Monday, March 15, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, March 15, 2010


Yet another in a day by day series of news accounts of America's decline...
Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a0a8xAghPS8I

The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

Under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario, the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013, Moody’s said today in a report.

“We expect the situation to further deteriorate in terms of the key ratings metrics before they start stabilizing,” Cailleteau said. “This story is not going to stop at the end of the year. There is inertia in the deterioration of credit metrics.”

The U.S. government will spend about 7 percent of its revenue servicing debt in 2010 and almost 11 percent in 2013, according to the baseline scenario of moderate economic recovery, fiscal adjustments in line with government plans and a gradual increase in interest rates, Moody’s said.

Under its adverse scenario, which assumes 0.5 percent lower growth each year, less fiscal adjustment and a stronger interest-rate shock, the U.S. will be paying about 15 percent of revenue in interest payments, more than the 14 percent limit that would lead to a downgrade to AA, Moody’s said.

March 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/hill_nub_of_ny_firm_is_crystal_clear_FYR65jDt5RHnO4X4CLOaFL

Hillary Rodham Clinton's State Department is spending $5.4 million to buy fine crystal stemware for American embassies -- but it won't give the US economy much of a boost.

The contract was given to a tiny Washington, DC, interior designer, which in turn subcontracted the crystal work to a Swedish firm -- snubbing such US companies as the famous manufacturer in Clinton's own back yard, Steuben Crystal of upstate Corning.

The firm didn't even get a chance to bid on the contract, which will outfit embassies and ambassadors' residences with fancy crystal for ritzy functions.

Ironically, under the no-bid contract, some of the crystal is to be custom-crafted to include the seal of the United States, although Swedes will do all of the manufacturing.

Contracting rules require any American firms that subcontract work to use a domestic firm or get a waiver.

The firm that got the contract, Systems Design Inc., is a small interior-design firm in tony Georgetown. The company, which is eligible for minority small-business contracts, does not appear to have done any similar work.

After getting the contract in September, the firm subcontracted to Swedish glassmaker Orrefors/Kosta Boda USA.

Department spokesman Darby Holladay said Systems Design couldn't find a domestic producer who could meet the 100 percent lead-free requirement, although a Steuben spokesman said it does manufacture lead-free crystal.

* MAKE SURE YOU READ THE COMMENTS TOO.

March 15, 2010 at 12:59 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Democratic congressional leaders have floated a plan to enact health-care reform by a procedure dubbed "the Slaughter solution." It is named not for the political carnage that it might inflict on their members, but for Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), chair of the powerful House Rules Committee, who proposed it.

Under her proposal, Democrats would pass a rule that deems the Senate's health-care bill to have passed the House, without the House actually voting on the bill.

* YES. YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY. THE FACT THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ISN'T POUNDING THIS TRUTH HOME 24/7 REFLECTS THE ONGOING COLLAPSE OF THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS ONCE GREAT NATION.

This would enable Congress to vote on legislation that fixes flaws in the Senate health-care bill without facing a Senate filibuster, and without requiring House members to vote in favor of a Senate bill that is now politically toxic.

The Slaughter solution cannot be squared with Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

* WHICH IS WHY I SAY THAT THE RULE OF LAW IS BEING DIRECTLY ASSAULTED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S ACTIONS.

[T]he Slaughter solution...is not constitutional. To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a "Bill" to "become a Law," it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate" and be "presented to the President of the United States" for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has "passed" both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.

* COM'ON... WE'RE TAUGHT THIS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL - AT LEAST I WAS; AND IF YOU SOMEHOW MISSED THE LESSONS IN SCHOOL, AGAIN, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS WHAT IT SAYS!

House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house; the other house must approve "precisely the same text."

These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal."

These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.

March 15, 2010 at 1:26 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123660400617690.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews

The Senate is slated to hold a key procedural vote on a bill aimed at spurring private sector job creation, aides said Monday.

The center piece of the legislation is a tax credit for employers who hire new workers who have been out of work for at least 60 days.

