Thursday, March 24, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, March 24, 2011


Woke up to snow... hoping to be laz'n on a sunny afternoon!
Posted by at

15 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704139004576215652935002370.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

* NEVER LET IT BE SAID I FAIL TO GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE!

Monday was Nowruz, the Persian New Year, and hundreds of Iranian political prisoners again spent the holiday behind bars. The difference this year is that President Obama mentioned some of those prisoners by name. That's a welcome first.

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

* AGREED!

For three years, Mr. Obama has recorded an annual Nowruz message to the Iranian people.

In his 2009 greeting, he became the first U.S. President to refer to the "Islamic Republic of Iran," the name preferred by the country's ruling clerics. The U.S. seeks "engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," the President said to an Iranian leadership that for 30 years has denounced, threatened and killed Americans.

Nowruz 2010 (or 1389, on the Persian calendar) brought more conciliation. "The United States acknowledges your right to peaceful nuclear energy," Mr. Obama told the mullahs in Tehran. "We are familiar with your grievances from the past - we have our own grievances as well, but we are prepared to move forward." The theme was mutuality, as if the U.S. and Iran are merely two quarreling siblings in the family of nations.

This week's message had no deferential talk of engagement. Instead, Mr. Obama focused on Tehran's brutality toward human rights and democracy activists, and he named names.

(*MORE APPLAUSE*)

"We have seen Nasrin Sotoudeh jailed for defending human rights; Jafar Panahi imprisoned and unable to make films; Abdolreza Tajik thrown in jail for being a journalist; the Bahai community and Sufi Muslims punished for their faith; Mohammad Valian, a young student, sentenced to death for throwing three stones."

Never before has Mr. Obama spoken this directly. Even his references to Neda Agha-Soltan - the 26-year-old protester whose shooting death, captured on camera, came to symbolize the democracy movement - have not included her name.

We're not sure who's writing the President's speeches these days, but we welcome the overdue shift.

So, surely, do Iran's imprisoned democrats.

March 24, 2011 at 9:55 AM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216872954763388.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

This week marks the first anniversary of ObamaCare, and if you are wondering where that coercive law is headed, we'd point to a case in federal court:

Judge Rosemary Collyer has ruled that Americans have a legal obligation to accept...government health benefits.

* HUH...??? (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*) THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING...

America obliges most citizens over the age of 65 to take...Medicare.

Judging by today's growing number of health-savings options (HSAs, medical FSAs), some Americans would prefer to maintain private coverage upon retirement, rather than be compelled into...Medicare.

Yet...in 1993 the Clinton Administration promulgated "Program Operations Manual System" (POMS) rules that say seniors who withdraw from Medicare Part A (which covers hospital and outpatient services) must forfeit their Social Security benefits.

* HUH...?!?! HOW THE HELL IS THAT REASONABLE, RATIONAL, OR EVEN LEGAL?!

Several senior citizens in 2008 challenged the government, suing to be allowed to opt out of Medicare without losing Social Security. The plaintiffs paid their Medicare taxes through their working lives and are not asking for that money back. They simply want to use their private savings to contract for health services they believe to be superior to a government program that imposes price controls and rations care. They also dutifully contributed to Social Security and - fair enough - prefer to keep those benefits.

* UMM... YEAH...!

As recently as the fall of 2009, Judge Collyer provided support for the plaintiffs. She rejected the Obama Administration's argument that the plaintiffs were lucky to get Medicare and therefore had suffered no "injury" and lacked standing.

* "LUCKY..." THEY'RE CITIZENS! THEY PAID INTO IT! "LUCK" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

She noted the Clinton POMS are simply part of a government handbook and never went through a formal rule-making.

* YOU'D THINK THAT STRIPPING SENIORS OF THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WOULD AT LEAST REQUIRE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION - IN OTHER WORDS... A LAW!

She also refused the Administration's request to dismiss the suit, noting that "neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that Plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare."

* RE-READ THAT LINE AND CONSIDER THE GOVERNMENT'S "REASONING." (WARNING: DOING SO MAY RESULT IN STROKE!)

