http://wcbstv.com/politics/nys.goverment.shutdown.2.1745114.htmlChaos and anarchy. That's what New York Gov. David Paterson is warning...* THE OBAMA RECOVERY CONTINUES... (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)The clowns in the state Legislature, now deadlocked for 71 days on the budget, are ready to take down the "big tent" and bring state government to a standstill. At least that's what Paterson thinks."No one knows the full ramifications of a government shutdown," said Paterson. "It would create unimaginable chaos around the state and the greater metropolitan areas."Such chaos includes closing all state parks, motor vehicles offices, courts, and even the lottery.* NOTE: BOTH THE ABOVE SLAM "CLOWNS IN THE LEGISLATURE" AND THAT LAST FEW WORDS ABOUT 'EVEN THE LOTTERY" ARE THE AUTHOR'S - NOT MINE. (*GRIN*)The governor is in this pickle, in part, because wild cards like Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. (D-Bronx) and possibly scandal-scarred Sen. Pedro Espada (D-Bronx) might not go along.Sources said the next emergency bill from Paterson will have up to $350 million in cuts to human services and mental health. But Republicans, who could become Paterson's new allies in the budget battle, aren't satisfied with that. They want $750 million in new cuts like: Delaying the 10% welfare grant increases...(*THUMBS UP*)Withholding welfare from those who don't comply with employment requirements...(*THUMBS UP*)Reducing the personal needs allowance of people in drug and alcohol programs(*THUMBS UP*)Diaz will not go along with that. The other renegade, Espada...said, "I would vote no if such a massive cut were included...Paterson called both men "thugs." * IT'S A HELL OF A THING WHEN DAVID PATTERSON IS "THE GOOD DEMOCRAT." (*SNORT*)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575285054016539016.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecondBucketCongress is at it again, doing the only thing it seems to know how to do: spending more of the taxpayers' money. This time it is using a collection of popular "must-pass" tax provisions to hide huge new spending increases. These provisions, better known as the "tax extenders," are a collection of about 45 long-established tax provisions - such as the R&D credit for businesses and the deductions for property taxes and tuition expenses for individuals - that expire each year unless Congress extends them. ... Not wanting to "let an opportunity" go to waste, [the Pelosi/Reid led ]Congress has larded the extenders bill (H.R. 4213) full of completely unrelated spending increases and tax hikes.According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill will increase spending by $174 billion and increase taxes by more than $40 billion over 10 years. The result is an irresponsible increase of the cumulative deficit of $134 billion during the same period.* IT'S A FRIGG'N NIGHTMARE, PEOPLE. YES, THE RINOS HAD TO BE THROWN OUT ON THEIR ASSES IN THE 2006 ELECTION - AND I MYSELF HELD MY NOSE AND VOTED FOR LEFT-WING DEMOCRAT JOHN HALL - BUT UNDERSTAND... IF THE IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING OF THE BUSH/RINO YEARS WAS THE FRYING PAN, THE AGE OF PELOSI, REID, AND OBAMA IS THE FIRE!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703302604575295021352835874.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTopThe White House is launching its latest Willy Loman campaign to resell ObamaCare, helped by $125 million that unions and other interest groups say they'll spend to make Americans love their new entitlement. Seniors in particular should curb their enthusiasm.* IN RETURN THE UNIONS EXPECT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS TO USE TAXPAYER MONEY TO BAILOUT UNDERFUNDED UNION PENSION FUNDS... (*SIGH*)"First and foremost," President Obama told seniors on Tuesday in Wheaton, Maryland, "what you need to know is that the guaranteed Medicare benefits that you've earned will not change, regardless of whether you receive them through Medicare or Medicare Advantage." First and foremost, nothing about that sentence is true.* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS, CONSERVATIVES... DOESN'T IT OFFEND ALL OF YOU WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES LIES RIGHT TO YOUR FACE...???Advantage gives almost one of four seniors private insurance options, and Democrats are about to cut its funding by some $136 billion over the next decade even as health costs rise. The Congressional Budget Office says these cuts will cause enrollment to drop by 35%, the Administration's own Medicare actuaries predict 50%, and both outfits take for granted that benefits will also decline.The President knows this, so he and his fellow Democrats are gearing up to blame these cuts on . . . insurers, rather than on their own policies.* ELECTING BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA TO THE PRESIDENCY WAS A DISASTER. (THE 2008 PROBLEM WAS... ELECTING MCCAIN WOULD HAVE LED TO EVEN WORSE LONG TERM DISASTER...)
