Monday, September 27, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, September 27, 2010


Just imagine...

You're a little kid again... riding in the back of dad's lincoln...

It's all about the memories...
Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1780:healthcare-reform-a-huge-misdiagnosis&catid=31:texas-straight-talk

* BY CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-TX)

This week marked six months since Congress passed the healthcare reform bill in what has become all-too-typical legislative chicanery. Those in power crafted a mammoth piece of legislation and rammed it through Congress under a dire sense of emergency.

Insisting on time enough to read the bill was dismissed as dangerous and crazy in a time of crisis. We were told that if we really wanted to see what was in the bill, we would have to pass it first. I cannot imagine the founding fathers intended for Congress to legislate in this manner. I would think if a Member is not absolutely certain the entire legislation meets Constitutional muster, the default vote should be “no” in accordance with our oath of office.

* ONE WOULD THINK...

[N]ow that Congress has had six months to read the new law, there is a significant amount of buyer’s remorse on Capitol Hill. The more constituents learn about the law, the more angry they become. 60% of Americans are now said to be in favor of repealing the entire thing. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to repeal a law than to pass a bill.

[I]n spite of the administration repeating over and over that this legislation would not increase costs for Americans, they are now saying they knew all along that it would. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that American families will see their premiums rise by an average of $2100 by 2016. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the cost of compliance is forcing some insurers to increase premiums by up to 20% as soon as next year!

[I]n spite of repeated claims from the administration that we could all keep our plans and doctors if we liked them, the administration’s own officials are now predicting that won’t be true for up to 117 million Americans who will lose their current plans. Major insurers are also dropping child-only plans because of mandates and price-fixing on such policies, leaving parents with fewer choices for their children, not more.

[I]n spite of claiming this law would contain government costs, not increase them, administration actuaries now predict it will increase healthcare spending by over $300 billion. This additional spending comes along with doctor shortages, fewer choices and more taxes. Perhaps worst of all, increases in labor costs because of health insurance mandates are discouraging employers from hiring new workers and [are] even triggering more layoffs.

Central planning never increases choices and quality or cuts costs as promised. Price controls and government mandates always create artificial scarcity.

Healthcare is not a right, nor a privilege. It is a product, like food, [housing] or clothing. As with any good or service, the free market regulation of supply and demand provides the optimum quality to the maximum number of people. Once we realize the problems we are trying to solve today were created by government intervention beginning in the 1960’s, we can begin to put patients and doctors back in control of healthcare, rather than third party oligopolies and government bureaucrats.

September 27, 2010 at 12:59 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703384204575509700366289206.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

Democrats may be dodging a vote on the Bush-era tax cuts, but that doesn't mean they don't want to raise taxes before November. Witness this week's showdown in Congress over increasing the tax on the profits of American companies with foreign subsidiaries...

[T]his tax increase is being promoted by President Obama...

Democrats around the country are making this issue their number one campaign theme...

How much more harm can this crowd do before it's run out of town?

Think about this: One of the two major parties in the world's supposedly leading economy is trying to hold on to its majority by running against foreign investment and the free flow of capital. This is banana republic behavior.

Under current tax law, American companies pay the corporate tax rate in the host country where the subsidiary is located and then pay the difference between the U.S. rate (35%) and the foreign rate when they bring profits back to the U.S. This is called deferral...

* BEAR IN MIND...

Most countries do not tax the overseas profits of their domestic companies.

Mr. Obama's plan would apply the U.S. corporate tax on overseas profits as soon as they are earned.

Mr. Obama believes that by increasing the U.S. tax on overseas profits, some companies may be less likely to invest abroad in the first place. In some cases that will be true. But the more frequent result will be that U.S. companies lose business to foreign rivals, U.S. firms are bought by tax-advantaged foreign companies, and some U.S. multinational firms move their headquarters overseas. They can move to Ireland (where the corporate tax rate is 12.5%) or Germany or Taiwan, or dozens of countries with less hostile tax climates.

The real problem is a U.S. corporate tax rate that over the last 15 years has become a huge competitive disadvantage. The only major country with a higher statutory rate is Japan, and even its politicians are debating a reduction.