* To be continued...

March 24, 2011 at 10:19 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

[I]n a stunning reversal, Judge Collyer last week revisited her decision and dismissed the case.

(*MASSIVE MIGRAINE HEADACHE DEVELOPING*)

In direct contravention to her prior ruling, the judge [now insists] the Medicare statute does - with a little creative reading - contain a requirement that Social Security recipients take government health care.

(*BLOOD SHOOTING OUT OF MY EYES*)

The Medicare statute provides that only individuals who are "entitled" to Social Security are "entitled" to Medicare. Therefore, argues the judge, "The only way to avoid entitlement to Medicare Part A at age 65 is to forego the source of that entitlement, i.e., Social Security Retirement benefits."

* THIS IS INSANE! NOT ONLY SHOULD THIS JUDGE BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH, BUT SHE SHOULD BE PUT ON A 72 HOUR PSYCH HOLD AT THE NEAREST MENTAL HOSPITAL!

* FOLKS... IMAGINE... YOU'RE STAYING AT A HOTEL AND YOUR STAY INCLUDES COMPLIMENTARY BREAKFAST. YOU'VE PAID FOR THE HOTEL ROOM. YOU CHOOSE NOT TO PARTAKE OF THE COMPLEMENTARY BREAKFAST AND INSTEAD GO OUT TO BRUNCH - AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE. SHOULD THE HOTEL BE ABLE TO PUNISH YOU FOR CHOOSING NOT TO PARTAKE OF THEIR COMPLIMENTARY BREAKFAST? (HEY... FEEL FREE TO COME UP WITH YOUR OWN ANALOGY IF YOU DON'T LIKE MINE.)

This is convoluted enough, but Judge Collyer's truly novel finding comes with her implicit argument that to be "entitled" to a government benefit is to be obligated to accept it.

* FOLKS... THIS IS INSANITY...!!!

[A]s the plaintiffs attorney, Kent Masterson Brown, warns: "Anyone concerned with what will happen when the bureaucrats start writing the thousands of pages of rules that will govern" ObamaCare need only look at this ruling. "Nothing will be optional."

(*NOD*)

That might explain why the Obama Administration fought this suit so vehemently. The government fisc - and taxpayers - would benefit if some seniors pay for their own health care. But for many liberals, the goal isn't saving money or providing choices. The goal is to force all Americans into the same programs to fulfill their egalitarian dreams.

The plaintiffs appealed this week to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and we hope for freedom's sake they prevail.

* LISTEN, FOLKS... WHETHER THIS MATTER IS DECIDED IN THE PLANTIFFS FAVOR AT THE APPEALS LEVEL OR WHETHER IT GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT, IF COLLYER'S INSANE RULING ISN'T OVERTURNED, THEN... (*SIGH*)

March 24, 2011 at 10:20 AM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218541134110456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

There are a lot of attractive things about plug-in electric vehicles. They're clean [running]. Much of the assembly and many of the parts are made in the USA. And then there's the "cool factor," provided by the futuristic look.

* I'M A "RETRO COOL" KINDA GUY; GIVE ME HANK ANYTIME!

But before even more taxpayer dollars flow into subsidies for these PEVs, we should look under the hood to see if continued support is warranted.

Electric vehicles have been with us for almost 180 years.

The first, an electric carriage created by an inventor named Robert Anderson, made its appearance in Scotland in 1832.

By 1907 the American company Cutler-Hammer was advertising electric vehicles and the first electric charging station.

* YET...

One hundred years after the Cutler-Hammer electric car, today's plug-in electric vehicles receive failing grades from consumers and consumer advocates.

(*SHRUG*)

Consumer Reports doesn't have good early reviews for Chevrolet's flagship entry into electric vehicles. A top editor from the publication said the Chevy Volt, which has both a plug-in battery and a gasoline engine "isn't particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy." He concluded that it just "doesn't make an awful lot of sense."

* RECALL, KIDS, THIS WAS HIGHLIGHTED IN NEWSBITES AT THE TIME.

* To be continued...

