Usually Right: Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 26, 2010

Friday, March 26, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 26, 2010

Generosity... with other peoples money.

These buffoons in Washington are bankrupting our nation. It's that simple.

29 comments:

William R. Barker said...: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/24/91022/obama-seeks-28-billion-for-earthquake.html

President Barack Obama is asking Congress for $2.8 billion in aid for earthquake-wracked Haiti...

* IS HE OUT OF HIS FRIGG'N MIND...?!?! WE'RE BROKE! SOCIAL SECURITY IS UPSIDE DOWN "SIX YEARS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE." WE STILL HAVE A GAPPING HOLE IN THE MIDDLE OF LOWER MANHATTAN WHERE THE TWIN TOWERS USED TO BE!

The White House said its opening bid "lays the foundation for the continued recovery and reconstruction in Haiti."

* HOW ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION OF DETROIT, OF NEWARK? EARTH TO OBAMA, HAITI IS NOT THE 51st STATE!

Observers say there is considerable goodwill in Congress for getting the legislation passed. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Wednesday called the emergency funding "a must."

* THESE PEOPLE ARE BANKRUPTING OUR COUNTRY...

Congress isn't likely to consider the request until it returns from a weeklong Easter recess that starts next week.

* AH, YES... IT'S VITALLY IMPORTANT... BUT IT CAN WAIT TILL AFTER THE ANNUAL EASTER EGG HUNT AND SUNDAY BRUNCH.

(*SMIRK*)

The package doesn't include assistance for education instruction, which the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, had asked the administration to consider.

* OH, SURE... LET'S *ADD* TO THE REQUESTED $2.8 BILLION. AFTER ALL, IT'S ONLY MONEY - RIGHT?

* FOLKS... ASK YOURSELVES (PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO FAVOR SUCH LARGESS WHETHER WE CAN AFFORD IT OR NOT): IF WE FUND $2.8 BILLION... WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THIS MONEY WILL GET TO THE PEOPLE OF HAITI? WHAT PERCENTAGE WILL BE STOLEN?; March 26, 2010 at 1:15 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703409804575144033573666238.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Personal income in 42 states fell in 2009, the Commerce Department said Thursday.

Incomes stayed flat in two states and rose in six and the District of Columbia. West Virginia had the best showing with a 2.1% increase. In Maine, Kentucky and Hawaii, increased government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and Social Security, offset drops in earnings and property values.

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*) IN OTHER WORDS... ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL. REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC. (*SHRUG*)

Nationally, personal income from wages, dividends, rent, retirement plans and government benefits declined 1.7% last year, unadjusted for inflation.

* JUST WAIT TILL SUMMER WHEN GAS PRICES SPIKE... (*SIGH*); March 26, 2010 at 2:12 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-unemployment-february-20100326,0,4358873.story

Florida's unemployment hit 12.2% in February, the highest rate on record, soaring past even the rates recorded in the 1973-1975 recession, the state work force agency said Friday.

February's rate rose a 0.2 percentage point from the January revised rate of 12 percent. More than 1.26 million people are out of work in the state.

* HOLD ON, FLORIDA...! DRUNK'N TED, TED'S DRUNK'N MARY, MY DRUNK'N MARY, AND I WILL BE IN KEY WEST IN OCTOBER!

* ON A SERIOUS NOTE... FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT ANY TALK OF AN ECONOMIC "RECOVERY" IS JUST THAT - TALK.

Florida's unemployment is now near the peak of 12.3% forecast for midsummer, according to Florida's Economic Estimating Conference, a group of state labor experts.

* YEAH... 12.3% "FORECAST." AND WE ALL KNOW HOW ACCURATE (*SMIRK*) GOVERNMENT FORECASTING IS, RIGHT?; March 26, 2010 at 2:12 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Summary-Box-Rates-rise-after-apf-2982833604.html?x=0&.v=2

Interest rates climbed in the bond market Thursday after a government debt auction drew tepid demand. Auctions Tuesday and Wednesday also saw lower demand. The auction of $32 billion in seven-year notes saw demand fall from the past two months. That means the government could have to start offering higher interest rates to attract buyers.

* UH... FOLKS... WHAT THIS MEANS - IN ENGLISH - IS THAT GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES WILL BE INCREASING AS WELL AS GOVERNMENT DEBT. GUESS WHO ULTIMATELY PAYS THE INTEREST? (HINT: FIRST LETTER "T", THIRD LETTER "X", LAST THREE LETTERS "ERS.")

Testimony from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke affirmed the government's pledge to keep interest rates near zero for an extended period.

* WHICH OF COURSE SIMPLY KICKS THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, ALL THE WHILE CREATING A BUILD-UP OF INFLATIONARY PRESSURE. AND GUESS WHO SUFFERS MOST FROM INFLATION...??? THAT'S RIGHT... SAVERS (i.e. RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE) AND THOSE ON FIXED INCOMES.

(*HEADACHE*); March 26, 2010 at 2:12 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35050.html

Nearly 2,000 House of Representative staffers pulled down six-figure salaries in 2009, including 43 staffers who earned the maximum $172,500 — or more than three times the median U.S. household income.

* HEY... YA GOTTA PAY THE BIG BUCKS TO ATTRACT THE KIND OF "TALENT" CAPABLE OF BANKRUPTING THE NATION IN RECORD TIME, RIGHT? (*SMIRK*)

[W]hile these top earners are a small percentage of the overall congressional work force, their numbers are growing at a rapid rate under the Democratic Congress. The number of staffers earning within the upper 3% of House salaries — currently $163,358 or more — has increased by nearly 39% in the past four years...

(*SIGN*)

There are approximately 10,000 House staffers, including district office workers, according to the chief administrative officer.