http://senateconservatives.com/site/post/247/247If President Obama's motto is "Yes, we can," the Constitution's is "No, you can't."When a reporter asked House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a press conference last year where the Constitution granted Congress the authority to enact an individual health-insurance mandate, she answered, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Speaker Pelosi then dismissed the question and moved on to the next reporter.This exchange illustrates the way "yes we can" liberals treat the Constitution: They simply ignore it when it gets in the way of their big-government bailouts and takeovers.The Constitution is full of no's. It is by telling the government what it cannot do that the Constitution protects our freedoms. The Founders loathed tyranny and sought to erect a government ruled by law, not people. As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, "in America the law is king."* AT LEAST IT SHOULD BE... (*PURSED LIPS*)Saying no is necessary to uphold the freedoms on which our nation was founded. Republicans shouldn't flinch when they are criticized as being the "party of no." * INDEED... (*NOD*)The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or the right to assemble and petition government. Americans are allowed to keep and bear arms because the Bill of Rights says that this right "shall not be infringed." It also says no to unreasonable search and seizure, and to cruel and unusual punishment. The Fifth Amendment says that the government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process, and that private property cannot be taken without just compensation. The Eighth Amendment says no to excessive bail and fines, and the Tenth Amendment says powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution go to the states or the people. The Bill of Rights says no to the federal government over and over again.* AMEN!Using the Constitution's amendment-making process, Americans have added even more no's over the years: The 13th Amendment says no to slavery; the 15th and 19th Amendments say no one can be denied the right to vote based on race or sex.Every clause of Article 1, Section 9, which is all about the limits on Congress, contains the words "no" or "shall not."There's one "no" in particular that Congress should have paid attention to in the fall of 2008, when the banking crisis reared its ugly head: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." That means only Congress can appropriate money to be spent.But Washington didn't say no when President Bush's Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, came asking the Democratic Congress to give Treasury a $700 billion blank check. Paulson said the money would be used to buy up toxic assets under a Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. In the end, only a portion of the money was used to do that.The rest of the money became a slush fund for the president, greatly inflating the power of the executive office. TARP funds were used to bail out GM, Chrysler, and auto suppliers without a single vote from Congress. Because too many elected members of Congress didn't abide by the Constitution, one bad bailout led to another at the discretion of the executive branch.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37445* PAT BUCHANAN - BRILLIANT AS ALWAYS!When Sarah Palin, in a rambling lakeside announcement last July in Wasilla, said she was quitting as governor of Alaska because of the abuse she and her family were taking from petty politicians and a feral press, she was written off as dead by the pundits.* BUT NOT BY YOURS TRULY...! (*GRIN*) (*WINK*) THERE'S A REASON THIS BLOG IS TITLED "USUALLY RIGHT!" (*CHUCKLE*) I SAID IT THEN AND I'M REPEAT IT NOW - PALIN'S RESIGNATION AND APPOINTMENT OF A HAND-PICKED SUCCESSOR WAS BRILLIANT!Though the media [and idiots who parrot the MSM line] have painted Palin as a ditz, no politician in memory has conducted a more brilliant pre-presidential campaign, if that is what she is about, than the lady who calls herself "the Mama Grizzly."Consider Tuesday. Palin had gambled big by going into South Carolina to endorse Nikki Haley, a state legislator running last for the GOP nomination for governor - against the lieutenant governor, the attorney general and a congressman. Haley instantly vaulted into the lead, taking 49% on primary day, and is headed for the governor's mansion - in a Palmetto State that holds what is often the decisive primary in presidential nomination runs. Nikki [Haley] was Sarah's kind of conservative...But Terry Branstad is not. This ex-governor of Iowa, who served four terms ending in 1998, is a moderate. Yet Palin endorsed him in his comeback bid over a conservative backed by Dr. James Dobson and Mike Huckabee.