March 24, 2011 at 10:51 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

A battery for a small vehicle like the Nissan Leaf can cost about $20,000 and still only put out a range of 80 miles on a good day (range is affected by hot and cold weather) before requiring a recharge that takes eight to 10 hours.

Even then, those batteries may only last six to eight years, leaving consumers with a vehicle that has little resale value.

* WELL... (*PAUSE*)... I'VE GOTTA INTERJECT HERE THAT AN 80 MILE RANGE ISN'T NECESSARILY A DEAL BREAKER FOR MANY FOLKS. ALSO, TO BE FAIR, TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES WILL NO DOUBT INCREASE RANGE AND DECREASE COST WHEN IT COMES TO BATTERIES. (*SHRUG*)

Home installation of a recharging unit costs between $900 and $2,100. And don't forget workplace and retail recharging stations, which will be necessary.

* FINE. UNDERSTOOD. THAT SAID, I'M INTERESTED IN LONG-TERM COST/BENEFIT PROFILES. DEPENDING UPON WHAT ELECTRICITY COSTS VS. GAS OR DIESEL THAT $900/$2,100 MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE WELL WORTH IT. (AGAIN, FOLKS... I CALL 'EM LIKE I SEE 'EM!)

Slick TV ads boast PEVs' supposed environmental benefits, but what they don't tell you is that a substantial increase in the numbers of them on the road will require upgrading the nation's electricity infrastructure.

* UNDERSTOOD. (AGAIN... THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES ONE OF COST/BENEFIT.)

Since half of all U.S. electricity is generated by coal, which produces greenhouse emissions, PEVs may not be any better than hybrid electric vehicles that do not need to be plugged in.

* FAIR POINT!

Meanwhile, new technology for gasoline-powered vehicles has substantially increased miles per gallon, to as much as 35-50 mpg for several smaller vehicles.

* AND ONCE AGAIN I ALSO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BENEFITS OF DIESEL VS. GASOLINE. (*NOD*)

If you're looking for a car that makes good economic sense in these tough times, PEVs simply don't make the grade. Unless crude oil prices rise close to $300 per barrel and battery costs fall by 75%, a PEV is more expensive than a gasoline-powered vehicle.

(*SHRUG*) AND THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

Despite these significant flaws, the government is determined to jump-start sales for plug-ins by putting taxpayers on the hook. The $7,500 federal tax credit per PEV is nothing more than a federal subsidy that will add to the deficit.

(*NOD*)

There are also federal tax credits for installing charging stations in homes and businesses and for building battery factories and upgrading the electric grid. The administration's goal - one million PEVs on the road by 2015 - could cost taxpayers $7.5 billion. Outlays for recharging infrastructure will add billions more.

* AND OF COURSE, AS WITH CASH FOR CLUNKERS, THE "WINNERS" OF THESE TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES WOULD BE THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS WHO CAN AFFORD THE INITIAL INVESTMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAP MAKING $50,000 A YEAR WILL SUBSIDIZE THE NEW "TOY" PURCHASED BY THE GUY MAKING $300,000 A YEAR.

* I'VE GOT A FRIEND WHO USES HIS PRIUS AS HIS TRAIN STATION CAR WHILE HIS WIFE USES THEIR SUV AS HER VEHICLE. (UNFRIGG'NBELIEVEABLE, HUH?!)

March 24, 2011 at 10:51 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/24/morning-bell-detroits-liberal-nightmare/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

What happens when a city buys the liberal dream hook, line and sinker? Just take a look at the City of Detroit.

Detroit, once known as “the great arsenal of democracy,” has made headlines of late for its notorious fall from grace. The “Big Three” automakers are no longer the biggest, falling behind their overseas rivals, and the Michigan economy lost 450,000 manufacturing jobs over the past 10 years all while Detroit lost population.

The once-great city lost 237,493 residents over the last decade according to the 2010 Census... a population plunge of 25%. That’s its lowest population since 1910...

* BACK IN THE '50's DETROIT BOASTED A POPULATION OF OVER TWO MILLION...

* TODAY'S DETROIT... POPULATION 713,777

Is it any wonder people are leaving in droves?