* PROPOSAL: UNEMPLOYMENT IS PRESENTLY 9.7%, CORRECT? I SAY WE CUT 9.7% OF CONGRESSIONAL STAFF - SEPARATE 970 OF THESE FOLKS FROM THE FEDERAL TIT - THE TAXPAYER WALLET.

Ryan Ellis, tax policy director of Americans for Tax Reform, says that the sheer number of staffers who are earning the maximum amount of pay — or are creeping close — is troubling for taxpayers. An additional 80 staffers are only a raise away — about $2,000 — from hitting that $168,411 cap. And 117 are a few thousand dollars away from hitting the $172,500 limit.

“When you have a whole bunch of people making very, very high salaries, you’ll have people who are expecting to be paid certain salaries and benefits. That’s not a good thing for taxpayers, because ultimately ... taxpayers are going into debt,” Ellis said.

* YA THINK...?!?! (*SNORT*)

Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in many cases, government jobs actually pay better than equivalent private-sector work. Average federal salaries in 2008 were higher than the average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable work, the data show.

(*SIGH*); March 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90% of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

* HEY... WHAT'S A $1.22 TRILLION "UNDERESTIMATION" BETWEEN FRIENDS, HUH?! (*SMIRK*)

"An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on to our children makes a huge difference," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the...Heritage Foundation. "That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying."

* DON'T FORGET TO ADD THE INTEREST PAYMENTS! (YOU KNOW... JUST PISSING MONEY AWAY THAT DOESN'T EVEN BUY ANYTHING...)

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office...totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.

That figure would equal 90% of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40% at the end of fiscal 2008.

By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109% at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115% last year.

(*SIGH*)

"That level of debt is extremely problematic, particularly given the upward debt path beyond the 10-year budget window," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

* IN PLAIN ENGLISH: IF IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL BE SCREWED BY 2020... JUST WAIT TO SEE 2025... 2030... 2035...

* HEY... SCREW OUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS, RIGHT? THE LITTLE BASTARDS CAN FEND FOR THEMSELVES. JUST GIVE ME MINE, MINE, MINE!!! (OR SO SAYTH AMERICANUS LIBERALIUM.) (*SMIRK*); March 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2010/03/24/its_over_--_the_fat_lady_has_sung?page=full&comments=true

Meet Donna Simpson, of Old Bridge, N.J. Donna is a 42-year-old, presumably unemployed single mother with specific medical issues related to obesity. It is unclear whether she has health insurance.

Simpson weighs 604 pounds, and she's trying to work her way up to 1,000 pounds so that she can make the "Guinness Book of World Records." "This is a fantasy of mine," Simpson told the New York Post. According to the Post, Simpson would love to hit 1,000 pounds by 2012, consuming a diet of 12,000 calories per day.

"My favorite food is sushi," she told the UK's Daily Mail, "but unlike others I can sit and eat 70 big pieces of sushi in one go. I do love cakes and sweet things, doughnuts are my favorite."

How does she pay $750 per week for her food? She has a website where people can donate money to watch the hog feed herself. "I love eating and people love watching me eat. It makes people happy, and I'm not harming anyone."

Well, that used to be true. She wasn't harming anyone because we weren't paying for her (or, at least, we weren't paying for her unless she had a heart attack and ended up in the emergency room).

Now we are paying for her. All of us. We're paying for her because insurance companies in America are no longer allowed to charge her higher premiums due to her pre-existing medical condition (i.e. being a load). They're no longer allowed to provide her coverage limits (i.e. limits on bypasses), and they're no longer allowed to tailor a policy for her that leaves out preventive care (care she'll never use since her goal is to be two Michael Moores).

If Simpson is smart (granted, a big if), she'll simply pay a $750 fine and avoid buying health insurance. Then when she gets sick due to her grain elevator size, she'll sign up for health insurance. The money she pays per year won't come close to covering her care. That means we'll cover it.

If this sounds like a bad idea, that's because it is. It's a horrible, terrible, anti-American idea. And it stems from the similarly awful idea that health care is a right. Once health care is defined as an individual right, society suddenly has an obligation to provide it. And society is made up of other individuals, who will have to come out of pocket to pay for the irresponsible.

[T]he left doesn't believe in true rights or true choice. True rights come with the responsibility to live with the consequences of your choices. The right to control your health comes with the responsibility to live with your choices. Donna Simpson has every right to turn herself into a human hippopotamus, but that action has certain consequences - namely, that she will pay for her own medical care. The minute those consequences disappear, the right itself disappears, because rights without responsibilities are utterly unsustainable.; March 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145883546209258.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews

The EPA Friday said it plans to block a proposal by Arch Coal Inc. to dig the largest mountaintop coal mine in Central Appalachia, the first time in 37 years the agency has vetoed such a project.

* ENERGY? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING ENERGY! THE "POWER OF HOPE" WILL NO DOUBT POWER OUR VEHICLES, AIR CONDITION OUR HOMES, AND ALLOW OUR FACTORIES TO PRODUCE GOODS. (*SMILE*) WELCOME TO THE AGE OF OBAMA!

The company said the project would have added hundreds of jobs and injected $250 million into a West Virginian economy suffering from an unemployment rate of more than 9%.

The company said it will pursue legal means to defend the permit. "Arch Coal is disappointed that EPA has chosen to take the unprecedented action to initiate the veto process...against a validly issued and existing permit," the company said in a statement.; March 26, 2010 at 5:09 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144361145435600.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADSecond

[By Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana]

After forcing through a massive health-care overhaul that the public does not want, the president and Democratic leaders in Congress are threatening us with yet another PR campaign to make us like it. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, some level of handwringing has broken out among GOP strategists. Should we push for repeal? Will it work? Is there some danger in that strategy?