* AND YOU FOLKS KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT "THE REV." HUCKABEE... (*SMIRK*)After his victory Tuesday, Branstad, too, is headed for the governor's mansion in a state that hosts the first big battle of 2012 - the Iowa caucuses.The endorsement of Branstad suggests Palin, a politician of principle, has a pragmatic streak. She acts not only out of instinct but cold calculation. How else to explain the Branstad endorsement over a social conservative than a decision to befriend a future GOP governor in the first battleground state of 2012?* To be continued...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a colleague of Palin's in the GOP Governor's Association, was facing an uphill battle against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who had the backing of Dick Cheney - Mr. National Security and the most visible national Republican of 2009. Cheney went to Texas for Hutchison. Palin went in for Perry, who had scrambled to the Tea Party right, even raising the specter of secession. Perry won in a walk. Palin 1, Cheney 0.(*SHRUG*) (*SMILE*) * HEY... AND AS YOU FOLKS KNOW, I LIKE CHENEY! BUT, HEY... PERRY WAS MY CANDIDATE AS WELL AS PALIN'S. (*WINK*)Perry will lead the second-largest bloc of delegates to the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla. The largest will come from California, where Carly Fiorina -- another one of Palin's mama grizzlies - won the GOP Senate nod on Tuesday. Palin had endorsed her over the more conservative Chuck DeVore.In Kentucky, where the establishment backed Mitch McConnell's handpicked successor to Sen. Jim Bunning, Trey Grayson, and Cheney went in for Grayson, Palin endorsed Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who has a loyal libertarian following. With Palin and Tea Party backing [and the backing of Jim DeMint!], Rand won. The Pauls, too, owe a debt to Sarah. Palin 2, Cheney 0.In Arizona, Palin, who is closer in her politics to J.D. Hayworth, came to campaign for embattled Sen. John McCain, who chose her as his running mate and made her a star.McCain's aides have been anonymously trashing Sarah as an airhead who had caused the ticket's defeat. She repaid their disloyalty with unqualified loyalty to McCain, who is unlikely to forget what she did, at some cost to herself.* AND WHILE I CAN UNDERSTAND THE "LOYALTY" ASPECT... I HATE MCCAIN AND I BELIEVE PALIN IS WRONG. THAT SAID, I DON'T BELIEVE PALIN SHARES MY HATRED OF MCCAIN AND SO I'LL GIVE HER A PASS WHILE STILL KEEPING SCORE. (*NOD*)But it was Sarah's first intervention, in New York's 23rd Congressional District, where she showed a boldness that marks the better politicians.Liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava was handpicked by the party to face Democrat Bill Owens in the Republican district. Doug Hoffman, endorsed by the Conservative Party, jumped in. Newt Gingrich urged Republicans to stand by the pro-choice, pro-gay-rights Scozzafava.Palin went rogue and declared for Hoffman, who surged past Scozzafava, who fell to third, bowed out and endorsed Owens, who won by two. That was the first manifestation of Palin Power. Palin 1, Newt 0.Looking over Palin's endorsements -- McCain over J.D., Fiorina over DeVore, Branstad over Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts - the lady is not running for Mrs. Conservative. The one explanation that makes the most sense of all the seeming inconsistencies in endorsements is that Mama Grizzly is thinking about moving the Wasilla brood into the big house.* COULD BE... (*NOD*) WHILE IT GOES AGAINST THE GRAIN, I ADMIT THAT SOMETIMES THE ENDS DO INDEED JUSTIFY THE MEANS.* STAY TUNED...
