Saturday, February 26, 2011

Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., Feb. 26 & 27, 2011


Yes... I realize it's March... but I'm looking forward to my annual October Key West vacation!
Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2011/02/texas_demograph.html

Looking at population projections for Texas, demographer Steve Murdock concludes: "It's basically over for Anglos."

Two of every three Texas children are now non-Anglo and the trend line will become even more pronounced in the future, said Murdock, former U.S. Census Bureau director...

(*SIGH*)

Most of the state's population growth is natural, Murdock told the House Mexican American Legislative Caucus today. About 22 percent of the growth comes from people moving to Texas from other states. About 6% of the state's population is not documented, he said.

The state's future looks bleak assuming the current trend line does not change because education and income levels for Hispanics lag considerably behind Anglos, he said. Unless the trend line changes, 30% of the state's labor force will not have even a high school diploma by 2040, he said. And the average household income will be about $6,500 lower than it was in 2000. (That figure is not inflation adjusted so it will be worse than what it sounds.)

* A NATION IN DECLINE, MY FRIENDS...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

February 26, 2011 at 11:52 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/02/la_mayor_security_wall_getty_house.php

The [Democrat] mayor [of Los Angeles] is afraid. Very afraid.

Much like the L.A. City Council members who quiver at the thought of potential Los Angeles "Loughners" with an eye on City Hall, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa believes he is in danger and therefore needs a six-foot security wall erected around L.A.'s official mayoral residence in Windsor Square.

(*SNORT*)

Much to the dismay of the Windsor Square Association, whose residents generally abide by the city's 42-inch yard-wall limit, Villaraigosa just applied for a six-footer.

(*SMIRK*)

John Welborne, the Windsor Square Association's VP for planning and land use, puts his disapproval smoothly to the News: "I would note ... that virtually everyone in the City of Los Angeles who erects, or seeks to erect, an over-in-height fence or wall in the required, open, front yard setback area of a single-family residence says the reason is 'for security.' Should all of Los Angeles, including its historic residential neighborhoods, become a collection of walled compounds?"

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

February 26, 2011 at 12:06 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/25/a-rod-tax-loophole-has-new-yorkers-seeing-pinstriped-red/

They were crying foul Friday about a sweetheart tax loophole that will enable Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez to live in his new $6 million luxury West Side penthouse and pay virtually no real estate taxes.

When Rodriguez’s moves into his $6 million, five-bedroom penthouse his tax bill will be $1,150.

(*BLOOD SHOOTING OUT OF MY EYES AND EARS*)

Rodriguez and all the residents of his posh high rise will get tax breaks for 10 years under the city’s 421A tax abatement program. Luxury developers get tax breaks in exchange for making sure affordable units get built elsewhere. Rodriguez is one of some 45,000 New Yorkers who have scored the tax break.

* HOW LONG HAS BLOOMBERG BEEN MAYOR NOW...???

“I think my constituents feel a sense of outrage,” NYC Councilman James Vacca said. “To find that someone rich like this is paying so little, it just goes to our core our feeling that this is not right. This has got to be addressed.” The councilman said the law needs to be changed because this year alone the program will cost the city $900 million in lost revenue.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

[Mayor Bloomberg's] City officials claim the tax breaks on Rodriguez’ building helped build over 575 units of affordable housing in the Bronx.

(*SNORT*)

* SOUNDS LIKE OBAMANOMICS - SPENDING OURSELVES INTO OBLIVION IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET OUT OF DEBT.

(*SMIRK*)

* FOLKS... TELL ME AGAIN... "VIOLENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER..."

(*ROLLING MY EYES*) (*ANOTHER SMIRK*)

February 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164172865528158.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Nobody should be surprised that public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are fighting to preserve every penny of their promised benefits.

Nobody should be surprised that [responsible] state governors - and it doesn't matter which party - are trying to trim those privileges and benefits.

News reporters may be naïve, and some of the protesters may pretend to be. But this fight was penciled in long ago, when politicians and union leaders made the strategic decision to negotiate benefits without negotiating for the funding to make good on them.

* YEP...

The mock shock and horror is all the more laughable given that events in Wisconsin are a perfect microcosm of the battle that every sentient American knows, and has known for a generation, awaits Medicare and Social Security.

* WELL... THE PROBLEM IS... SENTIENT AMERICANS AREN'T ALL THAT COMMON. (AND THAT'S THE WAY THE POLITICIANS, THE MEDIA, AND ACADEMIA LIKE IT.)

In keeping with the theatrics of naïveté, President Obama now calls for "beginning a conversation on entitlements."