Well, let's see. We just spent 13 months arguing against the Democrats' top-down approach to health care, contending that it must be stopped for the good of our country, the health of our citizens, and the future of our nation's economy. So, should we try to repeal it? Only in Washington is this a hard question.

The arguments against repeal are the following:

1) It's next to impossible. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been repealed; 2) Even if Republicans take control of Congress this fall, the president would veto repeal; 3) It will be hard to take things away from people once the government starts giving them out; 4) There are parts of the bill that the public will like; 5) We don't want to be labeled the party of "no."

Let's take them one at a time.

1) It's impossible. -- Wrong. There is a first time for everything. It's similarly "impossible" for the son of Indian immigrants to get elected in the deep South. It's impossible for an African-American to get elected president. You get the picture.

2) President Obama would veto a repeal bill. -- Yes, he sure would. Do it anyway. And do it again after he is gone. (By the way, President Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before he signed it into law.)

3) It will be hard to take things away. -- Probably so. But the reality is that growth of federal entitlements is strangling the economic engine of our country. Someone has to draw the line somewhere. Do we want to go the way of Western Europe? If not, we better get moving in the other direction immediately.

4) There are parts of the bill the public will like. -- No doubt about it. There are parts I like—though I have yet to read the fine print—such as allowing parents to keep kids on their policies until they are 26 years old. And there's bound to be more good policy in there: 2,409 pages can't be all bad. But the overall direction of the bill is to empower government, not patients.

5) We don't want to be labeled the party of "no." -- As it pertains to this bill, how about "hell no"? Newt Gingrich is saying we should "repeal and replace." That works.

* MY ONLY CAVEAT IS THAT JINDAL IS WRONG ABOUT IT BEING "GOOD" TO KEEP 26 YEAR OLD "KIDS" ON THEIR PARENT'S INSURANCE POLICIES. INSURANCE SHOULD BE MAINLY BASED UPON ACTUARIAL REALITY. THE ACTUARIAL REALITY IS THAT TWO ADULT PARENTS ARE TWO ADULTS. ADD A 26 YEAR OLD AND YOU GET THREE ADULTS. WHETHER YOU HAVE THREE SEPARATE ADULTS OR A "FAMILY" OF THREE, THE ACTUARIALLY DETERMINED PREMIUMS SHOULD BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.; March 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144372942933394.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADSecond

The universal insurance coverage [Massachusetts] adopted in 2006 was projected to cost taxpayers $88 million a year. However, since this program was adopted in 2006, our health-care costs have in total exceeded $4 billion. The cost of Massachusetts' plan has blown a hole in the Commonwealth's budget. Just last Thursday, Gov. Deval Patrick's office announced a $294 million shortfall related to health-care costs.

If not for federal Medicaid reimbursements and commitments from Washington to prop up this plan, Massachusetts would be broke. The only reason MassCare has survived is that we have been repeatedly bailed out by the federal government. But that raises the question: Who will bail America...?

While everyone should have access to affordable health care, our experience in Massachusetts tells us that the new federal entitlement will burden future taxpayers with unfunded liabilities they cannot afford. Health-care inflation will continue. Mandates will increase insurance premiums. And the deficit will reach frightening levels as the law's costs greatly exceed the projections of its advocates.

As lawmakers push for changes in the bill, they should start by being honest about its costs and focus on making health care more affordable without bankrupting the country.; March 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003101210295246.html

It turns out there really is growing inequality in America. It's the 45% premium in pay and benefits that government workers receive over the poor saps who create wealth in the private economy. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 1998 to 2008 public employee compensation grew by 28.6%, compared with 19.3% for private workers. In the recession year of 2009, with almost no inflation and record budget deficits, more than half the states awarded pay raises to their employees.

In 2008 almost half of all state and local government expenditures, or an estimated $1.1 trillion, went toward the pay and benefits of public workers. According to the BLS, in 2009 the average state or local public employee received $39.66 in total compensation per hour versus $27.42 for private workers. This means that for every $1 in pay and benefits a private employee earned, a state or local government worker received $1.45.

[P]ublic employees earn salaries that are about one-third higher on average than what is provided to private workers per hour worked. But the real windfall for government workers is in benefits. Those are 70% higher than what standard private employers offer. Government health benefits are twice as generous as what workers employed by private employees earn.

What if government workers earned the average of what private workers earn? States and localities would save $339 billion a year from their more than $2.1 trillion budgets. These savings are larger than the combined estimated deficits for 2010 and 2011 of every state in America. Of the 40 states that have a budget deficit so far this year, 28 would have a balanced budget were it not for the windfall to government workers.

But these current fiscal problems are a picnic compared to the long-term benefit commitments that state and local politicians have made to public retirees. A 2009 study by economists Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua Rauh, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, estimated that these government pensions are underfunded by $3.2 trillion, or $27,000 for every American household.

The Orange County Register reports that California has 3,000 retired teachers and school administrators, who stopped working as early as age 55, collecting at least $100,000 a year in pensions for the rest of their lives. Illinois's pension obligations are so costly the state had to issue $3.5 billion of bonds merely to meet its mandatory contribution to the worker retirement program, which faces $85 billion, or three years of state tax revenues, in unfunded liabilities. Near-bankrupt New Jersey would have to pay $7 billion a year if it properly accounted for its pension and health benefits.

California, Nevada New Jersey and Ohio all allow double dipping, which lets government workers retire in their 50s and then work another full-time job while collecting retirement checks. In Ohio, police, firefighters and teachers can retire after 30 years on the job, collect a full benefit each year and go back to work full-time doing the same job. This is called retire and rehire.

As the Columbus Dispatch reported last year: "Across the state, Ohio's State Teachers Retirement System paid out more than $741 million in pension benefits last school year to 15,857 faculty and staff members who were still working for school systems and building up a second retirement plan." Some teachers can earn nearly $200,000 a year in pensions and salaries.