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/536976/201006101831/Tell-President-Kick-Line-Forms-On-Left.aspxZogby International asked questions about economics of nearly 5,000 people. George Mason University economist Dan Klein co-authored a report on the responses given to eight basic economic questions. (Correct answers and "not sure" responses were ignored - only flatly incorrect responses were counted.)Do housing restrictions increase the price of housing? The answer is yes. Whether the restrictions are good or bad is a separate issue. But restrictions on any good increase the price of that good - whether houses or horseshoes.Do minimum wages increase unemployment? The answer is yes. Whether one accepts this as a worthy trade-off is a separate question.Is our standard of living higher than it was 30 years ago? It is. Whether we are "addicted" to oil or facing cataclysmic "global warming" is a separate issue.The other questions involved licensing, rent control, the definition of a monopoly, the definition of exploitation, and whether free trade leads to unemployment.Respondents self-identified as progressive/very liberal, liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative, or libertarian. Who did better? "On every question," wrote Klein, "the left did much worse.On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%).On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%)."Maybe those with more education performed better? No, the report said. "We work with three levels of schooling: (1) high school or less; (2) some college (but not a degree); (3) a college degree or more. In our data, economic enlightenment is not correlated with going to college."(*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*)Republicans in the eight-question economics poll averaged 1.61 incorrect answers. Democrats averaged 4.59 wrong answers.(*SHRUG*)
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/536975/201006101831/Madoff-Like-Political-Shenanigans-Put-US-Taxpayers-In-Harms-Way.aspxSuppose Bernie Madoff or some character of similar ilk had a system that generated $2.5 trillion in excess cash for a trust fund so that the $2.5 trillion could eventually be paid to retired people.But Mr. Madoff instead spent the entire $2.5 trillion. And in place of the $2.5 trillion Mr. Madoff stuffed the trust fund with IOUs that he would need to redeem to provide benefits to those retired. Mr. Madoff, of course, didn't have the funds to redeem the IOUs.It's possible that someone engaging in such practices could face prison time.* OBVIOUSLY MY REGULARS KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING... BUT THINK ABOUT IT... THE VAST, VAST, VAST MAJORITY OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS HAVE NO IDEA THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS A PONZI SCHEME. IT'S NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOL. IT'S RARELY ADDRESSED BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. BUT EVEN THOSE OF YOU WHO COUNT YOURSELVES AS LIBERALS KNOW IT'S TRUE.Congress implemented a similar scheme with the Social Security tax revenue that was in excess of the Social Security outlays. The Greenspan National Commission on Social Security Reform recommended an increase in the Social Security payroll tax in 1983. That tax increase was designed so that its revenue would exceed the amount necessary to fund current benefits and accumulate in a Trust Fund, which did occur.However, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, not a savings system, so the excess tax revenue could be spent by Congress, and it was. Had Social Security been altered to a savings plan, the $2.5 trillion could have been saved, like a 401(k). Instead it was spent and Congress stuffed the trust fund with non-negotiable U.S. Treasury debt.Now the Treasury needs to repay that $2.5 trillion to the Social Security Trust since the funds are needed to provide benefits to Social Security recipients. The rub: The funds have already been spent, so taxpayers will need to again pay that $2.5 trillion in the form of higher Social Security taxes.As Mr. Madoff learned, one can't both spend it and provide benefits to those counting on it.* OH... BUT MADOFF ISN'T PRESIDENT - BARAK OBAMA IS - RIGHT...??? KEEP READING...The February 2010 Economic Report of the President kicked this federal outstanding debt sleight-of-hand further down the road. The projected 2010 government debt-to-GDP ratio for the U.S. is listed at 65%, Page 147. The authors of this report conveniently exclude the approximate $4.5 trillion in Treasury debt held by federal government agencies such as Social Security.(*SMIRK*)This administration and Congress are engineering a government spending and entitlement train wreck that is bearing down on U.S. taxpayers. The authors of the 2010 Economic Report understand the implication of these excessive federal spending policies. Note the sentence on Page 148: "And higher taxes can reduce incentives to work, save and invest." Global investors understand this slight-of-hand being run by the Congress. And this scheme is working for now as the government is in a less egregious financial situation than some countries in Europe. But global investors will eventually have alternatives to U.S. Treasury debt.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)http://www.slate.com/id/2256461/pagenum/all/#p2* SEE ALSO: http://www.robertbryce.com/node/360 (THIS GUY'S BLOG IS WELL WORTH BOOKMARKING.)The most disgusting aspect of the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico isn’t the video images of oil-soaked birds or the incessant blather from pundits about what BP or the Obama administration should be doing to stem the flow of oil. Instead, it’s the ugly spectacle of the corn ethanol scammers doing all they can to capitalize on the disaster so that they can justify an expansion of the longest-running robbery of taxpayers in U.S. history. * YEP... (*NOD*)The blowout of BP’s Macondo well has given the corn-ethanol industry yet another opportunity to push their fuel adulterant on the American consumer. And unfortunately, the Obama administration appears ready and willing to foist yet more of the corrosive, environmentally destructive, low-heat-energy fuel on motorists.In its 2005 energy bill, [the then-RINO] Congress dramatically increased the mandates (and subsidies) for corn ethanol.