Friday, May 28, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, May 28, 2010


Back when "The Talent" was talented...
Posted by at

12 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270950789108846.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

* FROM PEGGY NOONAN'S COLUMN IN TODAY'S WSJ. (ALSO MAKE SURE YOU READ NOONAN'S WSJ COLLEAGUE KIM STRASSEL'S COLUMN WHICH I EXCERPT WITHIN THE COMMENT BOX OF THE "I WISH KARL ROVE WOULD JUST GO AWAY" THREAD POST.)

I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill.

The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency.

He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him.

When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. They were never going to blame only BP, or trust it.

I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America - confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust."

Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable:

"We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"

Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.

May 28, 2010 at 10:06 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/100279-mccarthy-obama-hasnt-returned-call-of-gulf-lawmaker

Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) relayed a story Thursday morning at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast bolstering House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) charge of negligence on the part of the White House in the Gulf oil spill cleanup.

Asked if this was the president's Hurricane Katrina, McCarthy responded, "It very well could be."

He explained that Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who represents the district in which the BP explosion occurred, said he tried reaching the president last Thursday to discuss possible solutions.

“He was called back by a staffer on Friday who said that the president was too busy to talk to him. He understood that until I turned on the TV and saw that he was golfing and went out to California to do a fundraiser. He said - six days now and he’s never even spoken to him," McCarthy said.

* JEEZUS... (*SHAKING MY HEAD*)

May 28, 2010 at 10:09 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630304575270913130734270.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews

U.S. lawmakers are laying the groundwork for a possible federal bailout of some faltering pension plans that are jointly run by companies and unions.

* SO THOSE OF US - THE MAJORITY OF US - WHO DON'T HAVE PENSIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BAIL OUT A DEMOCRATIC PARTY SPECIAL INTEREST CONSTITUENCY... (*FROWN*)

In the past two years, almost 400 [multi-employer pension] plans have announced they are in bad condition, according to lawmakers. In response, some lawmakers are pushing a plan that would provide federal aid to a few of the ailing pension funds.

* NATURALLY! TAKE FROM THE MANY TO GIVE TO THE FEW - REVERSE ROBIN HOOD!

A 2009 study from ratings firm Moody's Investors Service estimated that the country's largest multi-employer plans have long-term deficits of about $165 billion.

* BUT... BUT... BUT... WE KEEP ON BEING TOLD THE ECONOMY IS IN THE MIDST OF A RECOVERY... (*SMIRK*)

At a Senate hearing Thursday on the matter, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) termed the possibility of a broader taxpayer bailout "extremely dangerous." ... Mr. Enzi added: "We have to ensure the taxpayer is not on the hook."

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

Legislation sponsored by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) would provide federal financial assistance to a few of the more troubled multi-employer plans, including a Teamsters Central States fund and another Teamsters pension plan in western Pennsylvania.

(*BOO-HISS-BOO*)

Mr. Casey said his approach is not a federal bailout. [Of course he's lying.] ... His bill would make a federal agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., responsible for the longer-term costs, and would cost taxpayers an estimated $8 billion over the next decade.

* HMM... FROM "NOT A FEDERAL BAILOUT" TO "IT WOULD COST TAXPAYERS AN ESTIMATED $8 BILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE." HOW'S THAT WORK...?!?! (*SMIRK*)

It also would boost benefits available to affected retirees to about $20,000 a year. Currently, when the PBGC helps a beneficiary of a multi-employer plan, the benefits are limited to $12,870.

* HA! HA! HA! ARE THESE FRIGG'N SCUMBAGS SHAMELESS OR WHAT...?!?! AGAIN... THERE ARE CERTAIN POLITICIANS WHO SHOULD BE DRAGGED FROM THEIR TAXPAYER FUNDED OFFICES, TARRED, FEATHERED, AND RIDDEN OUT OF WASHINGTON ON A RAIL.

A separate provision moving through Congress would buy time for struggling private pension plans through accounting changes...