So if your state is broke, this is a major reason. Eventually, governors, state legislators and city council members are going to have to decide whether protecting America's privileged class of government workers is a higher priority than funding such core functions of government as public safety. Something has to give. It's time to close the biggest pay gap in America.; March 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144072513654904.html

"And so when you walk into that ballot box, remember that it was my Democratic opponent who favored providing Viagra to pedophiles."

That isn't a campaign line any American has heard yet, but give it a [time.]

Democrats only got their ObamaCare victory by breaking every rule, and that was always going to come at a price. To lever the health bill through the House, Democrats used the arcane process of reconciliation. [This] allowed Republicans to bring up unlimited amendments. Because Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) could not allow the reconciliation bill to be changed in any way—which would send it back to the House—his party was obliged to vote down every one of those amendments.

* "OBLIGED" ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THE DEMOCRAT THEMSELVES TOOK THIS ROUTE. IN REALITY OF COURSE THEY COULD HAVE VOTED FOR SENSIBLE AMENDMENTS. THEY SIMPLY CHOSE NOT TO AND REPUBLICANS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT CHOICE.

Tom Coburn (R-OK) offered language to bar the government from subsidizing erectile dysfunction drugs for convicted pedophiles and rapists. Democrats voted . . . No!

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) proposed exempting wounded soldiers from the new tax on medical devices. Democrats: No way!

Pat Roberts (R-KS) wanted to exempt critical access rural hospitals from funding cuts. Senate Democrats: Forget it!

And so it went, into the wee Thursday hours. All Democrats in favor of taxing pacemakers? Aye! All Democrats in favor of keeping those seedy vote buyoffs? Aye! All Democrats in favor of raising taxes on middle-income families? Aye! All Democrats in favor of exempting themselves from elements of ObamaCare? Aye! All Democrats in favor of roasting small children in Aga ovens? (Okay, I made that one up, but you get the point.) Aye!

Aye-yi-yi.

The record now shows that Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln is on board with higher premiums, that Colorado's Michael Bennet is good to go with gutting Medicare Advantage, that Nevada's Harry Reid is just fine with rationing, that New York's Kirsten Gillibrand is cool with taxes on investment income, that California's Barbara Boxer is right-o with employer mandates, and that Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter is willing to strip his home state of the right to opt out of the health law.

Politics being what it is—and the self-flagellation mechanism Democrats had created just too good to pass up—Republicans did throw in a few unrelated amendments. So the majority also got to vote against further marriage penalty tax relief, against certain gun rights for veterans, and against extending small-business tax credits. To add insult to injury, the Senate parliamentarian still found problems with the bill, and sent it back to the House anyway.

* AND SO IT GOES... AMERICA IN THE AGE OF OBAMA.; March 26, 2010 at 5:11 PM
Rodak said...: Bushco. was already bankrupting us with those pointless wars. At least we are now being bankrupted in an attempt to help our fellow Americans deal with their personal struggles to stay alive.; March 26, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Rodak said...: Our national motives have improved, even if our national prospects have not. That's a positive step in the minds of moralists.; March 26, 2010 at 5:46 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/99f4f3d2-3067-11df-bc4a-00144feabdc0.html

Foreign governments and central banks sold a record amount of US financial assets in January as China continued to reduce its holdings of Treasuries, government figures showed on Monday.

Demand for corporate debt also fell, with private foreign investors shedding a record $24.8 billion of corporate bonds while also shying away from equities and US agency debt.

* PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN; THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OB... er... OZ HAS EVERYTHING WELL IN HAND!; March 26, 2010 at 5:58 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a5d70978-390a-11df-8970-00144feabdc0.html

Banks stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s latest initiative to help struggling homeowners.

The administration plans to use $14 billion of taxpayers’ money to allow borrowers to refinance with federally guaranteed loans at lower rates.

* AH... TAXPAYERS MONEY... (*RUEFUL NOD*)

The scheme, which also provides for debt forgiveness and principal reduction for unemployed borrowers, will be paid for by money from the troubled asset relief programme, the bank bail-out scheme.

* AGAIN... TAXPAYERS MONEY.

The latest evolution of the Home Affordable Modification Programme, like the initial version, is voluntary. While it provides incentives for banks to participate, there are no requirements for doing so.

* SEE, FOLKS... THIS IS WHY I LIKE READING THE FOREIGN PRESS. COMPARE THE COVERAGE HERE FROM THE FINANCIAL TIMES TO WHAT WAS AVAILABLE FROM THE AMERICAN PRESS YESTERDAY.

“Everything they put on the table helps the banks disproportionately compared with homeowners,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic & Policy Research, a left-leaning think-tank. “Because the Federal Housing Administration will be guaranteeing these loans, when they go bad it’s the taxpayer out of that money, not the banks.”

* "LEFT-LEANING" THINK TANK OR NOT, THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! OBAMA AND THE DEMS CONTINUE TO SELL THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOWN THE RIVER WHILE PROTECTING THEIR WALL STREET CAMPAIGN DONORS.

The Mortgage Bankers’ Association and the American Securitization Forum both supported the plan, as did Hope Now, an industry alliance of mortgage servicers. “Institutional investors are very supportive of principal writedowns when they lead to a refinancing such as today’s proposal,” said Tom Deutsche, executive director of the securitisation group.

(*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*) WELL, YEAH... OF COURSE THEY SUPPORT THE PLAN! IT'S TAILS THEY WIN, HEADS WE LOSE!

The programme...excludes holiday homes and those with a mortgage balance of more than $729,750

* MEANING THE PROGRAM INCLUDES MCMANSIONS VALUED AT UP TO $729,749.99 (*SNORT*)

* AMERICA... IN THE AGE OF OBAMA, PELOSI, AND REID. (*SMIRK*); March 26, 2010 at 5:58 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e2c2c3e-38d1-11df-9998-00144feabdc0.html

The US economy grew at a slower rate than previously thought in the fourth quarter of last year...revised commerce department figures showed economic output growing at an adjusted annual rate of 5.6%, lower than the 5.9% growth estimated last month.