[W]hile the Motor City suffers unemployment from a decimated automotive industry, it suffers crime, high taxes, poor city services, plummeting home values, and a public education system in shambles with a $327 million budget deficit and a 19% dropout rate.

* HMM... I WONDER WHICH POLITICAL PARTY HAS BEEN RUNNING DETROIT (INTO THE GROUND)? (*SMIRK*)

For the record, Detroit has been under liberal leadership for decades.

[T]he problems that plague Michigan and Detroit are the problems with liberal policies.

The promise doesn’t live up to the results.

The Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone writes: “When people ask me why I moved from being a liberal to being a conservative, my single-word answer is Detroit. The liberal policies which I hoped would make Detroit something like heaven have made it instead something more like hell.”

March 24, 2011 at 12:56 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/Video_shows_spring_break_brawl_at_PCB_Burger_King_118505599.html

* CLICK THE LINK.

* OBAMA'S AMERICA...?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/florida/meet-panama-city-bk-brawler-653092

“We tore the Burger King up,” she remarked. “I don’t play no games.”

* IMAGINE YOU'RE THERE WITH YOUNG KIDS.

* AGAIN, FOLKS... IMAGINE IF ANYTHING APPROACHING JAPAN'S PRESENT CRISIS EVER HAPPENS HERE IN AMERICA.

* FOLKS... GET ARMS TRAINING. GET ARMED. STOCK UP ON AMMO. BEST CASE SCENARIO YOU'VE WASTED TIME AND MONEY. WORST CASE SCENARIO... YOU'RE PREPARED IF THE SHIT EVER HITS THE FAN.

March 24, 2011 at 1:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/24/did-qaddafi-deserve-funding-foreign-aid-scrutiny-amid-mideast-unrest/

While President Obama calls Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi a threat to his own people, just one month before attacking Libya the president asked Congress to increase U.S. aid for Qaddafi's military to $1.7 million.

* YEP. INDEED, IT'S FASCINATING TO REVIEW U.S. POLICY TOWARDS LIBYA FROM BUSH THRU OBAMA.

According to State Department figures, the money was earmarked to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, secure its borders and to counter terrorism.

(*SNORT*)

* YEP. THIS WAS OUR POLICY UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA AND SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON.

(*WINK*) (*SMIRK*)

[Hillary Clinton's] State Department said Wednesday it had suspended U.S. military aid to Libya "a few weeks ago."

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

March 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://dzwired.com/testarea/cai/PDFs/032111_SFRI_Release_FINAL.pdf

Comeback America Initiative (CAI), a non-partisan organization dedicated to fostering a national discussion around fiscal challenges and solutions, in partnership with Master’s students from Stanford University’s Public Policy and International Studies Programs, announced the findings of its Sovereign Fiscal Responsibility Index (SFRI), a new fiscal indicator that incorporates a wide range of fiscal, economic and political factors into ranking a country’s fiscal responsibility and sustainability.

According to the indicator, out of the 34 sovereign countries studied, Australia ranks number one while America sits near the bottom at number 28.

David M. Walker, [former Comptroller General of the United States and] the Founder and CEO of the Comeback America Initiative [noted] "The index reinforces the fact that the U.S. needs to engage in comprehensive and timely reforms to restore fiscal responsibility and sustainability and to avoid a debt crisis that would be felt around the world. The index also shows that countries that engage in dramatic and comprehensive reforms can dramatically improve their fiscal prospects. New Zealand ranks number two after engaging in such reforms in the early 1990s when it faced a currency crisis. And the U.S. ranking would improve to number eight if the Congress and the President worked together to enact fiscal reforms that had the same 'bottom line' impact as those made by the National Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Commission."

March 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/nyregion/24immig.html?src=me&ref=nyregion

* HERE'S YOUR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, FOLKS...!

[New York] State Senator Bill Perkins, a Manhattan Democrat [has proposed a] bill would allow illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses...[and]...give some of them certain rights now granted only to legal residents and citizens, including the ability to hold some state jobs - a provision that appears to challenge federal laws that prohibit the hiring of undocumented workers.

