Saturday, February 12, 2011

Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., Feb. 12 & 13, 2011


Beautiful... simply beautiful...
Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704709304576124132413782592.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Friday's resignation of Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, one of the board's inflation watchdogs, means that Mr. Bernanke's easy-money inclinations will have even fewer internal checks.

* CONGRESS MUST STOP BERNANKE. THAT'S OUR ONLY HOPE. (FOR "AMUSEMENT" GOOGLE THE LAST BERNANKE CONFIRMATION VOTE AND SEE HOW MANY RINOs VOTED FOR BERNANKE'S REAPPOINTMENT. SICKENING...)

February 12, 2011 at 10:27 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704329104576138851833497500.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

Seahawk Drilling Inc., one of the largest operators of shallow-water rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, on Friday said it would seek bankruptcy protection and sell its assets to a competitor, blaming the Obama administration for a crippling regulatory environment in the aftermath of the BP PLC oil spill.

(*SIGH*)

The deal represents the second significant consolidation among U.S. rig contractors in a week, following Ensco PLC's acquisition of Pride International on Feb. 7.

* MORE CONSOLIDATION... GREAT....

(*SMIRK*)

On Friday, Mr. Stilley, in a statement, blamed the recent slowdown in Gulf drilling for a blow that caused the company to pursue Chapter 11 protection.

Seahawk was "forced to seek strategic alternatives only after an unprecedented decline in the issuance of offshore drilling permits following the Macondo blowout," Mr. Stilley said...

* FOLKS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I NEED TO SAY IT. OBAMA WANTS FUEL COSTS TO BE HIGH SO AS TO DISCOURAGE USAGE. OF COURSE THIS MEANS A LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING FOR AMERICANS... PAY MORE, GET LESS... BUT THAT'S OBAMANOMICS FOR YOU.

Jim Noe, senior vice president of Hercules [Offshore Inc., the company which is buying Seahawk,] has been one of the industry's most outspoken critics of the new regulatory agenda. Shallow water drillers have argued they were unfairly punished for an accident that happened in deep water. "The unfortunate but inevitable has finally occurred: the federal government's direct assault on business confidence in the shallow water sector has claimed its first victim," he said.

* OBAMA STRIKES AGAIN! (GOD... IF ONLY HE WOULD FOLLOW MUBARAK INTO EXILE...)

Shallow-water rig contractors like Seahawk rely on 30- to 60-day contracts with energy companies, making their revenue stream more vulnerable to disruption than deep-water drillers that sign long-term contracts. Seahawk fell victim to longer processing times for drilling plans and applications as federal regulators introduced more stringent requirements.

* AGAIN, FOLKS... THIS IS A DELIBERATE TACTIC BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION MEANT TO HURT OUR DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION AND DOWN THE LINE "DISCOURAGE" ENERGY USAGE BY MAKING THAT USAGE MORE COSTLY TO AMERICAN CONSUMERS AND AMERICAN BUSINESS.

Seahawk saw its rigs go idle while its clients waited on permit approvals from regulators, forcing the company to reduce its fees for its leased rigs. In the first nine months of 2010, the company posted just $61 million in sales - a drop of $191 million from the same period the previous year.

As of last month, half of Seahawk's 22 rigs were in long-term storage, while two were idle and nine were leased.

* THIS IS OBAMANOMICS, PEOPLE.

(*FROWN*)

February 12, 2011 at 12:25 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858404576134133515353582.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecondBucket

To sell his overhaul of the United States health care system, President Barack Obama repeatedly assured Americans that if they liked their current health insurance plan they could keep it under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

(*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*)

* OBAMA LIED. (BIG SURPRISE...)

This broad assurance was designed to disarm opposition from the great majority of Americans who have health insurance and are satisfied with it.

(*NOD*)

Americans did not stop to parse the President's assurance; they took him at his word.

* WELL... NO... ACTUALLY A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DIDN'T...

[ObamaCare] itself requires changes in existing coverage. [R]egulations that are triggered by [ObamaCare] severely limit what is considered to be existing coverage.

[C]onfusing "guidance"...accompanies the regulations. Indeed, given [ObamaCare's] broad statutory language and the transference of enormous regulatory authority to federal officials, much of what has already happened during the course of the law's implementation was entirely predictable.

The Administration itself estimates that 49% to 80% of small employer plans; 34% to 64% of large employer plans; and 40% to 67% of individual insurance coverage will not be grandfathered by the end of 2013. This estimate is based on changes that the regulation explicitly disqualifies. It does not take into account changes that the regulation does not deal with and that may be found disqualifying, perhaps by "administrative guidance."

* FOLKS... READ THE FULL ARTICLE TO GET THE DETAILS ON ALL THE WAYS OBAMA LIED TO YOU.

Damage is already being done, and more damage is guaranteed. The only remedy is to repeal the law before the damage becomes permanent.