(*SMIRK*) FUNNY HOW THEY TEND TO UNDERESTIMATE DEFICITS WHILE OVERESTIMATING GROWTH. OH, WELL... I'M SURE IT WAS AN... er... HONEST MISTAKE.

Unemployment continues to cast gloom over consumers’ moods and labour department figures on Friday showed more than half of US states recording rises in their unemployment rates last month. Florida, Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina recorded record rates of unemployment in February, while Michigan maintained the country’s highest jobless rate at 14.1%.; March 26, 2010 at 5:59 PM
William R. Barker said...: * TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528553

In 2003, Washington blessed a grateful citizenry with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, it being generally agreed by all the experts that it was unfair to force seniors to choose between their monthly trip to Rite-Aid or Tony Danza at a dinner theatre.

However, in order to discourage American businesses from immediately dumping all their drug plans for retirees, Congress gave them a modest tax break equivalent to 28% of the cost of the plan.

Fast forward to the dawn of the ObamaCare utopia. In one of a bazillion little clauses in a 2,000-page bill your legislators didn't bother reading (because, as Congressman Conyers explained, he wouldn't understand it even if he did), Congress voted to subject the 28% tax benefit to the regular good ol' American-as-apple-pie corporate tax rate of 35%.

For the purposes of comparison, Sweden's corporate tax rate is 26.3%, and Ireland's is 12.5%. But just because America already has the highest corporate tax in the OECD is no reason why we can't keep going until it's double Sweden's and quadruple Ireland's.

I refer you to the decision last year by the donut chain Tim Hortons, a Delaware corporation, to reorganize itself as a Canadian corporation "in order to take advantage of Canadian tax rates." Hold that thought: "In order to take advantage of Canadian tax rates" — a phrase hitherto unknown to American English outside the most fantastical futuristic science fiction.

Ask yourself this: If you impose a sudden 35% tax on something, are you likely to get as much of it? Go on, take a wild guess. On the day President Obama signed ObamaCare into law, Verizon sent an e-mail to all its employees warning that the company's costs "will increase in the short term."

And in the medium term? Well, U.S. corporations that are able to do so will get out of their prescription drugs plans and toss their retirees onto the Medicare pile. So far just three companies — Deere, Caterpillar and Valero Energy — have calculated that the loss of the deduction will add a combined $265 million to their costs.

There are an additional 3,500 businesses presently claiming the break. The cost to taxpayers of that 28% benefit is about $665 per person. The cost to taxpayers of equivalent Medicare coverage is about $1,200 per person. So we're roughly doubling the cost of covering an estimated five million retirees.

The one thing that can be said for certain is that, whatever claims are made for ObamaCare, it will lead to more people depending on government for their health arrangements. Those five million retirees are only the advance guard.

* To be continued...; March 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM
William R. Barker said...: * CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

Can we afford this? No. Even on the official numbers, we're projected to add to the existing $8 trillion in debt another $12 trillion over the next decade. What could we do? Tax those big bad corporations a bit more?

Medtronic has just announced that the new ObamaCare taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers. What do those guys do? Well, they develop products such as the recently approved pacemaker that's safe for MRI scans or the InterStim bladder control device.

So that's a thousand fewer people who'll be working on new stuff. Well, so what? The public won't miss what they never knew they had. So again the effect is one of disincentivization — in this case, of innovation.

If existing tax structures can't cover the costs, what can we do? Start a new tax! The VATman cometh. VAT is Euro-speak for "value added tax." Americans often carelessly assume it's merely a sales tax, but in fact it's far more cumbersome than that, being levied at each stage "value" is added to a product or service.

The consumer can't claim back the VAT, but intermediate businesses in the production chain can. So self-employed individuals with relatively modest income wind up both charging VAT to their clients (25% in Scandinavia) and then claiming back the VAT they spent on the stamp and stationary they used to mail out the invoice.

This is yet another imposition on businesses, taking time away from wealth creation and reallocating it to government paperwork. If the Democrats hold Congress this fall, I would figure on VAT sooner rather than later.; March 26, 2010 at 6:12 PM
William R. Barker said...: * A THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://article.nationalreview.com/429488/the-mark-of-mccain/andrew-c-mccarthy

"If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?” Sen. Lindsey Graham got a lot of mileage out of that question, which stumped Attorney General Eric Holder during a Senate hearing last November.

Graham is fortunate that Holder lacks not only the courage of his convictions but also the foresight to prepare adequately for congressional testimony. If he’d done his homework, the attorney general might have answered, “Senator, let’s talk about which one of us has criminalized the war and confused the troops. You’re the one who convinced Congress to give captured terrorists Fifth Amendment rights.”

That is what Senator Graham did in 2005. Along with Sen. John McCain and other grandstanding Republicans, he gave cover to the Left’s “torture” demagoguery by spearheading enactment of the McCain Amendment. Under the rubric of “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment,” that provision vested alien enemies held overseas with constitutional rights against coercive interrogation.

Holder could have explained that the Supreme Court, in its 2000 Dickerson decision, departed from 30 years of its own precedents to rule that the Fifth Amendment right against coercive questioning now includes Miranda warnings.

The McCain Amendment proponents were well aware of that fact at the time they pressed ahead — some of us had warned them. Consequently, while giving Miranda warnings to bin Laden would be insane, it would also be a straightforward application of a law that Senator Graham championed.

* OH, WHY, OH, WHY, OH, WHY WON'T MCCAIN RETIRE...?!?! OH, WHY, OH, WHY, OH, WHY WON'T LINDSEY GRAHAM ATTEMPT TO SWIM ACROSS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN WHILE WEARING LEG IRONS...?!?!