New York [already] allows illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition, but the bill would give them access to state financial support, including grants, loans and scholarships.

* SO IN NEW YORK AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT GETS IN-STATE TUITION... BUT A KID FROM SAY IOWA DOESN'T? GREAT. JUST GREAT. HEY... I'VE GOT A CRAZY IDEA: HOW'BOUT IN-STATE TUITION BEING LIMITED TO LEGAL IN-STATE RESIDENTS... CITIZENS OF THE STATE!

March 24, 2011 at 3:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566958/201103231820/Medical-Cares-Real-Problem-The-Tax-Code.aspx

[F]or 60 years, we've experimented with different government controls to rein in health spending, from certification of need laws at the state level, to price controls for Medicare federally.

ObamaCare [is] filled with regulations and rules, governing everything from the profitability of insurance companies to mechanisms to reshape the practice of medicine. If the problem is greed, the response is government regulations.

Such efforts have been tried and have failed in other countries, in part, because of the unintended consequences of regulations.

For small businesses across the country, the anniversary of ObamaCare was marked with sticker shock. Premiums for health insurance rose for Buddy Zaremba's print shop by 37% and at the Woodland Design Group by 43%. Both companies are in New Hampshire, but California and other states have also seen double-digit hikes.

* SO MUCH FOR REGULATION DRIVING DOWN COSTS!

Across the country, premiums roughly doubled between 2000 and 2009. [That's] one reason that, long before Lehman Brothers collapsed, the median family income fell.

American health care is so expensive because it's so cheap...

* I KNOW... I KNOW... SOUNDS INSANE; READ ON!

[F]or every dollar of health care service, we spend directly just 12 cents.

* THAT'S AN OVERALL STAT. I FOR INSTANCE SPEND FAR MORE.

Imagine if we organized other basic needs like this. You could walk into a grocery store in Manchester or Modesto and your company would pay for practically any cut of meat or box of cereal. Would you ever leave with your cart half-empty?

(*SNORT*)

[The] major problem is employer-based health coverage.

Rising out of the wage and price controls of World War II, employers began offering health benefits in pretax dollars. A good deal for employees but not for Washington. Most estimates peg the lost income and payroll taxes at about a quarter of a trillion dollars a year - more money, incidentally, than the tax subsidy for mortgages.

* WE'VE GONE OVER ALL THIS BEFORE, FOLKS, BUT IT BEARS REPEATING... AND REPEATING... AND REPEATING...

The health-tax exclusion is regressive, helping the CEO far more than the mail clerk. For someone earning $100,000 a year, the government spends nearly four times more on health insurance than for an employee who makes just $20,000.

It contributes to the strange "buyers" market for health services, where we spend, but don't necessarily get better value for money. Will the New Hampshire print-shop employees be receiving 40% better health care this year just because their premiums soared that much?

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

[What is needed is a] health care system built on individuals and families purchasing their own coverage.

Policymakers should return to the ideas of Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, both of whom championed a capping of the health tax exclusion. Or tap the ideas considered by President Clinton's aides, who weighed taxing some health benefits.

* OR... BETTER YET... DO AWAY WITH THE SUBSIDY ALTOGETHER!

[U]ntil Washington addresses the 12-cent problem - and the tax code that created it - New Hampshire and the rest of America will need to deal with health inflation.

[This] makes this year's anniversary a sober affair, in Buddy Zaremba's print shop and tens of thousands of other businesses across the country.

March 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566952/201103231820/Why-Not-Cut-Education-Spending-.aspx

* BY PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

As the new Republican House majority wrestles with ways to cut our unsustainable budget deficit, Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet. On March 14, he said, "We cannot cut education."

But why not?

* GOOD QUESTION!

If we are going to cut programs that are proven to have failed to achieve their goals, federal spending on education should be at the top of the list.