* CORPORATE WELFARE. ARTIFICIAL "STIMULUS." LESS REVENUE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

It also renews federal subsidies toward costs incurred by state governments for road and bridge construction and repairs, extends an expense write-off provision for small businesses, and modestly expands so-called "Build America Bonds" used by local governments to fund public works projects.

* SO IN OTHER WORDS... SPENDING MONEY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE; SUBSIDIZING UNIONS WHICH ARE PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC BASE WITH TAX DOLLARS AND DEBT PLACED ON THE BACKS OF PRESENT AND FUTURE TAXPAYERS; MORE CORPORATE WELFARE; AND MORE BONDED DEBT CREATION. GREAT... JUST SUPER.

The Senate voted strongly to approve the legislation two weeks ago, but then House lawmakers amended it. That means the measure has to be approved again by the Senate before it can be signed into law by President Barack Obama.

* OF COURSE THE SENATE VOTED FOR IT. MOST SENATORS VOTE FOR MOST SPENDING. AS TO THE HOUSE... WHILE THE ARTICLE DIDN'T SAY HOW THEY "AMENDED" THE BILL... I'M GUESSING MORE BORROWING AND SPENDING WAS ADDED.

* FOLKS... DON'T LOOK AT THIS AS SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING TO OTHER PEOPLE... IT'S HAPPENING TO YOU! ALL THIS SPENDING, ALL THIS DEBT, ALL THIS IRRESPONSIBILITY AND ATTEMPTED VOTE BUYING IS IN THE END OUR COMMON DEBT AND THAT OF OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.

March 15, 2010 at 5:29 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://article.nationalreview.com/427786/popping-the-higher-education-bubble/dan-lips

Over the past decade, federal spending on student aid has grown by 99%.

Since 1982, college tuition has increased by 439% - more than four times the rate of inflation and twice the rate of increase for medical care.

The College Board reports that the total costs of attending four-year private and public universities this year were $35,600 and $26,700 respectively.

President Obama has called for more Americans to attend college, setting a goal that the United States lead the world in its percentage of college graduates by 2020. The administration has called for dramatic increases in federal subsidies for student aid. His 2011 budget request includes $156 billion for such programs.

But experience shows that increasing student aid has failed to solve the college-affordability problem. Some economists have even found that increased spending on student aid contributes to rising costs.

* WHICH TIES IN WITH THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES OF THIS NEWSBITE!

* LINK TO THE PIECE AND READ FOR YOURSELVES SOLUTIONS THE AUTHOR OFFERS OTHER THAN SIMPLY THROWING (BORROWED!) MONEY AT THE PROBLEM AS THE PRESIDENT - AND INDEED MOST POLITICIANS - ARE PRONE TO DO.

March 15, 2010 at 7:08 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmU4OTQ1YzkwMWVjMWU1MDIwN2NjNDBjNDBiMTU1M2Y=

As cap-and-trade legislation continues to languish in Congress, zealots of the Church of Human-Caused Global Warming are working on a parallel track.

They figure that, instead of pushing legislation through Congress or even state legislatures, they can push economically devastating carbon-emissions caps through unelected bodies staffed by activists with serious conflicts of interest. This, at least, is the strategy in New Mexico, where the Environmental Improvement Board has been considering a draconian carbon cap.

The proposal, which comes in a petition by the New Mexico–based group New Energy Economy, would limit the state’s carbon emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Further, the proposed New Mexico regulation is an absolute cap, with no trading allowed.

* GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE... AN ABSOLUTE CAP WITH NO "TRADING" ALLOWED IS AT LEAST HONEST AND TRANSPARENT; THEY'RE AT LEAST ANNOUNCING THEIR MEANS AND GOALS WITH NO IFS, ANS, OR BUTS!

The cap is so strict that the state’s largest utility, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), which withdrew from the U.S. Chamber because of the Chamber’s opposition to federal cap-and-trade legislation, has vigorously opposed it.