[F]or employers and employees, ObamaCare's operative principle is simple: You can keep your health plan…maybe, well, not really, to some extent, in certain circumstances, for awhile.

February 12, 2011 at 12:25 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703786804576137970557756868.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

Among the first steps that the Obama administration proposes to reduce the "footprint" - as officials put it - of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage market is to reduce the ceiling on loans that the two government-controlled lenders can guarantee as of Oct. 1.

* UMM... HASN'T OBAMA BEEN PRESIDENT SINCE... OH... JANUARY 2009? AREN'T WE NOW IN FEBRUARY 2011...?

Current federal law allows the two agencies to guarantee mortgages up to $729,750 in some high-home-price areas. The administration recommends that Congress not renew the law, which expires Oct. 1. The move would drop the ceiling to $625,500.

* O.K. TWO POINTS: 1) AGAIN... OBAMA HAS BEEN PRESIDENT SINCE JANUARY 2009; 2) DURING ALL OF 2009 AND 2010 (THAT'S TWO FULL YEARS FOR THE MATH CHALLENGED) PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES CONTROLLING BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

* TWO MORE POINTS: 1) WHY DIDN'T OBAMA CALL FOR THIS "DOWNSIZING" IN JANUARY 2009? 2) WHY DROP THE CEILING ONLY TO $625,500?

* FOLKS... FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS OBAMA HAS BEEN COMFORTABLE SUBSIDIZING MORTGAGES FOR FOLKS WHO CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN A $729,750 HOME; NOW THE CLOWN WANT TO "ONLY" SUBSIDIZE MORTGAGES OF THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO PURCHASE A $625,500 HOME!

* FOLKS... IS IT ME...?!?!

While not being specific, the administration "white paper" on Fannie and Freddie calls for further reductions in that ceiling over the next several years.

* NO... OF COURSE... WHY BE SPECIFIC... IT'S ONLY BEEN TWO YEARS AND ONE MONTH NOW...

(*SMIRK*)

* HEY... I'VE GOT AN IDEA! CUT ALL THE SUBSIDIES! (I'M USING THE TERMS "SUBSIDIES" AND "GUARANTEES" INTERCHANGABLY.)

* HEY... I'VE GOT A FALLBACK POSITION: IF WE'RE GONNA STICK WITH SUBSIDIES, WHY NOT LIMIT THEM TO THE NATIONAL MEDIAN HOME PRICE AS OF THE TIME THE LOAN WAS REQUESTED? FOR EXAMPLE, IN 2010 THE MEDIAN U.S. HOME PRICE WAS $221,900 - THE AVERAGE HOME PRICE WAS $271,600. LET'S SAY FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION WE SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO FIGURES AND THAT BECOMES THE NEW CEILING?!

February 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703786804576138611749624644.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

U.S. mining regulators are defending their efforts to "tighten" coal-mining standards after a leaked report showed a possible set of rules to protect streams from waste produced by mountaintop mining would wipe out more than 7,000 jobs.

* FOLKS... (*SHRUG*)

The Interior Department was forced to defend its efforts after a draft analysis was circulated among state officials and subsequently leaked to news outlets.

A copy obtained by Dow Jones Newswires showed the Interior Department is weighing five alternatives for stream protection and its "preferred alternative" would lead to a net loss of 7,000 jobs, with the largest concentration in the Appalachian Basin.

* FOLKS... (*ANOTHER SHRUG*)

February 13, 2011 at 10:51 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/13/us-usa-budget-obama-idUSTRE71B1QU20110213

President Barack Obama's budget plan for 2012 would slash the deficit by $1.1 trillion over 10 years, officials said on Sunday...

* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... PERHAPS THE EGYPTIANS HAVE THE RIGHT IDEA.

* ONE MORE TIME... DEFICITS - YEARLY DEFICITS - HAVE BEEN COMING IN AT WHAT... $1.5 TRILLION PER YEAR GIVE OR TAKE. AND THIS IDIOT IS TALKING ABOUT IGNORING THAT... IGNORING THE FACT THAT DEFICITS PRODUCE DEBT BY THEIR VERY NATURE... AND NOW TALKS ABOUT CUTTING THE DEFICIT BY A MEASLY $1.1 TRILLION OVER TEN FRIGG'N YEARS... (WHICH MEANS FOUR YEARS BEYOND HIM BEING IN OFFICE EVEN SHOULD HE SOMEHOW BE REELECTED... (*SIGH*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* AND THE PATHETIC PART: THE MEDIA EATS THIS NONSENSE UP.

* ONE MORE TIME, FOLKS... DEFICITS AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE... DEFICITS BY THEIR NATURE ADD (RATHER THAN SUBTRACT FROM) DEBT... SOCIAL SECURITY HAS BEEN UNDERWATER SINCE LAST YEAR (RUNNING AT A DEFICIT) AND THERE'S NO LIGHT AT THE END OF THAT TUNNEL...