(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)On April 28, six days after the Deepwater Horizon rig sank, President Obama visited an ethanol plant in Missouri and declared that “there shouldn’t be any doubt that renewable, homegrown fuels are a key part of our strategy for a clean-energy future.” He went on, saying “I didn’t just discover the merits of biofuels like ethanol when I first hopped on the campaign bus.”The strongest indication that an ethanol bailout is imminent came last Friday when Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (former governor of Iowa, the nation’s biggest ethanol-producing state) said, “I’m very confident that we’re going to see an increase in the blend rate.”The “blend rate” refers to the federal rule that limits ethanol blends to no more than 10 percent for standard automobiles. Commonly known as “E10,” the fuel contains 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent alcohol. The Obama administration bailout, which would come via approval from the EPA, will likely allow gasoline retailers to blend up to 15 percent ethanol into U.S. gasoline supplies. * MEANING LOWER GAS MILEAGE AND MORE PAIN AT THE PUMP FOR AVERAGE AMERICANS - REGRESSIVE PAIN AT THAT!* To be continued...
Continuing... (Part 2 of 2) --* OH... AND BTW... The U.S. now has about 250 million motor vehicles. Of that number, only about 7.5 million are designed to burn gasoline containing more than 10 percent ethanol. And there is evidence that even that even 10 percent ethanol may be too much for the other 242.5 million. Last year, Toyota recalled more than 200,00 Lexus vehicles because of internal component corrosion that was caused by ethanol-blended fuel.In addition to problems with their cars, consumers may soon find that more ethanol in their gasoline will result in the fouling of smaller engines. The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, which represents companies that make lawnmowers, snowblowers, chainsaws and the like...says that increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline “could damage millions of forestry, lawn and garden, and other small engine products currently housed in consumers’ garages.” The damage caused by increasing use of ethanol won’t be limited to ruined boats, snowblowers, weed wackers, and lawnmowers. The EPA itself has admitted that increased use of ethanol in gasoline will result in worse air quality. You read that correctly.[T]he agency in charge of protecting the environment in America concluded in April 2007 that total emissions of key air pollutants like volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides will increase because of expanded use of ethanol. (*HEADACHE*)Yes, it’s madness. And none of this even considers the effect that the ethanol ripoff is having on food supplies. Earlier this year, the Earth Policy Institute estimated that in 2009, the U.S. ethanol industry consumed 107 million tons of grain, or about 25 percent of total domestic grain production. That amount of grain, said the Institute, “was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels.”BP’s disaster in the Gulf of Mexico will force the offshore oil and gas industry to dramatically improve its safety procedures. That’s a good thing. But if it only serves to strengthen the corn ethanol industry, it will be a squandered opportunity, and another tragedy for the nation.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15256857U.S. Border Patrol agents in the El Paso Sector have been targets in 29 rock-throwing attacks since October, according to agency statistics. Officials said attacks on agents on the border have increased and have become increasingly dangerous. In fiscal-year 2008, the agency reported 35 attacks against agents, including 34 rock-throwing incidents and one physical attack.In fiscal-year 2009, the El Paso Border Patrol reported 31 rock-throwing incidents, two attacks with weapons, a vehicle attack and five physical attacks. Nationally, attacks against Border Patrol agents have increased, said T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, an advocacy organization for agents. He said more than 1,000 attacks were reported in the 2008 and 2007 fiscal years.* BOTH 2007 AND 2008 WERE BUSH YEARS... (*GRITTING MY TEETH*)* THESE WERE THE YEARS THAT "THE OLD MCCAIN" WAS PUSHING "COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM" - I.E. AMNESTY. (*SMIRK*)
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15265746A Juárez [Mexico] teenager shot and killed Monday by a U.S. Border Patrol agent had a history of smuggling immigrants across the border, federal law enforcement officials said Wednesday.U.S. federal law enforcement officials say Hernández was among youthful guides who help "coyotes," or smugglers, sneak undocumented immigrants across the border. Federal law enforcement officials said Hernández was a known juvenile smuggler listed on records from the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, which includes photos and fingerprints. Officials said that Hernández was on the El Paso juvenile smugglers most-wanted list at the time of his death and that the teen's most recent charge of smuggling undocumented immigrants into the U.S. was in 2009.Border Patrol agents have said that juveniles often serve as illegal crossing guides because they can avoid full prosecution.An FBI spokeswoman told The Associated Press said that Mexican soldiers pointed their rifles and chased away U.S. Border Patrol agents after the shooting.