(*ENTHUSIASTIC NOD*)

Federal spending on public schools (which is only a small percentage of their school budgets) was given specific goals in the 2002 law called "No Child Left Behind," the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

It required states to set targets to have all students proficient in reading and math by 2014, to meet an annual benchmark of progress toward this goal and in particular to demonstrate a closing or narrowing of the gap between higher-income and minority students.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan threw a cannonball into the education debate this month by admitting that 82% of public schools could be labeled "failing" under No Child Left Behind specifications.

* AND WHAT'S DUNCAN PLANNING TO DO ABOUT THIS, PHYLLIS...?

His solution is to stop calling them "failing," extend the target date for student proficiency to 2020 and, of course, to appropriate more money to failed programs.

* NOW WHY IS IT THAT I COULD SEE THAT ONE COMING A MILE AWAY...?!

For years, education spokesmen have opined that kids should be able to read by the fourth grade. Good for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is now calling for the reading goal to be third grade - and this goal is also being advocated by the Indiana and New Mexico governors.

* BY THE FOURTH GRADE...??? (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*) HEY... DIDN'T WE LEARN TO READ IN KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE?

Obama wants to put more money into the notoriously useless program called Head Start, and he increased its annual funding in 2009 by nearly $3 billion.

(*MASSIVE MIGRAINE HEADACHE BUILDING*)

U.S. taxpayers have given Head Start $166 billion of taxpayers' money since 1965 despite many studies proving that it was mostly wasted, did not give poor kids a head start and any gains made while kids were in Head Start disappeared in a couple of years.

(*SIGH*)

* FOLKS... GOD KNOWS HOW MANY TIMES I'VE MADE THAT EXACT POINT OVER THE YEARS.

For half a century, Congress has year after year increased appropriations for local public schools. In recent years, it has identified two primary purposes: to raise student achievement and to narrow the gap between high- and low-income students and between minority and white students. Federal taxpayers have spent roughly $2 trillion on these efforts since 1965. It's reasonable to ask, did we get our money's worth?

If we look at the class that graduated from the public schools in 2009, we find that we spent over $151,000 per student to bring him from the first to the 12th grade - nearly three times what we spent on the class of 1970.

Even this bad news fails to give the big picture because, as productivity was falling in public schools, it was rising everywhere else. Nearly all the products and services most of us buy have gotten better, more affordable or both over the past two generations.

* GOOD POINT! SERIOUSLY! EXCELLENT POINT!

The fact that there is no education improvement even while spending has skyrocketed is a disaster unparalleled in any other field. In addition to the waste, this gigantic spending slowed our economic growth by taxing trillions of dollars out of the productive sector of the economy and squandering it on worthless programs.

March 24, 2011 at 5:36 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/23/the-rosy-scenario-system

President Barack Obama is a budgetary optimist.

* I PREFER THE TERM "FAKE, PHONY, FRAUD," BUT WHATEVER...

(*SHRUG*)

When he announced his budget proposal last month, he framed it hopefully, as a welcome return to fiscal sanity and a path towards a better tomorrow. It was time that Washington acted “responsibly,” he said.

[W]hat we could do without is misleading presidential rhetoric on the budget.

Obama’s spending plan makes minor adjustments but leaves the country on an unsustainable debt trajectory. It’s like swerving an inch to avoid a pebble when you’re speeding toward a concrete wall.

Even under the rosy scenarios cooked up by the White House economic team, the national debt is projected to rise by more than $7 trillion over the next decade...

* RISE... AS IN GROW... AS IN GET BIGGER... (*SIGH*)... TO THE TUNE OF MORE THAN $7 TRILLION. (THAT'S $7,000 BILLION!)

* AH... BUT WAIT, FOLKS... IT GETS WORSE! (WHICH IS INDEED A COMMON THEME WITH ANYTHING CONNECTED TO OBAMA.)

[A]ccording to a report released by the [non-partisan CBO] last week, the president’s proposal doesn’t even meet the measly goals the president claimed.

(*SNORT*)

For example, the president’s economic team argues that the White House budget proposal would put the federal government into “primary balance.”

* RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU KNOW WHAT "PRIMARY BALANCE" MEANS IN GOVERNMENT PARLANCE. (COM'ON... NEWSBITE READERS SHOULD KNOW THIS STUFF!)