It is worth revisiting the McCain Amendment: Almost certainly, it has just bitten us again.

* To be continued...; March 26, 2010 at 6:44 PM
William R. Barker said...: * CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

All week, people have asked, “How on earth could a federal district court have ordered the release of Mohamedou Slahi, one of the 9/11 plotters?” We cannot be sure of Judge James Robertson’s rationale, because his opinion is still classified. Nevertheless, it is extremely likely that so-called enhanced interrogation tactics, the target of the McCain Amendment, figured prominently. Slahi was subjected to questioning that crossed the line into intimidation. He was told that if he refused to tell us what he knew about al-Qaeda he would disappear without a trace and his mother would be jailed.

Those tactics violated then-existing protocols, but it would be absurd to call them “torture.” But McCain, Graham, and others fed the smear that the Bush administration had set up a systematic regimen of prisoner abuse, and the result was the McCain Amendment — two features of which undoubtedly contributed to the decision to spring Slahi.

In their zeal to show the world how virtuous they are, the amendment’s proponents included a provision, Section 1005, requiring in every detainee hearing an assessment of whether any statements were “obtained as a result of coercion” That is, the hearing to determine whether a detainee is an enemy combatant is as much about the conduct of American officials as it is about the conduct of the enemy. [This] makes no sense. To be sure, if the government is relying on statements made by the detainee to prove that he is an enemy combatant, it is important to gauge whether those statements are products of coercion. But most of the time, the government should not have to rely on detainees’ statements. Before a detainee is ever asked a single question, our military and intelligence services have to have reasons to capture and hold him.

Detaining enemy combatants under the laws of war is not the same as trying them for war crimes. We don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the detainee committed some particular atrocity. ... If Congress wants to probe the mistreatment of prisoners of war, it can hold hearings and promulgate standards - as it has done. But whether a prisoner was abused has little or nothing to do with whether we are entitled to detain him indefinitely as an enemy operative under the laws of war. There is no reason to turn combatant-detention hearings into trials of the interrogators, and there are far better ways for Congress to conduct oversight.

To draw a contrast: If police obtain a confession unlawfully, a civilian prosecutor can take the issue out of the case. The prosecution advises the court that it will not offer the confession in evidence or rely on it in any way. If the prosecution does not use the confession, it makes no difference that an arrestee has been abused to get it. The question becomes whether the government can meet its burden of proof with other evidence; interrogation tactics are beside the point. But that is not how it works with enemy combatants. Under the McCain Amendment, there are no exceptions: The statute calls for an inquiry into coercion in every case.

* To be continued...; March 26, 2010 at 6:45 PM
William R. Barker said...: * CONTINUING... (Part 3 of 3)

To be fair to Sens. Graham, McCain, and the rest, they did not intend to have district judges use the McCain Amendment to accept prisoner-abuse claims as a rationale for releasing terrorists. Quite the opposite: The Detainee Treatment Act, in which the McCain Amendment was incorporated, was an effort to cut the district courts entirely out of combatant-detention matters. Predictably, though, the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc ran roughshod over this jurisdiction-stripping provision in its 2006 Hamdan ruling. And two years later, in the Boumediene case, the sharply divided Court held that the detainees have a constitutional right to challenge their military detention before judges such as Robertson.

* SO "FAIRNESS" MEANS WE LOOK UPON MCCAIN ONLY AS A DUPE AND GRAHAM ONLY AS A LOUSY LAWYER. NOT EXACTLY RINGING ENDORSEMENTS IN MY BOOK.

That gets us to the second disaster traceable to the McCain Amendment. When the alien detainees held outside the U.S. argued in Boumediene that they were entitled to American constitutional rights, the claim might have been laughable - if the McCain Amendment hadn’t already led us across that legal Rubicon.

The amendment endowed alien enemy combatants captured and held overseas with Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights against any treatment that was arguably “cruel, inhuman, or degrading.”

Obviously, coercive interrogation was the inspiration for this act. But extending constitutional rights to aliens outside the United States was an unprecedented step - one that our government had for many years taken pains to avoid. For instance, when the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment was ratified in 1994, the Senate was careful to preserve the principle that U.S. constitutional rights do not extend to aliens (much less to hostile aliens) outside our borders.

The McCain Amendment did not just lay the groundwork for the claim that enemy combatants should get Miranda warnings. The senators’ decision to grant our enemies constitutional rights laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court to do the same on a broader and more destructive scale. And that is just what the justices did.

* I'M VISUALIZING ME HOLDING A BASEBALL BAT... I'M VISUALIZING MCCAIN'S AND GRAHAM'S HEADS WITHIN SWINGING DISTANCE... (*SIGH*)

To connect the dots, the McCain Amendment made Boumediene more likely, and Boumediene, in turn, enabled Mohamedou Slahi to file a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. Judge Robertson would otherwise have had no jurisdiction to meddle in detention matters.

