Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The song which comes to mind when thinking of the Obama administration in action...
In "honor" of the "Age of Obama," allow me to post today's first newsbite right here on the thread post itself:
Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.
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.
The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes.
The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever more expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.
[America has lost] 8 million private jobs. Even before the downturn, private wages were eroding because of the substitution of health and pension benefits for taxable salaries.
But not for everyone, my friends...
An additional 9.8% of personal income was paid as wages to government employees [in the first quarter of this year].
On the other hand...
A record low 41.9% of the nation's personal income came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December 2007.
A hallmark of "Age of Obama" economics...
Individuals got 17.9% of their income from government programs in the first quarter, up from 14.2% when the recession started. Programs for the elderly, the poor and the unemployed all grew in cost...
Economist Veronique de Rugy of the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University says the riots in Greece over cutting benefits to close a huge budget deficit are a warning about unsustainable income programs.
Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says.
Folks... none of this should come as a surprise to regular newsbite readers.
People... these self-serving power hungry parasites in Washington are destroying our country...!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USN2427330520100524
Democratic lawmakers in California unveiled a plan on Monday for nearly $5 billion of tax and fee increases to help fill the state government's $19.1 billion budget gap.
The plan by state Senate Democrats would raise $4.9 billion by raising California's vehicle registration fee, suspending corporate tax breaks scheduled to begin next year and boosting the state's tax on alcoholic beverages.
Democrats control both chambers of the state's legislature and have said they would seek new revenue to help plug the shortfall.
Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, by contrast, has ruled out tax increases and is relying largely on deep spending cuts in his plan for balancing the state's books. He has called for $12.4 billion of cuts and would scrap the state's welfare system...
* WELL, FOLKS - THERE YOU HAVE IT. IT SEEMS TO ME THE BATTLE LINES ARE BEING DRAWN FAIRLY TRANSPARENTLY. YOU EITHER SUPPORT THE SAME OLD TAX AND SPEND (AND BORROW TO MAKE UP SHORTFALLS) DEMOCRAT POLICIES WHICH GOT CALIFORNIA AND THE NATION INTO THE MESS WE'RE IN... OR... YOU DEMAND GOVERNMENT DO WHAT YOU DO IN YOUR OWN LIVES WHEN MONEY'S TIGHT - YOU CUT BACK ON EXPENSES.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264532051783298.html
President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill are publicly fretting about the dangers of spending and debt, which can mean only one thing: Another big spending "stimulus" bill is in the works. And sure enough, the House plans to vote this week on $190 billion in new spending, $134 billion of which it won't even pretend to pay for.
* $135 BILLION IT WON'T EVEN P-R-E-T-E-N-D TO PAY FOR...!!!
The biggest item is $65 billion to prevent a 21% cut in Medicare physician reimbursements. Democrats promised this to the American Medical Association in return for its ObamaCare support, but they left the $65 billion out of the health-care law to make it look less expensive. Now they're pushing it through under separate cover when they assume the press corps won't notice.
* RECALL... BACK DURING THE DEBATE ON OBAMACARE AND WHAT IT WOULD COST THE DEMS COUNTED THIS $65 BILLION AS A SAVING, PRETENDING IT WOULDN'T COME OUT OF THE BUDGET... LYING STRAIGHT TO OUR FACES.
The $47 billion to extend unemployment insurance to nearly two full years will bring the total spent on this program to $137 billion during this recession - five times more than in either of the prior two recessions. That's nearly as much as the federal corporate income raised in 2009.
* SPEND... SPEND... SPEND... BORROW... BORROW... BORROW... EXPAND THE SIZE OF THE WELFARE STATE... CREATE A EUROPEAN STYLE DOLE - BECAUSE, HEY... THAT'S WORKED SO WELL IN COUNTRIES LIKE GREECE... (*SMIRK*)
The sages in Congress continue to claim that these payments for not working will lead to more work. Representative Jim McDermott recently declared on the House floor that jobless payments are "one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus" because "every unemployment dollar spent returns $1.64 of economic benefits." So let's lay off everybody, pay them for not working, and watch the economy really boom. Where do they teach this stuff?
This bill is also one of the most expensive corporate welfare giveaways in recent years with subsidies for municipal bond traders, cotton farmers, yarn producers, sheep growers, Hawaiian sugar cane cooperatives, motor sports businesses, renewable energy firms, the steel lobby, and so on. Any industry that doesn't get a tax credit or other handout in this bill should fire its lobbyist.