* THE SAME GUY AND THE SAME PARTY WHO IMMEDIATELY WENT ON THE ATTACK AGAINST BUSH FOR DARING TO RAISE THE ISSUE DURING HIS PRESIDENCY. FOLKS... OBAMA IS A TOTAL HYPOCRITE. SERIOUSLY... IT'S SICKENING.

Has the president not heard of the private sector's pioneering work on "defined contributions?"

* YOU KNOW... SERIOUSLY... I DOUBT OBAMA COULD DEFINE THE TERM. (I'M SERIOUS...!)

Let's lay down a couple of markers for "the conversation" Mr. Obama pretends he wants to have.

Medicare is the real killer. According to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, an average couple retiring last year can look forward to consuming Medicare benefits with a present value of $343,000, having paid Medicare taxes with a present value of $109,000.

* OOPS!

(And don't let that figure get your hopes up, because even that $109,000 is not available today. That money was spent long ago. The government's trust funds are a fraud.)

February 26, 2011 at 4:54 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166820261651558.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

The battle for Libya is moving fast toward what could be a Berlin-style climax, with opposition forces advancing on Tripoli even as demonstrators in that city are mowed down in the streets and mosques by regime loyalists.

From French President Nicolas Sarkozy we heard the clarion call of the civilized world: "Mr. Gadhafi must go."

And from the American President, the leader of the Free World, we finally heard yesterday - a call for sanctions. Details to follow.

(*DRUMMING MY FINGERS*)

For the Administration to stand by and propose sanctions that will have little impact while the regime murders hundreds or thousands of civilians will not endear Libyans to the U.S. when Mr. Obama offers his outstretched hand to the next government in Tripoli.

Mr. Obama's first instincts in these crises invariably is to declare that the "international community," whatever that is, must "speak with one voice."

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

What the world really needs is for an American President to lead.

February 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/26/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm?hpt=T1

Gas prices have increased nearly 17 cents a gallon in the past week. And analysts expect prices to continue higher, following a sharp rise in the price of crude oil.

* AND THIS IS ALL JUST FINE WITH OBAMA. HIGHER PRICES "NUDGE" US TO... er... "CONSERVE."

* HEY... THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS STILL BLOCKING DOMESTIC DRILLING. (*SHRUG*)

The spike in oil last week could translate to an increase in gas prices of 37 cents per gallon in the coming weeks, according Moody's Analytics economist Chris Lafakis. He estimates that for every $1 increase in the price of oil, retail gas prices typically rise 2.5 cents a gallon.

* SO... IF YOU'VE GOT A 19 GAL. TANK LIKE ME THAT TRANSLATES TO... AN EXTRA $7.03.

* OH... AND BTW... THAT'S SUPPOSED "NOT" INFLATION.

(*SMIRK*)

February 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703530504576164822561737348.html

It will no doubt surprise you to learn that President Obama, the great patron of the working man, also happens to be the great CEO of one of the least union-friendly shop floors in the nation.

[Obama is the president who] has berated Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to limit the collective bargaining rights of public employees, calling the very idea an "assault on unions."

* YES... CORRECT...

[Obama is also] the president who has sicced his political arm, Organizing for America, on Madison, allowing the group to fill buses and plan rallies.

* TRUE...

Fact: President Obama is the boss of a civil work force that numbers up to two million (excluding postal workers and uniformed military). Fact: Those federal workers cannot bargain for wages or benefits. Fact: Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a "right to work zone" - federal employees are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues.

* HMM...

Fact: Neither Mr. Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever acted to give their union chums a better federal deal.

* WELL... THANK GOD FOR THAT... BUT I DO INDEED SEE THE HYPOCRISY THESE FACTS POINT TO.

In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act. Washington had already established its General Schedule (GS) classification and pay system for workers. The 1978 bill went further, focused as it was on worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support.

* HMM... FUNNY HOW THE MSM AS A WHOLE SEEMS TO BE IGNORING THESE... er... INCONVENIENT TRUTHS.

Democrats weren't then (and aren't now) about to let their federal employees dictate pay. The GS system, as well as the president and Congress, sees to that. Nor were they about to let workers touch health-care or retirement plans. Unions are instead limited to bargaining over personnel employment practices such as whether employees are allowed to wear beards, or whether the government must pay to clean uniforms.

* THAT SAID, AS WE ALL KNOW (THOSE WHO FOLLOW NEWBITES AT LEAST), FEDERAL WORKERS HAVE A SWEET PAY AND BENEFITS DEAL NONETHELESS. (OVERLY SWEET! WAY, WAY, WAY OVERLY SWEET!)

If the president is so worried about Wisconsin's "assault," why has he never taken up federal bargaining rights?

If the Badger State's current system is the gold standard, why has [Obama] not [sought to] replicated it [on the federal level]?