A May 2010 study by University of Calgary economists Duanjie Chen and Jack Mintz for the Cato Institute using World Bank data finds that the effective combined U.S. federal and state tax rate on new capital investment, taking into account all credits and deductions, is 35%. The OECD average is 19.5% and the world average is 18%.

Companies make investment decisions for a variety of reasons, including tax rates. But as long as the U.S. corporate tax is more than 50% higher than it is elsewhere, companies will invest in other countries all other things being equal.

* AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW SUCH MISGUIDED POLICIES PLAY OUT IN THE REAL WORLD RECALL:

The 1986 tax reform abolished deferral of foreign shipping income earned by U.S. controlled firms. No other country taxed foreign shipping income. Did this lead to more business for U.S. shippers? Precisely the opposite. According to a 2007 study in Tax Notes by former Joint Committee on Taxation director Ken Kies, "Over the 1985-2004 period, the U.S.-flag fleet declined from 737 to 412 vessels, causing U.S.-flag shipping capacity, measured in deadweight tonnage, to drop by more than 50%."

Now the White House wants to repeat this experience with all U.S. companies.

[T]ax rates matter in a world of global competition and the U.S. tax regime is hurting American companies and workers. Mr. Obama would add to the damage.

* BTW...

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has warned that if the President's plan is enacted, Microsoft would move facilities and jobs out of the U.S.

September 27, 2010 at 1:33 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187204575102243491164702.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

With the economy still hobbling along, few industries have pricing power. But neither rain, nor sleet nor recession can stop the United States Postal Service, which wants to raise the price to deliver a first class letter to 46 cents from 44 cents.

* BTW...

Postal rate increases are supposed to rise under the law only at the rate of inflation, but this latest request is four times the increase in the consumer price index.

Next to the public schools, the postal service may be the most inefficient monopoly in America. The post office lost $3.5 billion last quarter, and losses are expected to be a cumulative $238 billion over the next decade, by its own admission.

Meanwhile, mail service to captive customers keeps deteriorating. The snail-mail system now often delivers not to the doorstep but to cluster boxes. It long ago ended twice daily delivery to most business and residential addresses, and it now wants to eliminate Saturday delivery - which, alas, probably makes sense given its declining revenues.

Mail volume has fallen by 20% since 2007 as tens of billions of letters, birthday wishes and bill payments are now emailed. This trend has long been foreseeable, but the postal bureaucracy hasn't adapted. The same economic forces have buffeted Federal Express, UPS and thousands of private local couriers, but somehow they still manage to turn a profit. The difference is that private companies know how to control costs. In 2009, postal service costs grew by 6% even as its revenues predictably fell. Labor costs suck up about 80 cents of every postal service dollar, so any hope of getting to break-even will require cutting the 600,000 postal work force and union benefits.

Postmaster General John Potter has done an admirable job cutting 36,000 jobs and closing some facilities. But these are band-aids. Congress is no help. Last year it let the postal service skip a $4 billion payment it was legally required to make to its pension and health-care fund, and this year it wants to forgive another $4 billion. This digs a deeper long-term fiscal hole and makes a federal bailout more likely, with unfunded retirement liabilities estimated at $90 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office.

* YOU UNDERSTAND, FOLKS... IF A PRIVATE BUSINESS - A PRIVATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT TEAM - WERE TO RUN SCAMS LIKE THIS AND THEY WERE CAUGHT THEY'D ALL GO TO JAIL. GOVERNMENT IN MANY WAYS IS AKIN TO A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.

Today the average postal worker makes $83,000 a year in wages and benefits, roughly 50% above the average compensation for private workers, according to federal wage data. Those benefits are already so generous the post office could save $560 million a year if the mailman paid the same 28% share of employee health premiums that other federal employees pay, which is still below the norm in the private economy.

Rubber stamping one more postal rate hike without at least a plan to cut labor costs only rewards union intransigence and postal service inefficiency. The time has come to free the mail by amending the private express statutes—which confer a legal monopoly on first-class mail—and allow expanded choices for letter delivery. Yes, we know the ritual claim is that this will end universal delivery, but even people living in remote areas would benefit from an injection of competition into the antiquated mail system.