* PEOPLE... DON'T YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE...?!?! OBAMA AND THE DEMS ARE PLAYING BOTH SIDES AGAINST THE MIDDLE - THE MIDDLE CLASS THAT IS!
All of this is "paid for," in the Beltway lingo, with a net tax increase on business of about $40 billion and at least $134 billion of new debt. There's a new 24 cent a barrel tax on oil companies, which would flow to consumers in higher gas prices, because Congress says the industry's profits are excessive.
* WE PAY, FOLKS... WE ALWAYS PAY... WE'LL PAY THE INTEREST ON THE $134 BILLION IN NEW DEBT... WE'LL PAY AT THE PUMP WHEN WE FILL UP OUR TANKS AND ALSO WHEN WE HEAT OUR HOMES WITH OIL; IN FACT, THE ENERGY TAX INCREASE WILL REVERBERATE ACROSS THE ECONOMY. NICKELS , DIMES, AND DOLLARS ADDED TO OUR PERSONAL EXPENSES DAY AFTER DAY... WEEK AFTER WEEK... MONTH AFTER MONTH... DON'T YOU SEE IT ADDS UP....?!?!
[S]mall, often family-owned Subchapter-S-companies that provide professional services would be required to subject more of their profits to the self-employment tax. These firms already pay up to 35% tax on these profits, so under the Democratic plan their tax rate could reach 50%.
* DOES THIS SOUND LIKE THE COUNTRY IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO ANY OF YOU READING THIS...?!?!
Perhaps you're wondering what happened to the "pay as you go" budget rules that Mr. Obama announced to great media fanfare as recently as February. Democrats now say "PAYGO" doesn't apply because this spending qualifies as an "emergency."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37161
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
That was the slogan of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's "1984," where Winston Smith worked ceaselessly revising the past to conform to the latest party line of Big Brother.
And so we come to the battle over history books in the schools of Texas.
The new texts will emphasize that the separation of church and state was never written into the Constitution.
Is that not right?
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. But, in 1776, nine of the 13 colonies had state religions established in their constitutions.
* ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!
Thomas Jefferson's words about a "separation of church and state" were not written until 1802, when he responded to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association. Not until after World War II did the Supreme Court begin the systematic purge of Christianity from American public life.
* TRUE.
Barack Obama may have declared, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."
* BUT HE SPEAKS FOR HIMSELF AND THE MINORITY; HE CERTAINLY DOESN'T SPEAK IN LINE WITH AMERICAN HISTORY.
The Texas school board wants the U.S. economic system called "free enterprise" rather than the term Karl Marx used, "capitalism."
Anything wrong with that?
* NOPE! (BUT MAKE SURE THE TEXTS ALSO ADDRESS "CRONY CAPITALISM" - RIGGED MARKETS... THE ANTITHESIS OF FREE MARKETS!)
What is the purpose of teaching America's children the history of their country? Few said it better than Ronald Reagan in his farewell address: "An informed patriotism is what we want."
* YEP!
Teaching American history to America's children is done so that they will come to know and love their country. And while all nations have sins of scarlet, none has a greater, more glorious past than ours.
And if teaching that is what the Texas Board of Education is all about, ensuring that the children of Texas know both sides of every great American quarrel and come away loving their country all the more, then God bless 'em.
* AMEN!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575265813775061370.html?mod=WSJ_hps_SECONDTopStories
Crude-oil futures tumbled more than 3%... Light, sweet crude oil for July delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange was down $2.62, or 3.7%, at $67.59 a barrel in recent trade.
* THIS IS GOOD NEWS, FOLKS! (SEE...! I POST GOOD NEWS WHERE THERE'S GOOD NEWS TO POST!) (*WINK*)
June-delivery petroleum products, which expire Friday, traded to intraday lows last seen in early February.
June reformulated gasoline blendstock futures were down 6.10 cents at $1.9098 a gallon, after an earlier low of $1.9026 a gallon. Heating oil futures were down 5.19 cents to $1.8474 a gallon, after trading as low as $1.8368 a gallon.
(*THUMBS UP*)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264273090491244.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
Last week U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that although he remains supportive of "international efforts" to bring Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to justice, the Obama administration is also pursuing "locally owned accountability and reconciliation mechanisms in light of the recommendations made by the African Union's high-level panel on Darfur."
* IN OTHER WORDS... NO... THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS FINE WITH A GENOCIDAL DICTATOR AS PRESIDENT OF SUDAN.
* HEY... SINCERE CIVIL LIBERTARIANS WHO BELIEVE IN THE INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW - HOW YA LIKING THE AGE OF OBAMA SO FAR...???