(*SMIRK*) (*ROLLING MY EYES*) HOW FRIGG'N GULLIBLE DO THESE CRETINS IN WASHINTON THINK WE ARE...?!?! TALK ABOUT BALLS... THESE BASTARDS ARE ACTUALY ADMITTING THEIR "PLAN" IS NOTHING MORE THAN SMOKE AND MIRRORS!

The Moody's study estimated that multi-employer plans in the construction industry are only about 60% funded, with long-term liabilities of $158 billion versus assets of $85.5 billion.

* AND WHOSE FRIGG'N FAULT IS THAT...?!?! WHY SHOULD THIS BE MY PROBLEM OR YOUR PROBLEM...???

Many employer groups are supporting lawmakers' efforts.

* WELL OF COURSE THEY ARE! BAILOUT SPARE THEM FROM REACHING INTO THEIR POCKETS!

* FOLKS... HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO LET THE POLITICIANS STEAL FROM YOU SO THAT THEY CAN PAY OFF - "TRANSFER YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY - TO THEIR POLITICAL ALLIES...?!?!

May 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704717004575268810995779700.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

This week Medicare sent a flyer to seniors..."The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama this year will provide you and your family greater savings and increased quality health care."

[The flyer went] on to mention "improvements to Medicare Advantage...If you are in a Medicare Advantage plan, you will still receive guaranteed Medicare benefits."

But that's not what Medicare's own actuary thinks.

(*SMIRK*)

In an April memo, Richard Foster estimated that the $206 billion hole in Advantage will reduce benefits, cause insurers to withdraw from the program and reduce overall enrollment by half.

Doug Elmendorf and his team at the Congressional Budget Office came to the same conclusion, as did every other honest expert.

That's also what Humana told its customers, warning that seniors "could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage so valuable."

Medicare threatened the Kentucky-based company with fines and regulatory punishments for "misleading and confusing" beneficiaries, then issued a blanket gag order on Advantage insurers. The agency later backed down, once its Cosa Nostra message had been signed, sealed and delivered.

Medicare's flyer includes answers to other pressing questions in Boca Raton and Scottsdale, such as allowing children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health plans, and further misleading commentary about keeping the program "strong and solvent." Dave Camp, the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, believes the mailer may violate the prohibition on using taxpayer dollars for political propaganda.

The larger issue is the White House's view of political opposition. It seems to think its assertions will be true if they are repeated often enough, as long as no one is allowed to disagree.

May 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37253

When does a political deal become a bribe?

Rep. Joe Sestak [D-PA] claims that he was offered an administration job if he would abandon his race against Sen. Arlen Specter for the Democratic nomination in Pennsylvania.

Reportedly, the job offered to the retired admiral was secretary of the navy.

On May 18, Sestak won that primary, and his charge that he was proffered a White House bribe, or deal, went viral.

So, today, Joe has a problem. And so does the White House. [I]f Sestak was offered a high post in the administration to abandon his challenge to a U.S. senator endorsed by Obama, this would seem on its face a criminal violation of federal law.

All seven Senate Republicans on the judiciary committee have written Attorney General Eric Holder calling for an independent counsel to investigate the alleged bribe. They cite 18 U.S. Code Section 600, which forbids the offer of any government job "as consideration, favor or reward for any political activity" or "in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office." If Sestak was offered a high government post to get out of the Pennsylvania race, it would appear an open-and-shut case that a felony was committed by someone high in the White House.

[W]ho looked into the allegation that a bribe was offered to Sestak and found "no evidence" of White House wrongdoing? The White House counsel's office.

(*SMIRK*)

Sorry, but this will not do. For when White House Counsel John Dean investigated the staff role in Watergate for President Nixon, he, too, found them all innocent.

[I]f the offer was made by a White House staffer and involved the post of secretary of the navy, serious questions arise for all involved.

Why did not Sestak, a congressman and admiral, report it? Has he not taken an oath to uphold the law?