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/44-energy-and-environment/639-obamas-weatherization-assistance-program-yet-another-example-of-fraud-and-abuse[Meet] Cathy Zoi.[Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency Cathy Zoi that is.]Her resume could serve as a template for bright, motivated ideologues searching for a career path that combines government service with personal financial gain. Along with stints working in the Clinton White House and EPA, she helped Al Gore found The Alliance for Climate Protection, a non-profit group that Gore claims receives his earnings from green technology investments. (Gore felt the need to make that statement in response to questions by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asking how much he stood to gain from Obama-engineered climate change legislation.) [W]hile Gore’s moralizing-for-profit is merely self-serving, Zoi’s financial stakes in two green technology companies put her in a potentially corrupting position. According to her financial disclosure statements, Assistant Secretary Zoi owns between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of shares in Landis+Gyr, while her husband is an officer with stock options at Serious Materials. Landis+Gyr is the "preferred provider" for so-called “smart meters” that allow a power company to monitor and limit the amount of energy a home uses. (You read that right.) Serious Materials was praised in a speech by President Obama for opening a manufacturing plant in Pittsburgh that makes more energy efficient windows. Or, as they say at DOE, “weatherized” windows. In both cases, Zoi stands to benefit financially from pushing the policies she is paid to promote. [T]hat’s the key to understanding the Obama Administration’s relentless push for more spending and less transparency. In many ways, Democrats now are doing with environmental policy what they accused Republicans of doing with the financial sector: installing industry cronies in regulatory positions to set up a system they can exploit when they leave office. Except that with people like Zoi, they don’t even have to wait to leave public service before cashing in! No matter what the sales pitch is coming out of the Obama Administration about the benefits of green technology, job creation or healthcare, you can be sure that somewhere in the halls of government there is a well-placed bureaucrat ready to make a nice return on the taxpayers’ investment. [T]he Department of Energy’s inaptly named “Weatherization Assistance Program”...created in 1976 to help low income families reduce their energy bills...is administered by the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy...along came The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Otherwise known as the $787 billion economic “stimulus” bill, the Act set aside $5 billion worth of weatherization services to expand WAP’s economic footprint.