Mr. Bashir is indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity...
* BUT, HEY... HE'S A GUY OBAMA CAN... er... WORK WITH. (YEAH... THAT'S IT...)
When Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, hope abounded, even in Darfur's bleak refugee camps. Darfuris believed this son of Africa could understand their suffering, end the violence that has taken so much from them, and bring Mr. Bashir to justice. The refugees hoped that "Yes we can" was meant for them too. They believed President Obama would bring peace and protection to Darfur and would settle for nothing less than true justice.
(*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*)
Nearly three million souls are still waiting in wretched camps across Darfur and eastern Chad. Sudanese government bombs are still falling, murderers and rapists still roam free, and the refugees have not felt safe for a very long time.
* BUT I BET SUDANESE PRESIDENT OMAR AL-BASHIR FEELS SAFER NOW... (*SIGH*)
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/05/24/hypocrisy-act/
The House will soon vote on a new version of the “tax extenders+ bill,” which is formally labeled H.R. 4213, The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.
A better name might be The Hypocrisy Act of 2010.
This bill is getting far less press coverage than it deserves.
CBO gives us the net budgetary effects of the bill over the 11-year period 2010-2020: 1) $40 billion net tax increase; 2) $174 billion spending increase; 3) $134 billion deficit increase.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/25/a_complexity_reduced_to_shame_105709.html
It is the very lack of a draft that now allows the government to risk the lives of young people on the flimsy maybes of policy gambits. An apathetic public looks away. It is not our concern. If "they" choose to serve, then "they" choose also to die. Were it not for the money we could probably fight in Afghanistan forever.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/mass_health_meltdown_is_your_future_qA65Dx77kppzP5lHJN23pN
The future of US medicine under ObamaCare is already on display in Massachusetts.
The top four health insurers there just posted first-quarter losses of more than $150 million.
Like ObamaCare, RomneyCare includes a government-run exchange (the "Commonwealth Connector"), mandates and fines on individuals and fines on businesses. It expanded coverage mainly by expanding Medicaid. Of the 176,766 insured through the Connector, more than 152,000 are on subsidized plans, most paying nothing. ObamaCare will follow suit. Richard Foster, chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, reports that the law will add $310 billion over 10 years to federal spending and put 18 million more Americans on Medicaid.
Another similarity: RomneyCare offered no real means to control and ultimately reduce costs. Its backers made airy promises of redirecting monies from state-sponsored charity care to insurance premiums, claiming that an insured population would be healthier and save money. In fact, the state has begged Washington year after year for money to plug the system's gaps. In the program's first three years, the feds will have spent $21.2 billion -- $3,000 per Massachusetts resident.
Actually, ObamaCare's cost-control promises are even more fantastic -- from supposed slashing of Medicare payment rates to politically impossible "Cadillac" taxes. The only real cost control in either plan will be the brute force of government.
* THING IS... WHILE THE BRUTE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT CAN PUT INSURERS OUT OF BUSINESS, IT CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO STAY IN BUSINESS; SAME WITH DOCTORS.
There's no such thing as a market where bureaucrats set the price.
* AND AS FOR COMMAND ECONOMIES... (*SIGH*)... EVEN LEAVING ETHICS AND THE VERY CONCEPT OF PERSONAL FREEDOM ASIDE, HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT COMMAND ECONOMIES END UP IMPLODING IN THE END; SEE: UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS. (*SMIRK*)
Massachusetts state Senate President Therese Murray has proposed putting an end to "fee for service" medicine in the next five years and moving to a system of capitated managed care, where doctors receive a flat fee for each assigned patient. This "HMOs for all" approach is designed to lead to soft rationing -- which, in medical terms, means people will have a hard time finding doctors or seeing the ones they have. It's already started. In Massachusetts, one doctor in two is not accepting new patients. Waits for treatment in Boston are the highest in the nation.
Medicare's chief actuary predicts the same fate under ObamaCare. "It is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would be difficult to meet," Richard Foster wrote in a recent report.
* "DIFFICULT TO MEET," HUH? (*SNICKER*)
http://www.slate.com/id/2254955/
* HEADLINE:
Obama's Job Program: What did the White House promise Joe Sestak if he dropped out of the Senate race, and why won't they talk about it?
Offering a job in exchange for dropping out of a political race actually is illegal.
* I LIST THE LAWS HERE --
18 USC 211 - Sec. 211. Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office:
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.
