union membership peaked in the 1950s, when more than one-third of American workers belonged to a union. Today, just 7.6% of American private-sector workers belong to a union. A Rasmussen Research survey conducted in March found that 81% of nonunion members do not want to belong to a union.
The response by union leaders and their Democratic allies to declining union membership is the Employee Free Choice Act. To increase unionization, it would deprive workers of private balloting in organizing elections, and it would substitute a signature-card process that would expose workers to coercion. The bill would also deny workers the right to ratify, or not ratify, labor contracts drafted by government arbitrators when negotiations in newly unionized workplaces exceed the bill's rigid timetable.
The Obama administration likes to say that it is "pro-worker." But something is amiss when its labor priorities are forcing unionization and labor contracts on American workplaces, and denying union members information on how their dues money is spent.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
First 100 days of Socialism
President Obama’s $3.69 trillion budget will raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade, and will permanently elevate federal spending to nearly 23 percent of the entire economy by 2019—a level reached only three times since the end of World War II.
• The President’s budget dumps a staggering $9.3 trillion in new debt—$68,000 per household—into the laps of America's children and grandchildren. This is more debt than has been accumulated by all previous Presidents in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush—combined.
• President Obama ordered his cabinet to identify and shave a collective $100 MILLION in administrative costs from their budgets after proposing 40,000 times that in his budget and spending bills.
• The President’s budget proposes a $646 billion cap-and-trade tax that energy companies would immediately pass on to all consumers, including those earning less than $250,000.
Impact on Foreign Policy
• The President approved a cut of 15 percent of the Pentagon’s budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying defenses in Western Europe.
• Both President Obama and the Secretary of Homeland Security have been reticent to discuss the threat of terrorism, and Administration officials have issued a plethora of ambivalent and contradictory statements on homeland security and counterterrorism policies.
• The President declared that “50 years” of US policy had not worked as justification for reversing long-standing U.S. policies to isolate the Cuban dictatorship.
• President Obama’s Justice Department released documents on terrorist interrogation tactics used by the CIA after 9/11, yet refused to declassify and release additional material that describes the full scope and context of the program, including the effectiveness of the CIA interrogations.
Impact on Domestic Policy
• The President took over General Motors by firing the CEO.
• President Obama put the breaks on cheaper energy by delaying the opportunity to expand domestic supply through offshore drilling.
• The Obama Administration took the first official step towards federal regulation of carbon dioxide (the gas we exhale) by having the Environmental Protection Agency declare carbon dioxide dangerous to human health and the environment.
• The President’s budget dumps a staggering $9.3 trillion in new debt—$68,000 per household—into the laps of America's children and grandchildren. This is more debt than has been accumulated by all previous Presidents in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush—combined.
• President Obama ordered his cabinet to identify and shave a collective $100 MILLION in administrative costs from their budgets after proposing 40,000 times that in his budget and spending bills.
• The President’s budget proposes a $646 billion cap-and-trade tax that energy companies would immediately pass on to all consumers, including those earning less than $250,000.
Impact on Foreign Policy
• The President approved a cut of 15 percent of the Pentagon’s budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying defenses in Western Europe.
• Both President Obama and the Secretary of Homeland Security have been reticent to discuss the threat of terrorism, and Administration officials have issued a plethora of ambivalent and contradictory statements on homeland security and counterterrorism policies.
• The President declared that “50 years” of US policy had not worked as justification for reversing long-standing U.S. policies to isolate the Cuban dictatorship.
• President Obama’s Justice Department released documents on terrorist interrogation tactics used by the CIA after 9/11, yet refused to declassify and release additional material that describes the full scope and context of the program, including the effectiveness of the CIA interrogations.
Impact on Domestic Policy
• The President took over General Motors by firing the CEO.
• President Obama put the breaks on cheaper energy by delaying the opportunity to expand domestic supply through offshore drilling.