For years, the American people have needed Congress to do its job: Prescribe procedures governing detainee cases so that judges can’t make up their own rules and invent reasons to release terrorists. Instead, with the McCain Amendment, what Congress has done is prescribe rules that help terrorists win in court. That wasn’t our lawmakers’ intention, but it was an entirely foreseeable result of their holier-than-thou preening. We continue to live with the fallout.; March 26, 2010 at 6:46 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=1234

Some time ago there was a teach-in on the Iraq war on the UC Santa Cruz campus. It was advertised as an educational event, and as such was sponsored and funded by several academic departments including even the chancellor’s office. Now we’d expect an educational event to look something like this: first, someone would put the best case for the war; then, somebody else would put the best case against the war; and following that there would be a discussion to probe the strengths and weaknesses of the two rival accounts. That would be genuinely educational, and students would learn a great deal from it. But that is not what happened in this case. Every single speaker was not just against the war, but virulently so. In this hostile atmosphere, no dissenting voice dared to be heard, so there was no analysis of the issues, no testing of arguments, no development of a greater understanding. Taxpayer dollars had been spent on what was really a political rally, not an educational event, but the worst thing about it was that the campus seemed no longer able to recognize the difference between the two.; March 26, 2010 at 8:58 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/opinion/26ryan.html?ref=opinion

[By Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI)]

Health care experts across the political spectrum acknowledge that a fundamental driver of health inflation is the regressive tax preference for employer-based health insurance. This discriminatory tax treatment lavishes the greatest benefit on the most expensive plans while providing no support for the unemployed, the self-employed or those who don’t get coverage from their employer.

Reform-minded leaders like Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, pushed legislative proposals that would directly address this issue. I helped write a plan that would replace the bias in the tax code with universal tax credits so that all Americans have the resources to purchase portable, affordable coverage that best suits their needs, with additional support provided for those with lower incomes. All these ideas, though, were dismissed early on, as they didn’t fit with the government-driven plan favored by the majority. But going forward it’s important that we reconsider this regressive tax issue.

Then, when helping Americans with pre-existing conditions obtain coverage, we should focus on innovative state-based solutions, including robust high-risk pools, reinsurance markets and risk-adjustment mechanisms. I intend to continue advancing true patient-centered reforms like attaching tax benefits to the individual rather than the job, breaking down barriers to interstate competition, and promoting transparency and consumer-friendly coverage options.

We should ensure that health care decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not by bureaucrats, whether at an insurance company or a government agency. By inviting market forces into health care, we can encourage a system where doctors, insurers and hospitals compete against one another for the business of informed consumers.

We must also immediately begin dealing with our crushing debt burdens, which this legislation will worsen. The Democrats’ fiscal arguments never did add up: they claim that their program will reduce the deficit even though the federal government will pick up the tab for more than 30 million uninsured Americans and subsidize millions more. Even after accounting for the $569 billion in tax increases and $523 billion in Medicare cuts, the true costs of this legislation - concealed by timing gimmicks, hidden spending and double-counting - will make the deficit explode, plunging us deeper into debt.

Washington already has no idea on how to pay for its current entitlement programs, as we find ourselves $76 trillion in the hole. Our country cannot afford to avoid a serious conversation on entitlement reform. By taking action now, we can make certain that our entitlement programs are kept whole for those in and near retirement, while devising sustainable health and retirement security for future generations.; March 26, 2010 at 8:58 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://article.nationalreview.com/429387/how-the-left-fakes-the-hate-a-primer/michelle-malkin

In November 2009, Kentucky census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead in a secluded rural cemetery with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest and a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly, the Huffington Post, and liberal media hosts stampeded over themselves to blame Fox News, conservative blogs, Republicans, and right-wing radio.

Federal, state, and local authorities discovered that Sparkman had killed himself and deliberately concocted a hate-crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son.

In mid-October 2008, news outlets from the Scranton Times-Tribune to ABC News to the Associated Press and MSNBC reported that someone at a Sarah Palin rally shouted “kill him” when Obama’s name was mentioned.

In fact, the Secret Service (which was at the event in full force) couldn’t find a single person to corroborate the story - other than the local reporter for the Scranton Times-Tribune who made an international incident out of the claim. Agent Bill Slavoski “said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers, and not one heard the comment,” the paper reported in a red-faced follow-up. Maybe the shouter is hiding with Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman’s real killer.

In late October 2008, a gaggle of liberal blogs spread the rumor that a Republican supporter of vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s had shouted that Obama was “a nigger” during a campaign rally in Iowa.

Video and firsthand accounts showed that the protester did not shout “he’s a nigger,” but “he’s a redistributor.” A lefty activist at the “progressive” Daily Kos blog confirmed the truth - but to this day, the crisis-manufacturing smear stands uncorrected and unretracted across the Internet.

In September 2009, supporters of Colorado Democratic congressman John Salazar falsely accused a town-hall protester of hurling a death threat at the congressman. Liberal blogs again disseminated the angry-tea-party-mob narrative.

A week later, the local press quietly reported that Grand Junction police had investigated the incident - and determined the claim was “unfounded.” A police spokeswoman revealed that “people who witnessed the interaction between the man who made the complaint and the suspect confirmed they never heard any direct threats made regarding Congressman Salazar.” Witnesses included a Grand Junction cop “in close proximity when the interaction took place.”

In late August 2009, as lawmakers faced citizen revolts at health-care town halls nationwide, the Colorado Democratic party decried a vandalism attack at its Denver headquarters. A hammer-wielding thug smashed eleven windows and caused $11,000 in property damage.

The perpetrator, Maurice Schwenkler, turned out to be a far-left nutball/transgender activist/single-payer anarchist who had worked for an SEIU-tied 527 group and canvassed for a Democratic candidate. Nevertheless, Colorado Democratic party chair Pat Waak continued to blame “people opposed to health care” for the attack.; March 26, 2010 at 8:59 PM
William R. Barker said...: http://article.nationalreview.com/429378/chicago-does-socialism/victor-davis-hanson

We can have a rational debate on any one item on President Obama’s vast progressive agenda, arguing whether adjectives like “statist” or “socialist” fairly describe his legislative intent. But connect all the dots and lines of the past year, and an unambiguous image starts to materialize. The problem is not individual legislation, whether passed or proposed, involving the gamut of issues: health care, bailouts, stimuli, education loans, amnesty, cap and trade. Rather, the rub is these acts in the aggregate.