If it is so important that all parties "sit at the table" - as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recently lectured Wisconsin - how dare Mr. Obama unilaterally declare a federal pay freeze? (Honestly, the union-busting gall!)

(*SNORT*)

The debate over public-union giveaways has only started. That debate would benefit were Mr. Obama to explain how it is that Wisconsin is wrong to ask for the same budget flexibility that he enjoys as president.

(*NOD*)

February 27, 2011 at 1:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704900004576152431935573812.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Big Oil has long been a plump piñata for politicos and environmental groups, but a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that eliminating decades-old tax rules for oil and gas could be a lousy deal for consumers.

* O.K., I'M LISTENING... MAKE YOUR CASE...

Two tax deductions for the oil and gas sector are most important: percentage depletion (part of the tax code since 1926) and intangible drilling costs (part of the tax code since 1913.) According to Mr. Obama's budget, those two items will cost taxpayers about $2.4 billion per year over the next decade. A handful of other oil- and gas-related tax policies, including an increase in the amortization period for geological and geophysical expenses, cost taxpayers an additional $2 billion per year. So the sector's total annual tax advantages amount to about $4.4 billion.

* A BILLION HERE, A BILLION THERE, SOON YOU'RE TALKING REAL MONEY... (*SMIRK*)

Percentage depletion allows well owners to deduct a certain amount of the value of their production in a given year. It's significant, but the really important tax rule is the deduction for intangible drilling costs, or IDC. That allows drillers to immediately expense, rather than capitalize over years, many of the costs associated with drilling a well, including labor, supplies and fuel.

O.K....

The energy industry contends that the deduction encourages capital formation - and greater production - in their high-risk business.

* O.K....

[M]any economists have long favored expensing to encourage capital formation throughout the economy. Still, even if we assume that the IDC deduction is in fact a subsidy, are consumers getting a tangible benefit?

* YEP - THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW!

* To be continued...

February 27, 2011 at 1:02 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

Consider natural gas. Thanks to the increasing use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, U.S. gas production has soared over the past few years. The result: Methane prices are now about half what they were in 2008.

* WELL... THAT'S CERTAINLY GOOD...

Various studies - including one done in 2009 by Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., a Houston-based, energy-focused investment bank - predict that eliminating the deduction for intangible drilling costs could increase natural gas prices by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet. Their reasoning is simple: As the industry sees its costs increased and cash flow reduced, it will drill fewer wells and recover less gas. Given that the U.S. burns about 23 trillion cubic feet of gas per year, simple arithmetic shows that eliminating the deduction could mean an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices.

(*PURSED LIPS*) HMM...

Changing the tax rules could also slow the surprising resurgence of the U.S. oil industry. After decades of declining production, domestic drillers are increasing their oil output because they are tapping shale deposits with the same new techniques that have helped increase gas production. The result: Domestic oil output could jump by as much as one million barrels per day by 2015, according to the analytics firm Bentek Energy. This is great news for tax-starved local and state governments. And it's directly in line with one of the stated goals of Mr. Obama's 2012 budget: to "enhance our national security by reducing dependence on foreign oil."

* HMM... SOUNDS REASONABLE...

* HERE'S THE KICKER, THOUGH:

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the cost to taxpayers of using corn ethanol to reduce gas consumption by one gallon is $1.78. This year, the corn ethanol sector will produce about 13.8 billion gallons of ethanol, the energy equivalent of about 9.1 billion gallons of gasoline. Using the CBO's numbers, that means the total cost to taxpayers this year for the ethanol boondoggle will be about $16.2 billion. That's compared to the $4.4 billion in foregone tax revenue for oil and gas tax rules. [A]nnual ethanol subsidies are nearly four times as great as those provided for oil and gas, even though domestic drilling provides about 36 times as much energy to the U.S. economy. Per unit of energy produced, the tax preferences given to corn ethanol are 130 times as great as those given to oil and gas. If the president is truly serious about raising revenue, then he should eliminate all energy-related tax preferences and let all sources compete - fair field, no favor. Short of that, he should at least subject ethanol to the same treatment he's giving to oil and gas.

* TRUE... BUT BRINGING ETHANOL INTO THE DISCUSSION ON OIL AND GAS TAX POLICY SEEMS TO BE MORE OF A DEBATE TECHNIQUE THAN A BUTTRESSING OF THE OIL/GAS TAX POLICY ARGUMENT. TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.

* STILL... IT SEEMS AS IF THE MATTER MERITS FURTHER THOUGHT. SEE, FOLKS.... THIS IS THE SORT OF ARTICLE THAT WILL - HOPEFULLY - MAKE YOU THINK.

February 27, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)