As troubling as this proposal is, more troubling yet is the way the game has been rigged. The Environmental Impact Board - whose members were appointed by Gov. Bill Richardson, who has pushed to make New Mexico part of a regional emissions-cap scheme called the Western Climate Initiative - contains only Democrats and Democratic Party funders. A majority have conflicts of interest.

The EIB chair, Gregory Green, is employed by four environmental groups that have joined the petition. One is the Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy, an organization that has received over $100,000 from New Energy Economy, the lead petitioner in this case.

(*SNORT*)

Mr. Green is also the New Mexico spokesman for the Pew Environment Group...

(*SMILE*)

Two other members, Jim Gollin and Gay Dillingham, head environmental groups that advocate carbon caps. Gollin is president of the radical Rainforest Action Network, which was founded by one of the first practitioners of eco-terrorism. Dillingham is founder and director of New Voice for Business. Both organizations belong to same climate change alliance, 1Sky, which also includes New Energy Economy. Moreover, New Energy Economy has given that alliance nearly $100,000.

Meanwhile, the president of the board of directors of New Energy Economy doubles as the senior adviser to the New Mexico attorney general. It was the attorney general’s office that advised the Environmental Improvement Board that it had jurisdiction to consider imposing a statewide carbon cap.

New Mexico has been targeted as a test case for the radical environmental movement. If they can pick off New Mexico, expect this state-based strategy to spread across the nation.

March 15, 2010 at 7:08 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OGFhOTBlOWU3ZTU4ZmU1MDQ5NWYwNDQ3Y2I0OWQ2ZGQ=

Here’s the pitch: The FairTax - a plan to replace the federal income tax and payroll tax with a national sales tax - will get rid of the IRS forever. It will let workers keep their entire paychecks and retirees keep their entire pensions. It will raise just as much money as the current tax code. It will promote economic growth. It won’t hurt the middle class, and it won’t cause prices to rise. It will even end our illegal-immigration problem.

These claims are drawn from the leading proponents of the plan: a group called Americans for Fair Taxation, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and Neal Boortz, John Linder, and Rob Woodall, the trio behind the book FairTax: The Truth.

By painting an attractive picture of a prosperous America without an IRS, they have gotten many conservatives to become enthusiasts for their cause.

The FairTax sounds too good to be true. It is. The campaign for the FairTax is deeply misleading, and much more likely to set back the cause of tax reform than to advance it.

The FairTaxers give a misleading answer to the first question everyone asks about their idea: How big will the tax be? The FairTaxers say they want a 23% sales tax.

Most people will assume that a product that costs $100 before the tax is added would cost $123 with the tax.

Actually, the tax would be $30 and the total price $130.

They call it a “23%” rate because $30 is 23% of $130. Whether or not the FairTaxers intend to mislead people by using the 23% figure, confusion is the effect.

[Nor is it] iclear that this 30% sales tax would raise enough revenue to eliminate income and payroll taxes.

Brookings Institution economist William Gale has estimated that to replace current federal tax revenues, the tax rate would have to be 44% (or 31% the way the FairTaxers calculate rates) - a $100 product would cost $144 after tax.

Gale’s calculation assumed that nobody would evade the sales tax and that Congress would not narrow the tax base by, for example, exempting medical services [or food... or clothing...] from the tax. Relaxing those assumptions increases the rate required even further.

Several groups of people would be adversely affected by the tax. Retirees, for example, have paid taxes on their wages during their working lives. After a FairTax was implemented, they would find themselves also having to pay higher taxes on everything they used their accumulated savings to buy. The value of non-retirees’ accumulated savings would drop... Governor Huckabee’s claim that voters in all income groups would come out ahead while the federal government would raise the same amount of revenue as before is of course unsupportable.

Under the FairTax plan, the federal government would give all legal residents of the U.S. a “prebate” to cover sales taxes on all purchases up to the poverty line.

* ANYWAY... INTERESTING ARTICLE. IT'S WORTH READING THE ARTICLE IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

March 15, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)