Second, who made the offer? For any offer of secretary of the navy cannot credibly be made without the complicity or approval of the president, Barack Obama, who alone can nominate to that position.

Third, who in the White House counsel's office conducted this investigation? And, as it does not involve confidential legal advice to the president, but the determination of a possible felony, we have a right to know what the White House counsel's office was told, and by whom.

* TO THOSE WHO SAY THIS IS SIMPLY "POLITICS AS USUAL," ALLOW ME TO ASK: IF THAT'S SO, THEN WHY WOULDN'T OBAMA JUST ADMIT IT? IF THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS SORT OF THING, WHY NOT CALL FOR REPEAL OF THE LAW THAT MAKES IT A FELONY...??? (*SHRUG*) NO... BUCHANAN'S RIGHT... SOMETHING'S ROTTEN HERE.

May 28, 2010 at 1:35 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64Q6CQ20100527

Antioch [CA] leaders earlier this month said bankruptcy could be an option for the cash-strapped city of roughly 100,000 on the eastern fringe of the San Francisco Bay area.

Antioch's fiscal woes are standard issue for local governments in California: weak revenue from retail sales and property taxes is forcing spending cuts, layoffs and furloughs.

* NO... TOO MUCH BLOATED GOVERNMENT - TOO MUCH SPENDING, TOO MUCH DEBT, TOO MUCH UNFUNDED LIABILITIES TAKEN ON BY GOVERNMENT - IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANTIOCH'S FINANCIAL WOES.

But cost-cutting measures may not be enough to keep Antioch's books balanced, so its city council is openly discussing bankruptcy. "We just want to alert people to the possibility," Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Mary Helen Rocha said.

* AS THE OBAMA ECONOMIC RECOVERY CONTINUES... (*SNICKER*)

May 28, 2010 at 1:35 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/535718/201005271857/The-Drill-Is-Gone.aspx

An administration never enthusiastic about offshore drilling is using the Gulf oil spill as an excuse to suspend Arctic exploration. Who could've seen that coming?

(*SMIRK*) (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

Suspicions in some quarters that the administration was being deliberately lax in its response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in order to pursue a larger, anti-domestic energy agenda were met with derision.

* AS THEY SHOULD BE. OBAMA IS SIMPLY INCOMPETENT... THERE'S NO "CONSPIRACY." (I HOPE...) (*NERVOUS CHUCKLE*)

But if not deliberate, the effect is the same as the administration prepares to shut down our search for new oil.

(*SHRUG*) (*NOD*)

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a report delivered to the White House on Thursday that he will not consider applications for permits to drill in the Arctic until 2011. Shell Oil was poised to begin exploratory drilling this summer on leases as far as 140 miles offshore. ... As with nuclear power, domestic oil exploration will now be consigned to the "study forever, develop never" category.

The nonfatal accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Soviet disaster at Chernobyl conspired to deprive the U.S. of a non-polluting form of power generation - nuclear power. The danger here is that similar overblown fears of offshore oil production will doom the U.S. to being the Bangladesh of domestic energy production. Other nations continue to build new nuclear power plants, build new coal plants and build new offshore oil rigs (including China, in the Gulf of Mexico). They know that despite the risks and dangers, their economies and their people need the energy. The U.S., uniquely among industrial nations, will stick its head in the tundra.

Alaska's Chukchi Sea holds more oil and gas than anyone thought - 1,600 trillion cubic feet of undeveloped natural gas, or 30% of the world's supply, and 83 billion barrels of undeveloped oil, 4% of estimated global resources. You can be sure the Russians won't be as reluctant [to exploit these resources].

* ON THE OTHER HAND, IF OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THEIR WAY:

We'll become ever more dependent on the world's petro-tyrants, including Russia's Vladimir Putin, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who are all too willing to use their energy wealth as a weapon. This will make neither our wildlife nor our country more safe and secure.

May 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/535634/201005271815/Who-Is-Really-To-Blame-For-This-Blowout-.aspx

Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there.

* THAT'S TRUE!

As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production.