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... WHEN YOU REALLY CONSIDER HOW SCREWED WE ARE...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, said Obama's proposed spending cuts would not do enough to rein in the growing federal deficit and promised their own plan would go further.

* NOT THAT I DON'T HAVE MY ISSUES - AND FEARS - REGARDING HUMAN NATURE AND REPUBLICAN ELECTED OFFICIALS, BUT AT LEAST SO FAR THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE SEEMS TO BE TACKLING THE SITUATION SERIOUSLY... RELATIVELY SERIOUSLY.

"Borrowing and spending is not the way to prosperity. Today's deficits means tomorrow's tax increases, and that costs jobs," Republican House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan [says]. "We'll see the details of this budget tomorrow, but it looks like to me that it is going to be very small on spending discipline and a lot of new spending so-called investments," Ryan said on "Fox News Sunday."

The deficit is forecast to reach $1.48 trillion this fiscal year...

* THIS YEAR! THIS YEAR ALONE!

A Democratic aide said the budget would reduce Pentagon spending by $78 billion over five years.

* FINE! I'M IN FAVOR OF CUTTING THE BLOATED MILITARY BUDGET AND CUTTING OUR BLOATED DEFENSE COMMITMENTS WORLDWIDE!

February 13, 2011 at 2:16 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/11/AR2011021105062.html

Tall, affable Buck McKeon sits, gavel in hand, at the turbulent intersection of two conflicting Republican tendencies. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee embodies the party's support for a "strong" defense, which is sometimes measured simply by the size of the Pentagon's budget. But the 35 Republicans on his 62-member committee include 13 first-term legislators, some of whom embody the Tea Party's zeal for cutting government spending.

The United States spends almost as much on military capabilities as the rest of the world spends, and at least six times more than the second-biggest spending nation (China). But McKeon says, "A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline."

* AND WITH THAT STATEMENT MCKEON DEMONSTRATES HIS UNFITNESS FOR THE OFFICE HE HOLDS.

"I've been around a long time, and I've seen us cut defense investments over the years after wars. . . . But I've never before seen us make cuts during a war. Cuts to defense investment in the midst of two wars is unacceptable."

* WHERE TO START? O.K., HOW'BOUT THIS QUESTION: ARE WE EVER AGAIN *NOT* GOING TO BE "AT WAR?" I MEAN THAT'S THE FEELING I GET FROM LISTENING TO POLITICIANS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE. ARE WE PLANNING ON BEING IN AFGHANISTAN FOREVER...??? DOES MCKEON HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME - A SON OR DAUGHTER SERVING...?

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* WILL WE STILL BE "AT WAR" EVEN IF WE WIND DOWN AFGHANISTAN...?

[S]ince fiscal 2001, what is called the military's "baseline budget" has increased 80% to $534 billion.

* THAT'S "BASELINE," FOLKS... NOT TOTAL SPENDING - NOT TOTAL MILITARY SPENDING BY A LONG SHOT.

The Obama administration wants to cut $78 billion over five years...

* ACTUALLY THIS IS IN DISPUTE. NOTE THAT NOT TOO LONG AGO I DEALT WITH THIS IN NEWSIBTES AND IF MEMORY SERVES WE'RE TALKING MORE "SHIFTING" THAN ACTUAL CUTTING. IN ANY CASE, AMERICA USED TO BE A REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE. I LONG FOR THOSE DAYS...

After listening to recent Defense Department testimony, Randy Forbes, a six-term Virginia Republican on McKeon's committee, was exasperated. He said that for four years the department, whose $708 billion budget - his number - is the size of the world's 22nd-largest economy (the Netherlands), has not complied with the law requiring auditable financial statements. And he charged that "none" of the budget is "even in a position to be audited." He said that the department is not "qualified" to talk about efficiencies if it "does not know where our defense dollars are going" and that it cannot comply with the law if it "does not even have mechanisms in place to perform the audits."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), writing to Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, said that "the Pentagon is one of the few agencies in the federal government that cannot produce auditable financial statements in accordance with the law." So "I will continue to push for a budget freeze of all base budget non-military personnel accounts at the Defense Department until it complies with the law regarding auditable financial statements."

To govern is to choose, always on the basis of imperfect information. If, however, the strong language of Forbes and Coburn is apposite, Congress cannot make adequately informed choices about the uniquely important matters that come to McKeon's committee. This fact will fuel the fires of controversy that will rage within the ranks of Republicans as they come to terms with the fact that current defense spending cannot be defended until it is understood.

* I PRAY TO GOD THAT MY CONGRESSWOMAN, NAN HAYWORTH, IS READING THIS PARTICULAR NEWSBITE - OR HAS INDEPENDENTLY READ WILLS' COLUMN. SAME GOES FOR THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS.

February 13, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)