If someone can deliver a letter for less than 46 cents or a postcard for less than 30 cents, by all means let them. Contract with Wal-Mart and grocery stores to sell stamps and collect packages. The postal service won't avoid its coming financial catastrophe by continuing to raise prices, but it might if it has to compete for customers.

September 27, 2010 at 1:55 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704654004575517723771092104.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESixthNews

President Barack Obama said Monday that he would like to extend the school year...

* WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...

...and raise teacher pay to help improve the U.S. education system.

(*SMIRK*)

* YEP. IT'S ALL ABOUT "PAYING OFF" THE UNIONS FOR THEIR POLITICAL SUPPORT. IT'S DISGUSTING.

Mr. Obama, in an interview on NBC's "Today," said students around the world usually go to school for a month longer each year than children in the U.S. Such a difference, he said, gives those students an advantage and gives their countries an economic edge.

* AGREED! BUT TEACHERS ARE ALREADY EARNING A YEAR'S PAY FOR FAR LESS THAN A YEAR'S WORK; WHY NOT SIMPLY DEMAND THAT TEACHERS PUT IN THE SAME HOURS OTHER PROFESSIONALS PUT IN FOR COMPARABLE PAY AND BENEFITS...???

[President Obama] said students need to be more proficient in math and science, areas in which U.S. students lag behind countries such as China.

* HMM... DO YOU THINK IT EVER OCCURRED TO OUR PRESIDENT THAT THE FOLKS WHO HAVE FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS OF SO BEEN RUNNING OUR NATION'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS (INTO THE GROUND!) ARE THE PEOPLE HE WANTS TO REWARD WITH RAISES?!?!

The president announced that his administration has set a goal of recruiting 10,000 science, technology, engineering and math teachers over the next two years to help the U.S. compete.

(*SNORT*)

* YEAH. IT'S GOOD TO HAVE "GOALS." BUT WHO IS IT WHOM THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTING LACK OF COMPETENT SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATH TEACHERS IN THE NECESSARY NUMBERS...?!?! DO YOU THINK IT'S OCCURRED TO OUR "EDUCATOR IN CHIEF" THAT IT'S UNION RULES THAT HAVE STOOD IN THE WAY OF RECRUITING AND RETAINING SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH TEACHERS...?!?!

Mr. Obama also was asked about his Race to the Top program, a program in which schools compete for funding.

* THE "EDUCATOR IN CHIEF" MIGHT WANNA SPEAK TO ONE OF THOSE MATH TEACHERS; APPARENTLY HE'S UNABLE TO DO THE SIMPLE MATH NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE NATION IS BROKE... DEEPLY IN DEBT... STAYING AFLOAT ONLY VIA OPERATING DEFICITS AND FIAT CURRENCY.

(*SMIRK*)

September 27, 2010 at 2:26 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704654004575517900163443826.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews

More than half of the oil that spilled into the sea from BP PLC's blown-out well remains in the Gulf of Mexico and is a "highly durable material" that is now buried along the coast and on the sea floor, a Florida State University professor told a spill commission on Monday.

* IT'S ORGANIC...!!!

"The remaining fraction—over 50% of the total discharge—is a highly durable material that resists further dissipation," oceanographer Ian MacDonald said in prepared testimony to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. "Much of it is now buried in marine and coastal sediments.

* THE OIL WAS "BURIED" PRIOR TO THE LEAK...!!!

(*HEADACHE*)

September 27, 2010 at 2:49 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://mcmorris.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=27&sectiontree=25,27&itemid=1717

Since 2008 the Fed has kept short-term interest rates at nearly 0% and bought about $1.4 trillion in mortgage-linked securities and debts. The main reason for these policies is to stimulate borrowing in the private sector, including - whenever necessary - shifting the cost of toxic assets from Wall Street to the taxpayer.

* YEP! ABSOLUTELY... POSITIVELY!

This hasn't worked, however.

* YOU'RE TELLING ME...!

In the second quarter of 2010, for instance, bank lending dropped by $96 billion, even while bank profits surged by $22 billion.