And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

* IF YOU'VE NEVER BOTHERED TO SEEK OUT THE PHOTOS OF THE AREA IN QUESTION... DO SO! IT'S TUNDRA... WASTELAND! DON'T MISTAKE IT FOR JELLYSTONE PARK... (*RUEFUL SMILE*)

So we go deep, ultradeep - to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

* THAT SAID... WE SHOULD ALWAYS BEING PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES OF TECHNOLOGY IN ORDER TO ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people?

All spills seriously [temporarily] damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

May 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/535714/201005271857/Big-Govt-Takes-Over.aspx

The share of U.S. income made up by the private sector hit a historical low earlier this year.

The only real growth is in the public sector, which doesn't create wealth. [Which in fact consumes wealth!]

An analysis of government data by USA Today found that "paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year."

That's only part of this sad story: "At the same time, government-provided benefits - from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs - rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010."

[While] the share of private-sector pay is shrinking (the private sector lost 4.71 million) [jobs]...during the first quarter the federal government added 81,000 jobs...[and] President Obama wants more. He's asked federal agencies to accelerate and streamline hiring of federal workers at a time when laying off bureaucrats would be the far better course.

Even before Obama began to push federal hiring, working for Washington was a lucrative career choice. In 2008, the typical federal worker took home on average $67,691 in salary compared with $60,046 for the private sector. During the first 18 months of the recession, USA Today reported in December, "Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants - and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted."

* NATIONAL TRANSFORMATION INDEED... (*SIGH*)

Government workers have also avoided the job losses we've seen in the private sector. Their unemployment rate from 2007 to 2010 has been 3%...

(*SMIRK*) THREE PERCENT. NICE... (*SNICKER*)

Federal workers aren't the only public employees who enjoy generous compensation. In 2009, the employer cost per hour for private sector businesses was $27.49 while the employer cost per hour in state and local government was $39.83 per hour, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. From 2006 to 2009, those costs grew 6.9% in the private sector, 9.8% in state and local government.

* SEEING THE TREND HERE FOLKS...??? (AND OF COURSE HIGHER PAY RAMPS UP PENSION BENEFITS - WHICH WE ALL PAY FOR, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE OURSELVES HAVE OUR OWN RETIREMENT SAVINGS IN ORDER OR NOT.

May 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/535713/201005271857/A-New-Boss-Rocks-New-Jersey.aspx

New Jersey's tough new Republican governor [Chris Christie] is setting a national example for how to restore fiscal sanity.

Unlike your average, big-spending Northeast politician, Christie actually had his eye on the long-term well-being of the state government when he took office in January. Staring a projected $2.2 billion deficit in the face, he made it clear New Jersey was in a full-blown emergency, and he used the fullness of his powers [to deal with the crisis.]

Executive Order No. 14 in particular will go down as a fiscal Emancipation Proclamation... [Christie] froze state aid going to more than 500 school districts... Having insisted on a spending freeze upon taking office, the three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar shock the state just got isn't throwing his administration into the panic that might have been expected.

With the 2010 shortfall already covered, Christie now says of the $365 million fiscal 2011 number, "we're going to be able to solve that problem without any new taxes at all and without any real significant [additional] cuts."

The state's heavily Democratic legislature may well wage war against Christie this year, resisting enactment of a budget without tax increases next month. Christie wants still more cuts in New Jersey's bloated, politicized finances, and he wants a referendum on the ballot this November to cap the state's crippling property taxes. The legislature, on the other hand, wants to soak the rich with targeted tax hikes.

From all indications, Christie is gutsy enough to handle the big-spending status quo-ists. On Tuesday, he told the Manhattan Institute, "you have the head of the teacher's union standing up at this rally saying, 'We are not the problem.' There have never been more incorrect words spoken in front of the statehouse in Trenton - and that is a high bar, ladies and gentlemen."

The next time some of the more cowardly Republicans in Washington forget what they were elected to do, let them look to New Jersey and listen to the boss.