The president promises a state fix for health care; then student loans; and next energy. There are to be subsidies, credits, and always new entitlements for every problem, all requiring hordes of fresh technocrats and Civil Service employees. Like a perpetual teenager, who wants and buys but never produces, the president is focused on the acquisitive and consumptive urges, never on the productive - as in how all his magnanimous largesse is to be paid for by someone else.

That Medicare and Social Security are near insolvency, or soon will be; that the Postal Service and Amtrak are running in the red; that a day at the DMV, county-hospital emergency room, or zoning department doesn’t inspire confidence in the matrix of unionized government workers and large unaccountable bureaucracies - all this is lost on the Obama administration. Utility means nothing. So long as the next proposed program enlarges a dependent constituency and is financed by the “rich” through higher taxes and more debt, it is, de facto, necessary and good. Equality of result is to be achieved both by giving more to some and by taking even more from others.

The same pattern emerges when it comes to taxes. Most Americans could live with Obama’s plan to return to the Clinton tax rates of about 40% on the top brackets.

* NOT ME! I BELIEVE THAT 33% OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S INCOME IS QUITE ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT - BOTH STATE AND LOCAL COMBINED - TO LAY CLAIM TO.

But that promise is never made in a vacuum. Instead, there is an additional, almost breezy pledge to lift caps on income subject to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes - 15.3% in some cases - on top of the income-tax increase.

At other times, an idea like a new health-care surcharge is tossed about - on top of the previous proposals for payroll- and income-tax increases. That new bite likewise, in isolation, perhaps is not too scary. But Obama is planning these 1-2-3 increases at a time when most of the states are already upping their own income-tax rates - in some cases to over 10%.

Once again, Obama never honestly connects the dots and comes clean with the American people about the net effect: On vast swaths of upper income, new state and federal taxes - aside from any rises in sales, property, capital-gains, or inheritance taxes - could confiscate an aggregate of 65% to 70%.

* FOLKS. THIS IS NOT FREEDOM. THIS IS NOT LIBERTY. THIS IS TYRANICAL EXPLOITATION.; March 26, 2010 at 8:59 PM
William R. Barker said...: Rob writes...

"Bushco. was already bankrupting us with those pointless wars."

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

Yep. Excuse worse bad irresponsibility by pointing to lesser irresponsibility.

(*SMIRK*)

Rob. As you may recall, I was slamming Bush and the RINOs for irresponsible spending all during the six years Bush was president with a RINO Congress.

Fact is, though, as I've proven time and time again here at Usually Right via the actual stats, once Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their partisans took over the House and Senate the spending grew even more out of control and since Obama has been president with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress deficits and debts have risen by leaps and bounds.

It's like you're comparing petty shoplifting to armed robbery, or getting behind the wheel with two bud lites (*YUCK*) in you as compared to half a bottle of "Jack" and a handful of barbiturates.

Rob. There's such a thing as magnitude; there's the difference between a flesh wound and having your legs blown off by an IUD.

As to the pointless wars...

(*SIGH*)

Again... we've been over this... the majority of Dems went right along with Bush and gave him a blank check to wage war as he saw fit.

NOR did Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats pull the plug - deny further funding - in January of 2007 as they had every legal right and power to do.

(*SMIRK*)

Rob. It's bad enough you're... er... usually wrong. (*CHUCKLE*) Don't throw in hypocrisy with all your other faults.

In case you missed it... Obama's been ramping up the Afghanistan war (as well as attacks on targets within the sovereign state of Pakistan) and when it comes to "internal security" Obama (with the rubber stamp of a Democrat controlled Congress) has renewed the Patriot Act.

(*SMIRK*)

Oh... and as you've no doubt noted - both via my newsbites and private emails - Obama and the Dems are thick as thieves with Wall Street.

(*SIGH*)

Rob. I don't try and whitewash or excuse bad behavior on the part of Republicans and self-described conservatives... why must your first instinct always be to defend the indefensible when it's Democrats?

(*SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISAPPOINTMENT*)

BILL

* P.S. -- My... er... old pal Oli Mackson says you're pretty bright. He says our back and forths are more entertaining and informative than that of most talking heads who get paid the big bucks.

(*SMILE*); March 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Rodak said...: Yeah. Well, as usual you completely ignore the main thrust of my comment, which was:

Our national motives have improved, even if our national prospects have not. That's a positive step in the minds of moralists.

But the morality of the situation never registers with your type. You are interested only in what it's going to cost you. Amoral self-interest is the easiest game in town. And the most efficient carrot to dangle in front of the bleating herds being enticed toward the totalitarian fold.
Tell me: how does it smell under Glenn Beck's tail, big guy?; March 27, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Rodak said...: That last was about spending on health care vs. spending on warfare.
Now, as you well know, I've been on record as being against both wars--Iraq and Afghanistan--since long before Bush launched them both. I have been on record as opposing Obama's pledge to take out bin Laden in Afghanistan since before the election, and I have pledged not to vote for him in 2012 if he persists in that folly. That said, Bushco. led us into Iraq with lies. And the motive was that it would be good for the businesses in which the Bush clan and their corporate buddies had long been invested. That's an evil, ulterior motive; one based on lies and disinformation.
Obama, while he is wrong to be pursuing the war in Afghanistan, is not pursuing it for any motive other than those motives that he states publicly: to capture and punish those responsible for 9/11 and to destroy al Qaeda.
I don't suppose that the distinction between Bush's motives and Obama's motives means anything to you, since all you care about--again--is what it will cost you.
But I do make a distinction between the two, and I do make a value judgement in favor of Obama, based on that distinction. Even though, Obama is, imo, wrong, he is at least making an HONEST mistake. I'm not following him. I'm not endorsing his error. But I am excusing his motives from any charge of amoral self-interest.; March 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Usually Right

Friday, March 26, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 26, 2010

29 comments:

Websites and blogs I recommend

Blog Archive

About Me