• The Obama Administration took the first official step towards federal regulation of carbon dioxide (the gas we exhale) by having the Environmental Protection Agency declare carbon dioxide dangerous to human health and the environment.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The new foundation: based on DEBT
The boast that he had "identified $2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade." It takes audacity to repeat this after it had been so widely exposed as transparently phony. Most of this $2 trillion is conjured up by refraining from spending $180 billion a year for 10 more years of surges in Iraq. Why not make the "deficit reductions" $10 trillion — the extra $8 trillion coming from refraining from repeating the $787 billion stimulus package annually through 2019?
The Puzzler: He further boasted of his frugality by saying that his budget would reduce domestic discretionary spending as share of GDP to the lowest level ever recorded. Amazing. Squeezing discretionary domestic spending at a time of hugely expanding budgets is merely the baleful residue of out-of-control entitlements and debt service, which will increase astronomically under Obama. To claim these as achievements in fiscal responsibility is testament not to Obama's frugality but to his brazenness.
The Non Sequitur: "To make sure such a crisis [as we have today] never happens again," Obama proposes his radical health care, energy and education reforms, the central pillars of his social democratic agenda. But Obama's own words contradict this assertion. Notes The Washington Post: "But as his admirable summation of recent history made clear, these pursuits have little to do with the economic crisis, and they are not the key to economic recovery." Obama rarely fails to repeat this false connection. A crisis — and the public's resulting pliability to liberal social engineering — is a terrible thing to waste.
The Swindle: The Obama administration is spending money like none other in peacetime history. Obama knows this is fiscally unsustainable. He has let it be known that he intends to cure the imbalance with entitlement reform. An excellent strategy. If it takes throwing nearly $1 trillion of "porky" stimulus spending to make a democratic Congress amenable to real entitlement reform, then fine. Reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would save tens of trillions of dollars, and make the current money-from-helicopters spending almost trivial by comparison.
In the New Foundation speech, Obama correctly identifies the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid as the key fiscal problem. But then he claims that Medicaid and Medicare reform is the same as his health-care reform.
Here's the problem. The heart of Obama's health-care reform is universality. Covering more people costs more money. That is why Obama's budget sets aside an extra $634 billion in health-care spending, a down payment on an estimated additional spending of $1 trillion. How does the administration curtail the Medicare and Medicaid entitlement by adding yet another (now universal) health-care entitlement that its own estimate acknowledges increases costs by about $1 trillion?
Which is why in his March 24 news conference, Obama could not explain how the deficits at the end of the coming decade are rising, not falling. The Congressional Budget Office has deficits increasing in the last seven years of the decade from an already unsustainable $672 billion annually to $1.2 trillion by 2019.
This is the DEBT on which the new foundation is constructed. Obama has the magic to make words mean almost anything. Numbers are more resistant to his charms.
The Puzzler: He further boasted of his frugality by saying that his budget would reduce domestic discretionary spending as share of GDP to the lowest level ever recorded. Amazing. Squeezing discretionary domestic spending at a time of hugely expanding budgets is merely the baleful residue of out-of-control entitlements and debt service, which will increase astronomically under Obama. To claim these as achievements in fiscal responsibility is testament not to Obama's frugality but to his brazenness.
The Non Sequitur: "To make sure such a crisis [as we have today] never happens again," Obama proposes his radical health care, energy and education reforms, the central pillars of his social democratic agenda. But Obama's own words contradict this assertion. Notes The Washington Post: "But as his admirable summation of recent history made clear, these pursuits have little to do with the economic crisis, and they are not the key to economic recovery." Obama rarely fails to repeat this false connection. A crisis — and the public's resulting pliability to liberal social engineering — is a terrible thing to waste.
The Swindle: The Obama administration is spending money like none other in peacetime history. Obama knows this is fiscally unsustainable. He has let it be known that he intends to cure the imbalance with entitlement reform. An excellent strategy. If it takes throwing nearly $1 trillion of "porky" stimulus spending to make a democratic Congress amenable to real entitlement reform, then fine. Reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would save tens of trillions of dollars, and make the current money-from-helicopters spending almost trivial by comparison.