(*SMIRK*)

This seems counter-intuitive, but there's a strange logic to it: With the private sector engulfed in so much uncertainty because of the government's spending, borrowing, and bailouts, banks are reducing credit to businesses, while increasing their purchase of government debt. The banks take in low-cost funds from the Fed and then lend it back to the government at a higher rate. This produces a small profit that - when done on a large enough scale - can become quite lucrative, indeed.

* AMAZING! AN AMERICAN POLITICIAN - A MEMBER OF CONGRESS - WHO ACTUALLY GETS IT...!!!

Because of this distortion, the Fed's low interest rates make it harder - not easier - for the private sector to get credit.

Meanwhile, savers and investors - ordinary citizens who are building their nest egg for retirement - are getting little return on their money. Banks are paying 0.97% interest to their depositors - the lowest level since at least 1984, when the FDIC started keeping records.

The question is, why is the Fed taking this path which seems so destructive?

* BECAUSE THE OLIGARCHS AND THOSE CONNECTED TO THEM ARE CASHING IN TO AN EXTENT THAT NOT EVEN THE COMING INFLATION WILL BE ABLE TO DENT IN ANY APPRECIABLE WAY IN TERMS OF EFFECTING THEIR LIFESTYLES!

This is where things get interesting.

* To be continued...

September 27, 2010 at 8:19 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

As I mentioned earlier, the Fed's low-interest rate policy does have a clear benefactor: the federal government.

In the past two years, Washington D.C.'s appetite for borrowing has grown enormously. Since President Obama took office in January 2009, he has borrowed $2.6 trillion and he expects the government to borrow another $10 trillion over the next ten years. Keeping the costs of that borrowing down isn't just a luxury; it's a necessity. That's where the Fed comes in. By keeping interest rates low, it encourages banks to lend to the government, even at the expense of the private sector.

* BINGO...!!! (THIS CONGRESSWOMAN RODGERS IS ONE SHARP COOKIE!)

After all - from the bank's perspective - Treasuries are "safe" while the private sector - overburdened with higher taxes starting Jan. 1, new health care mandates, and the potential costs of cap and trade is "risky."

A flood of money is pouring into Washington.

* SO WE HAVE MONEY POURING INTO WALL STREET AND WASHINGTON WHILE MAIN STREET IS STARVED FOR INVESTMENT CAPITAL AND MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS GET WHACKED. (SO... HOW DO YOU LIKE OBAMA'S "CHANGE" SO FAR...)

But how much longer can that continue?

Think about it: In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 recession, the Fed kept interest rates extremely low for several years to "prime the pump" of the U.S. economy. But what some call "pump priming" others call "easy money." And a lot of that "easy money" was dumped into housing which was considered "safe" (after all, housing prices "always" go up).

When the housing bubble burst in 2007, it had devastating effects - effects we're still grappling with today.

Today, Treasuries are considered "safe" even while others worry about a "Treasury Bubble."

As we saw this year in Greece and the European Union, the idea that government debt is "safe" is illusory, and the shift from euphoria to fear - as people grow concerned about the government's ability to pay back their debts - can happen in the blink of an eye. Knowing that, the Fed's policy to make it easier for Washington to borrow money - $5 billion per day, over $1 trillion per year - seems dangerous, at best; reckless, at worst.

(*ENTHUSIASTIC NOD*) YEP. EXACTLY! BUT RECKLESS FOR WHOM? FOR THE TAXPAYER! THE MOVERS AND SHAKERS GET BAILED OUT WHILE THE REST OF US POOR SCHMUCKS ARE LEFT HOLDING THE BAG!

To grow our economy, we need a fiscal and monetary policy that encourages saving and investment; not spending and borrowing.

(*WILD APPLAUSE*)

The Fed can do its part by bringing interest rates closer to their historical average and stopping its plan - approved on Aug. 10 - to purchase long-term Treasury securities.

(*ENTHUSIASTIC NOD*)

Congress and the White House can do its part by implementing a series of tax reforms to encourage savings and investment. For starters, we should extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 which are set to expire in about 100 days. Then we should undertake more comprehensive reforms.