May 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWE2OTUwMTg3YTEzOGUwOTBjZmFkNjQ3YTMzYjdlYTM=

A tip of the cap to White House counsel on preparing a memo that, on its face, would appear to let a bit of air out of charges of wrongdoing. But some of it just isn't scanning. Let's look back at what Rep. Sestak told local TV host Larry Kane in February:

KANE: "Were you ever offered a federal job to get out of this race?"

SESTAK: "Yes."

KANE: "Was it secretary of the Navy?"

SESTAK: "No comment"

Later Kane asks again, "Was there a job offered to you by the White House?" to which Sestak nods and replies "yes, someone offered it."

Kane asks "It was big right?" Sestak replies, "Let me "no comment" on it."

"Was it high-ranking?" Kane asked. Sestak said yes.

That was February. Since then, Sestak has mostly "no commented." But as recently as last Sunday, he confirmed: "I was offered a job, and I answered that."

Contrast that with the White House memo, which says that Sestak was considered only for non-compensated "advisory positions" and that he had no direct contact with White House officials.

* YOU SHOULD REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT THIS http://www.larrykane.com/2010/05/28/the-joe-sestak-question-anatomy-of-an-interview-that-spread-like-wildfire/ TOO FOLKS.

May 28, 2010 at 3:38 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/28/can_chris_christie_fix_new_jersey.html

At a New Jersey town meeting, Gov. Chris Christie...was reproached by an unhappy teacher. The governor, facing a budget shortfall of $11 billion, has proposed, among other economies, a one-year salary freeze for New Jersey teachers.

Her voice raised in anger (that's a normal speaking voice in my home state), Rita Wilson protested that she should be paid $83,000, the only reasonable compensation in light of her "education and experience."

Christie's reply got an ovation: "Well, you know what? Then you don't have to do it.

(*STANDING OVATION RIGHT HERE IN MY OFFICE*)

A retired teacher paid $62,000 towards her pension and nothing - yes, nothing - for full family medical, dental, and vision coverage over her entire career.

What will we pay her? $1.4 million in pension benefits and another $215,000 in health care benefit premiums over her lifetime.

* DOESN'T TRACK, DOES IT? DOES THIS SOUND SUSTAINABLE - OR EVEN FAIR, EVEN REASONABLE - TO YOU FOLKS...???

[V]oters are open to a new fairness argument. Whereas Barack Obama and his Party invoke "fairness" as a license to take property from productive people and transfer it to the unproductive, [Chris] Christie is inviting voters to consider the unfairness of our current arrangement in which government employees enjoy better salaries and benefits than private-sector employees.

Economic historian John Steele Gordon points out that, "Federal workers now earn, in wages and benefits, about twice what their private-sector equivalents get paid. State workers often have Cadillac health plans and retirement benefits far above the private sector average: 80% of public-sector workers have pension benefits, only 50% in the private sector. Many can retire at age 50."

In 2010, 47% of Americans paid no income taxes at all.

* DOES THAT SOUND LIKE "FAIRNESS...???" DOES THAT FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE...???

Among those who do pay taxes, most pay comparatively little. Both parties have agreed to make the tax code more steeply progressive in the past two decades, to the point where the top 20% of earners, those with incomes above $100,000, pay 70% of all taxes.

* SORRY... THIS DOESN'T SOUND "FAIR" NOR "REASONABLE" TO ME.

New Jersey's unfunded pension liability is officially estimated at $32 billion. But Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute warns that this figure is based on flawed measures. The true number, he says, is closer to $145 billion. The state of New Jersey, in other words, is a little Greece.

Christie's proposed economies - in addition to the one-year salary freeze, he wants teachers and administrators to contribute 1.5% of their salaries to the cost of their medical coverage - have provoked thousands of teachers to take to the streets, Athens style.

(*SNORT*)

* HELL... I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE PAYING AT LEAST A THIRD OF THEIR INSURANCE BENEFIT COSTS - PERHAPS EVEN 50%!

May 28, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)