http://article.nationalreview.com/435971/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr* CLICK... READ... BE INFORMED...!!!Because America has the most guns, multiple-victim public shootings are an American thing, right? No, not at all. Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, most of whose countries have much tougher gun laws than the United States, has experienced many of the worst multiple-victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns. * AGAIN... READ THE ARTICLE... VIEW THE FACTS, NOT THE SPIN OF THE MSM.(*SHRUG*)
http://article.nationalreview.com/436055/wanting-to-abolish-the-department-of-education-is-not-radical/mona-charenIt is not kooky to favor the elimination of the Department of Education. (*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)That this proposal is routinely labeled “extremist” is a reminder of the one-way ratchet that operates in government. Enshrine something in a federal agency, and it becomes sacrosanct. Democrats cheerlead for federal programs because they are the party of government, and Republicans quietly go along because they’re afraid.Republicans...need not be intimidated. There are hundreds of federal programs that could be eliminated tomorrow with only the happiest consequences for the nation. And yes, the whole Department of Education could be scrapped. It vacuums up money and produces . . . what exactly?* WELL...???The Department of Education was created as a straight political payoff to the teachers’ unions by Pres. Jimmy Carter (in return for their 1976 endorsement). According to the National Center for Education Statistics, DOE’s original budget, in 1980, was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars), and it employed 450 people. By 2000, it had increased to $34.1 billion......and by 2007 it had more than doubled to $73 billion. The budget request for fiscal 2011 is $77.8 billion, and the department employs 4,800.* SEE HOW THIS WORKS, FOLKS... (*SMIRK*)All of this spending has done nothing to improve American education. Between 1973 and 2004, a period in which federal spending on education more than quadrupled, mathematics scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress rose just 1% for American 17-year-olds. Between 1971 and 2004, reading scores remained completely flat.(*SIGH*)Comparing educational achievement with per-pupil spending among states also calls into question the value of increasing expenditures. While high-spending Massachusetts had the nation’s highest proficiency scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, low-spending Idaho did very well, too. South Dakota ranks 42nd in per-pupil expenditures but eighth in math performance and ninth in reading. The District of Columbia, meanwhile, with the nation’s highest per-pupil expenditures ($15,511 in 2007), scores dead last in achievement.* HMM... MUST BE JUST A "COINCIDENCE" THAT BY CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE CONGRESS IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (*SMIRK*)Like the WIC program, which was originally aimed at low-income pregnant and nursing women and babies but has expanded to cover 50% of American infants, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was designed to aid low-income and minority populations in 1965, but has since morphed into the No Child Left Behind law, which affects every student in the country.* AHH, YES... NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND... THE COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE LATE EDWARD M. KENNEDY.(*ROLLING MY EYES*) The Education Department has done more than waste money. Busy [and highly paid!] [Washington] bureaucrats have created reams of paperwork for teachers and administrators, pushed dubious curricula, such as bilingual education, and adopted manifold extra-educational missions. The department’s website lists hundreds of programs that bear little to no relation to schooling, including the “Spinal Cord Injuries Model Systems Program,” the “Small Business Innovation Research Program,” “Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights,” the “Predominantly Black Institutions Program,” “Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners,” “Institute for International Public Policy,” “Grants to States to Improve Management of Drug and Violence Prevention Programs,” “Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse,” and the “Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program,” to name just a handful. No one checks. There is no accountability. There are no consequences for failure, except perhaps requests for even greater funding next year.The Department of Education is a great, burbling vat of waste, and it is not extremist to say so.* AMEN!
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4eJur2Os-w4MzU2ZGZjOTYtY2UwZC00OGFhLTkzODEtMjlkMDBiNjE4YmI4&hl=en* YOU FOLKS MIGHT WANNA (*SMIRK*) TAKE A LOOK AT THIS...* AGAIN... THE SO-CALLED "PROGRESSIVES" SEEM INTENT ON DELIBERATELY DESTROYING PRIVATE HEALTHCARE.
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-11/pension-plans-go-broke-as-public-payrolls-expand-joe-mysak.htmlSeven states will run out of money to pay public pensions by 2020. That hasn’t stopped them from hiring new employees.The seven are Illinois, Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, Hawaii, Louisiana and Oklahoma, according to Joshua D. Rauh of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Combined, they added 9,700 workers to both state and local government payrolls between December 2007 and April of this year, says the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. * THIS IS THE FUTURE, MY FRIENDS... (*SIGH*)Employment peaked in December 2007 at 115.6 million, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. During the subsequent two years, companies shed 8.5 million workers, or 7.3%.State and local governments, by contrast, kept hiring right through August 2008. From a peak of 19.8 million, these governments have reduced headcount by 231,000, or 1.2%.* THE AGE OF PELOSI, REID, AND OBAMA... THE AGE OF DEMOCRAT ASCENDANCY. (*SIGH*)
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4eJur2Os-w4MzU2ZGZjOTYtY2UwZC00OGFhLTkzODEtMjlkMDBiNjE4YmI4&hl=en* YOU FOLKS MIGHT WANNA (*SMIRK*) TAKE A LOOK AT THIS...
Post a Comment