In the New Foundation speech, Obama correctly identifies the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid as the key fiscal problem. But then he claims that Medicaid and Medicare reform is the same as his health-care reform.
Here's the problem. The heart of Obama's health-care reform is universality. Covering more people costs more money. That is why Obama's budget sets aside an extra $634 billion in health-care spending, a down payment on an estimated additional spending of $1 trillion. How does the administration curtail the Medicare and Medicaid entitlement by adding yet another (now universal) health-care entitlement that its own estimate acknowledges increases costs by about $1 trillion?
Which is why in his March 24 news conference, Obama could not explain how the deficits at the end of the coming decade are rising, not falling. The Congressional Budget Office has deficits increasing in the last seven years of the decade from an already unsustainable $672 billion annually to $1.2 trillion by 2019.
This is the DEBT on which the new foundation is constructed. Obama has the magic to make words mean almost anything. Numbers are more resistant to his charms.
"200 years to build a nation, one election to destroy it,"
BY Jay Ambrose
Over at lowbrow MSNBC, the jokes about tea parties have been lewd and crude. Some other commentators think such protests are just stupid. And the federal government has been worrying about right-wing extremists.
On one overriding theme: the government's Obama-directed spending binge.
This wasn't a Republican deal, even though How do you suppose they felt when the speaker said, look, Republicans helped get us in this mess – they spent like crazy when it was their turn? The tea party was mostly a grassroots, Internet-coordinated occurrence like some 730 others that took place across the country.
Nor was this an act of mob imbecility, even if Obama insists that economists of all ideological persuasions agree that spending is the only available means of getting us out of the recession. In fact, dozens of economists, including Nobel Prize winners, say differently – that lowering spending would serve us better and that the government should at least not spend crazily.
To me, it is encouraging that at least some Americans care enough about a mindless tumble into jeopardy to make themselves heard. This whole tea party phenomenon – patterned after the 1773 Boston tea party – is at least one signal to Washington that some get it that this spending spree coming on top of an already huge debt could be economically devastating, and that there's a plan for unprecedented levels of spending on new and expanded programs even when the recession ends.
Unlike liberal pundits, these Americans also understand that Obama has already increased tobacco taxes mostly affecting low-income Americans, that his carbon tax plans would hit everyone and that government at all levels is grabbing increasingly outrageous percentages of income from society's most productive members to the detriment of all of us.
Ah, but such understandings can make you suspicious in the eyes of the Department of Homeland Security, which devised a mostly speculative, bias-ridden report about the potential of "right-wing" violence from returning war veterans and different conservative groups, demonstrating, if anything, a rather disconcerting left-wing extremism.
And such understandings make you game for dirty, ridiculing jokes over at MSNBC, where Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and others seem to be intent on seeing just how obnoxiously vulgar they can become. If the value of a cause can be measured by the loutishness of its enemies, the tea party cause must be great indeed.
Over at lowbrow MSNBC, the jokes about tea parties have been lewd and crude. Some other commentators think such protests are just stupid. And the federal government has been worrying about right-wing extremists.
On one overriding theme: the government's Obama-directed spending binge.
This wasn't a Republican deal, even though How do you suppose they felt when the speaker said, look, Republicans helped get us in this mess – they spent like crazy when it was their turn? The tea party was mostly a grassroots, Internet-coordinated occurrence like some 730 others that took place across the country.
Nor was this an act of mob imbecility, even if Obama insists that economists of all ideological persuasions agree that spending is the only available means of getting us out of the recession. In fact, dozens of economists, including Nobel Prize winners, say differently – that lowering spending would serve us better and that the government should at least not spend crazily.