No country in history became rich by overspending and borrowing; the key to growth has always been savings and investment. Let's renew our commitment - painfully absent over the past two years - to encourage the most fundamental American virtues - savings and investment - and discourage the vices that have mired us in stagnation: overspending and debt.

We can do better, we must do better, and we need to do it now.

September 27, 2010 at 8:28 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obamacare_redistribution_of_health_TMnDtf46D3hnBOKYee7oGL

We're in for a massive redistribution of health resources.

New projections from the federal Cen ters for Medicare and Medicaid paint a stark picture of the impact of the ObamaCare law:

Every year through 2019, employers and consumers will face higher premiums than if the law hadn't passed.

In 2014, a staggering 85.2 million people - 31% of all non-elderly Americans - will be on Medicaid and CHIP - the Medicaid-like children's health program. This accounts for the majority of those who'd gain health coverage. Amazingly, only 3% more people will have private insurance.

President Obama pledged to reduce the number of uninsured by making health plans affordable - but that's not how his law actually does it. Rather, it loosens Medicaid eligibility by raising the income ceiling and barring asset tests. In short, it pushes our country toward a welfare state. Often, workers put up with low salaries to get good health benefits for their families. But the new law stipulates that Medicaid recipients get the same benefits that employers are required to provide workers. That will diminish the incentive to work - another step toward reversing welfare reform. Why stick it out on the job if the benefits are just as good in Medicaid?

ObamaCare is the health component of an overall move to make more people dependent on government. In the last two years, we've seen a breathtaking expansion of food stamps, Medicaid, welfare and housing programs. One in six Americans depends on them. That's partly due to the recession - but the Obama administration projects roughly doubling spending on these programs by 2018, even in years it predicts the economy will be booming.

* WISE UP, FOLKS; OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST. DON'T BE FOOLED BY HIS WORDS; PAY ATTENTION TO HIS ACTIONS.

Figures don't lie. The projections from the Obama administration's own agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, depict the truth in stark terms. To expand Medicaid, the Obama law eviscerates Medicare. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul...

The new projections show that in 2019, for example, ObamaCare cuts Medicare funding by $86.4 billion... Richard Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, has spoken with brave bluntness about the possible impact, warning that some hospitals might stop taking Medicare.

* THIS IS ALL THE SET-UP. OBAMA AND THE DEMS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. THEY'RE DELIBERATELY SETTING UP THE SYSTEM FOR COLLAPSE. WHY? BECAUSE ONLY IF THE PRESENT SYSTEM IS COLLAPSED WILL THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO "REBUILD" IT ALONG SINGLE-PAYER SOCIALIZED MEDICINE LINES. REMEMBER THE LEFT'S SLOGAN: "NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE."

September 27, 2010 at 8:28 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/24/black-panther-case-red-hot/

Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez has an obligation to clean house at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

Friday's testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights came from much-decorated Justice Department veteran Christopher Coates, a hero of the civil rights legal community when he was a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The election of President Obama," [Coates testified under oath], "brought to positions of influence and power with the Civil Rights Division many of the very people who had demonstrated hostility to the concept of equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act."

Mr. Coates named names and gave numerous examples of how the division and its political supervisors refuse to enforce civil rights laws to protect white victims against black perpetrators.

He said his supervisor, Loretta King, then serving in a political position as acting assistant attorney general, specifically forbade him from asking prospective employees if they would be willing to enforce civil rights laws in a race-neutral manner.

Additionally, he testified that the department under Mr. Perez has refused to enforce federal law that requires states to remove ineligible voters - including dead people and incarcerated felons - from their voting rolls.

Mr. Coates officially recommended a full year ago that the department enforce the law against at least eight states that were flagrantly non-compliant, but Mr. Perez and the Obama team ignored the issue.

Mr. Coates now has confirmed sworn testimony from other witnesses that Mr. Perez's team did and continues to act in a race-biased manner.

This broad issue of deliberately unequal enforcement of the law is the main point of the Black Panther investigation.

The evidence points to racially unequal enforcement - and a dangerous abrogation of justice.

September 27, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)