18 USC 211 - Sec. 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments:
Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/24/gergen.oil.spill.leadership/
[O]ne hears that by Wednesday dawn, we will know whether BP's latest big try to stop the oil spill will work.
Is this really where we have come: that the fate of our precious coastlines and the waters off our coasts are in the hands of a single foreign-based company?
A month ago, it looked like the White House was on top of this problem, as Cabinet officers scurried here and there, the Coast Guard and others swung into action, there were talks with BP, and the president paid a personal visit. But increasingly, it has become apparent that the federal government may be present but is not in charge.
* ACTUALLY... NO... IT NEVER LOOKED LIKE THE WHITE HOUSE WAS ON TOP OF THE PROBLEM. I HATE TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD, BUT THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T POSSESS THE BOOMS THAT - BY LAW - THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE READY TO DEPLOY AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE. NO MATTER HOW OFTEN THE MEDIA IGNORE THIS REALITY, THERE IT IS!
[President Obama] keeps saying that BP bears ultimate responsibility. ... [But...] Ultimately it is not the responsibility of BP or any other company to protect American interests but the responsibility of the federal government. Although this disaster is not an existential threat, it could be argued that if the U.S. government had fought World War II in the same way it has fought the oil spill, we might well be speaking German now. Faced with a growing danger to our well-being, a WWII-type government would at minimum have:
Brought in the CEOs of all the major oil companies and charged them with the duty of an all-hands collaborative effort to stop the spill and help ward off the damage.
Brought in the best minds in the country, from universities and technology, for emergency efforts to find solutions.
Moved quickly to mobilize the National Guard and other military forces, if necessary, ensuring that they received the resources needed to protect our beaches.
Made a clear call to citizen volunteers to help where necessary.
Given Cabinet officers an ultimatum: Get this under control in the next 30 days, or else.
http://article.nationalreview.com/434840/plug-in-pablum/jerry-taylor-and-peter-van-doren
When politicians and environmental activists hammer the table about the need to break our so-called “addiction to oil”...they seldom spend much time explaining exactly how we should go about doing so.
About 70% of the oil we consume goes into the transportation sector, so wind, solar, and nuclear power plants are of little help.
Ethanol, methanol, compressed natural gas, all-electric vehicles, and hydrogen-powered fuel cells might someday do the trick, but at present, those fuels and technologies are far too expensive and environmentally problematic to substitute for gasoline.
Hybrid-electric vehicles such as the Toyota Prius are much beloved by the table-pounders, but alas, even under the optimistic assumption that a third of new cars sold in 2020 will be hybrids, U.S. oil consumption will be reduced by only 200,000 barrels a day - to less than 1% below what it would have otherwise been.
Despite these limitations, the addiction-busters are increasingly enamored with the next step in hybrid technology: plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles (PHEVs).
There are two basic kinds. One is the PHEV-10, the first of which is basically a Prius with a larger battery pack and power cord that is scheduled for release by Toyota in 2012. It will run for ten miles (thus the “10” in the name) on lithium-ion batteries before the gasoline engine kicks in and recharges it. The other type, the PHEV-40, is typified by the much-ballyhooed Chevy Volt, which has a 40-mile battery range and is scheduled for release later this year.
[A] new report from the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences, however, suggests that PHEVs may well be another in a long list of failed government attempts to redesign our cars. The study, titled “Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies - Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” is brutal. Simply put, these cars are not affordable. A PHEV-10 will likely be $8,800 more expensive than an equivalent midsize (non-hybrid) car when it comes to the market. A PHEV-40 will likely carry a $24,400 premium. These cars use less gas, but you’d have to own one for decades for the fuel savings to make up for the higher purchase price.
* WELL... I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW MUCH LESS GAS I'D HAVE TO BUY OVER LET'S SAY A 5-YEAR PERIOD WITH ONE OF THESE CARS VS. AN EQUIVALENT CLASS NON-HYBRID.
* IT'S AN INTERESTING ARTICLE. I SUGGEST READERS FOLLOW THE LINK AND READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY. I MAY READ THE ACTUAL REPORT.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a97c53a-681a-11df-a52f-00144feab49a.html
The commander of US forces in the Pacific has warned that China’s military is more aggressively asserting its territorial claims in regional waters.
Admiral Robert Willard told the Financial Times: “There has been an assertiveness that has been growing over time, particularly in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea.”
* OK. YOU'RE FOLLOWING THIS... RIGHT...???
* WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...
Adm Willard said the US viewed China’s growing influence in Asia as positive.
* IS IT ME...??? SERIOUSLY... IS IT ME...?!?!
Post a Comment