To me, it is encouraging that at least some Americans care enough about a mindless tumble into jeopardy to make themselves heard. This whole tea party phenomenon – patterned after the 1773 Boston tea party – is at least one signal to Washington that some get it that this spending spree coming on top of an already huge debt could be economically devastating, and that there's a plan for unprecedented levels of spending on new and expanded programs even when the recession ends.
Unlike liberal pundits, these Americans also understand that Obama has already increased tobacco taxes mostly affecting low-income Americans, that his carbon tax plans would hit everyone and that government at all levels is grabbing increasingly outrageous percentages of income from society's most productive members to the detriment of all of us.
Ah, but such understandings can make you suspicious in the eyes of the Department of Homeland Security, which devised a mostly speculative, bias-ridden report about the potential of "right-wing" violence from returning war veterans and different conservative groups, demonstrating, if anything, a rather disconcerting left-wing extremism.
And such understandings make you game for dirty, ridiculing jokes over at MSNBC, where Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and others seem to be intent on seeing just how obnoxiously vulgar they can become. If the value of a cause can be measured by the loutishness of its enemies, the tea party cause must be great indeed.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
“All systems are capitalist. It's just a matter of who owns and controls the capital -- ancient king, dictator, or private individual. We should properly be looking at the contrast between a free market system where individuals have the right to live like kings if they have the ability to earn that right and government control of the market system such as we find today in socialist nations.”
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Socialize America: Step One Nationalize the financial system
Nationalize the financial system gives the government control of all businesses and corporations which require credit and capital borrowing to survive. Because the financial companies control the economy, being under government control will essentially socialize the American economy and the corporations which rely on it.
Companies like Wells Fargo were forced fed government money in October by Paulson and then New York Federal reserve Chair Tim Geithner gathered the nations largest banks into a room and insisted they take the tax payers money by selling preferred stock to the government under the lie that if they turned down the money the companies which needed the money would be stigmatized.
The First step in the socializing of the American Finance Machine. When this process is complete every company in the US which needs to borrow capital will have to curry favor with some federal agency or politician. Hence a larger government and government influence in the private life of corporations and citizens.
What is the difference in the Bush Administrations approach to the bailout funds and the radical thinking of this administration? Both believed in spending but, the reformers or previous administration, regarded the spending as an instrument of recovery and the means to improve the condition of the people. The radicals or present administration, regard the spending as a substitute for recovery and as a means of altering the balance of a socialized policy.
Companies like Wells Fargo were forced fed government money in October by Paulson and then New York Federal reserve Chair Tim Geithner gathered the nations largest banks into a room and insisted they take the tax payers money by selling preferred stock to the government under the lie that if they turned down the money the companies which needed the money would be stigmatized.
The First step in the socializing of the American Finance Machine. When this process is complete every company in the US which needs to borrow capital will have to curry favor with some federal agency or politician. Hence a larger government and government influence in the private life of corporations and citizens.
What is the difference in the Bush Administrations approach to the bailout funds and the radical thinking of this administration? Both believed in spending but, the reformers or previous administration, regarded the spending as an instrument of recovery and the means to improve the condition of the people. The radicals or present administration, regard the spending as a substitute for recovery and as a means of altering the balance of a socialized policy.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Why Socialized Medicine will not work
Why Socialized Medicine will not work. BY Carter Clews Carter is the Executive Editor of ALG News
The primary reason medical costs are high is that subsidies are out of control.
The price patients pay for medical treatment does not reflect the actual cost of the procedure. Built into each bill is a substantial surcharge to help pay for the hospital’s overhead—which is sent through the ceiling because so many patients already fail to pay their own way.
Since there’s a limit to how much hospitals can add onto the cost of any given procedure, even the padded payments fail to cover the free riders’ exorbitant bills. And who makes up the difference? You guessed it: the American taxpayer. In fact, by some estimates, taxpayers are already paying some 85 percent of unpaid hospital bills.