A budget that’s in “primary balance” ignores the money spent paying interest on the ever-rising national debt.

(*SNORT*) (*SNICKER*)

America will spend $207 billion simply paying interest on the federal government’s debt this year alone.

By 2021, that figure is projected to rise to $844 billion.

At the same time, the CBO projects we'll add almost $9.5 trillion in new debt.

[S]omehow this is what passes the president’s test for “living within our means.”

* IMAGINE THAT... (*SMIRK*)

Worse, according to the CBO, the president’s budget fails even that pathetic standard. In 2018, when the government comes closest to achieving balance, the CBO still predicts a budget that’s $177 billion short of the president’s stated goal of "primary balance."

* AS I WROTE ABOVE: "FAKE, PHONY, FRAUD." (ALLOW ME TO ADD "LYING SON OF A BITCH.")

The rest of the [CBO's] report reveals similar discrepancies.

(*SIGH*)

For example, the president proposes to spend $300 billion on what’s known as the “doc fix,” and thus avoid cutting Medicare reimbursements to physicians. Obama’s budget says the spending will be paid for through spending reductions, and therefore doesn’t count the spending towards the deficit. But what spending, exactly, will be cut in order to pay doctors? As the CBO explains in a revealing footnote, the White House proposal doesn’t actually say.

* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP! OBAMA IS A BAD MAN. HE'S A LIAR. HE'S DELIBERATELY SETTING THIS COUNTRY UP FOR A FALL. (IT'S EITHER THAT OR HE'S DUMBEST MAN EVER TO OCCUPY THE OVAL OFFICE.)

Overall, the CBO projects that total debt will rise by $2.3 trillion more than the president’s projections.

“Families across this country understand what it takes to manage a budget,” Obama said in February.

Sadly, it’s all too clear that the president of the United States doesn’t.

March 24, 2011 at 7:10 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/23/corporate_welfare_109316.html

In America today, the biggest recipients of handouts are not poor people. They're corporations.

General Electric CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt is super-close to President Obama. The president named Immelt chairman of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Before that, Immelt was on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He's a regular companion when Obama travels abroad to hawk American exports.

Businesses love to have government as their partner. There's safety in it.

Why take chances in a marketplace full of fickle consumers and investors, when you can get secure money and favors from the ["representatives" of the] taxpayers?

(*GNASHING MY TEETH*)

[T]oo many people think "free market" means pro-business. It doesn't.

(*THUMBS UP*) YOU TELL 'EM, JOHN STOSSEL!

Free market means laissez faire - prohibit force and fraud, but otherwise leave the marketplace alone.

No subsidies, no privileges, no arbitrary regulations - competition is the most effective regulator.

(*DOUBLE THUMBS UP*)

Left-wingers criticize corporate welfare until it's for something they like - for example, "green technology."

* WHEREAS PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF - PEOPLE WHO ARE INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT - OPPOSE CORPORATE WELFARE PERIOD!

March 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/03/its-called-inflation-when-more-dollars-are-needed-print-more-dollars

Does anybody besides Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke really believe the U.S. economy is not suffering from increasingly serious inflation?

Bernanke - like the rest of us - has seen soaring prices for precious metals, base metals, gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and corn, wheat, and other foodstuffs. He has seen big increases in the nation's Producer Price Index and a record high in the United Nations Food Price Index, up about 25 percent in the past year.

[T]hrough it all he has played down the dangers of inflation.

How richly ironic, then, that the government has announced the cost to print dollar bills has climbed more than 50% since 2008.

* THE BILLS. THE ACTUAL BILLS. THE PIECES OF PAPER IN YOUR WALLET!

The reason? Dollar bills contain cotton fiber, and prices for cotton have soared along with the prices of so many other items.

Our national government has gone to great lengths over the years to deceive us. It's changed the way it measures inflation, taking out items such as food and energy costs to focus on "core inflation," which usually makes inflation look lower than it really is. It has changed the way it counts the unemployed to make unemployment look lower than it really is.

We have come to expect government officials to deceive us.

But how much more evidence do they need before they stop deceiving themselves?

March 24, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)