For those who remain skeptical of the cost of subsidized—i.e., socialized—medicine, a quick glance at the average emergency room is in order. Public law now demands that emergency room treatment be administered regardless of whether the recipients can pay all—or, in fact, any—of the bill. The result of such misguided utopian altruism is that many “underprivileged” Americans now consider the ER their family doctor.
And who foots the bill for such outrageous abuse? Take a look in the nearest mirror.
So, now comes Barack Obama and his querulous gaggle of cloying quacks to tell us that the way to reduce medical costs is to increase subsidization—the facts of the matter (and the burgeoning deficit) notwithstanding. And when no one is any longer able to afford either subsidization or the true costs of actual treatments (on the rare occasions when they will still be available), well, there go the actuarial charts and in walks the Grim Reaper.
Actually, of course, the way to reduce medical costs is to end subsidization altogether. Does this mean that some people will not be able to go to the emergency room for a band aid or a bottle of aspirin? Probably. In fact, it may even mean that some people will not be able to charge others (as in, you) to cover the costs of their catastrophic illnesses.
But for most people, it will mean that America’s health care system will continue to be the best this side of Shangri-La. And it will also mean that, though nobody lives forever, those who are willing to work hard and pay their own way will have a fighting chance to top the charts. As fortunate as that may be.
The primary reason medical costs are high is that subsidies are out of control.
The price patients pay for medical treatment does not reflect the actual cost of the procedure. Built into each bill is a substantial surcharge to help pay for the hospital’s overhead—which is sent through the ceiling because so many patients already fail to pay their own way.
Since there’s a limit to how much hospitals can add onto the cost of any given procedure, even the padded payments fail to cover the free riders’ exorbitant bills. And who makes up the difference? You guessed it: the American taxpayer. In fact, by some estimates, taxpayers are already paying some 85 percent of unpaid hospital bills.
For those who remain skeptical of the cost of subsidized—i.e., socialized—medicine, a quick glance at the average emergency room is in order. Public law now demands that emergency room treatment be administered regardless of whether the recipients can pay all—or, in fact, any—of the bill. The result of such misguided utopian altruism is that many “underprivileged” Americans now consider the ER their family doctor.
And who foots the bill for such outrageous abuse? Take a look in the nearest mirror.
So, now comes Barack Obama and his querulous gaggle of cloying quacks to tell us that the way to reduce medical costs is to increase subsidization—the facts of the matter (and the burgeoning deficit) notwithstanding. And when no one is any longer able to afford either subsidization or the true costs of actual treatments (on the rare occasions when they will still be available), well, there go the actuarial charts and in walks the Grim Reaper.
Actually, of course, the way to reduce medical costs is to end subsidization altogether. Does this mean that some people will not be able to go to the emergency room for a band aid or a bottle of aspirin? Probably. In fact, it may even mean that some people will not be able to charge others (as in, you) to cover the costs of their catastrophic illnesses.
But for most people, it will mean that America’s health care system will continue to be the best this side of Shangri-La. And it will also mean that, though nobody lives forever, those who are willing to work hard and pay their own way will have a fighting chance to top the charts. As fortunate as that may be.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Last night Congress, whom maintains a 30% approval rating with the American people, passed a bill not supported by most of the people in the United States. $3.6 Trillion dollars in spending set forth to mostly entitlement programs and not toward the growth and prosperity of this country and it's citizens.
Again congress and the President have shown thier agenda is more important than what the citizens of our great nation desire.
We must stop this movement now. No matter your party affiliation, if you believe in what the United States is intended to stand for, if you believe in the principles of what our forefathers built this country on, stand up and stop this government from taking our country down a road we will not be able to return from.
We as a people are still in charge, but as Pelosi, Reed, Frank and OBAMA continue to take our Liberty away, tax our families to support an entitlement society, we will not have a voice much longer.
Join the cause, Unite to Keep the United States a country of, by and for the people, not of the government.
Remind Congress and OBAMA they work for us not the other way around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)