Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, March 1, 2011


My idea of "new" music...

(*CHUCKLE*)

Ya see it's 2011... and the song is from 1997...

(*SMILING WHILE ROLLING MY EYES*)
Posted by at

10 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172942399165436.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

The U.S. government has 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws, more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless and 80 programs for economic development.

(*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*)

These are a few of the findings in a massive study of overlapping and duplicative programs that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who pushed for the report, estimated it identifies between $100 billion and $200 billion in duplicative spending.

* FUNNY HOW IT WASN'T OBAMA... OR PELOSI... OR REID... WHO PUSHED FOR THIS REPORT.

* HEY... TO BE FAIR... OBVIOUSLY THIS CRAP WAS GOING ON WHEN BUSH AND THE RINOs WERE RUNNING "THE SHOP" TOO.

The GAO examined numerous federal agencies...[finding]...82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances, according to a draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

"Reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save billions of tax dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services," the report said.

* YA THINK...?!?!

(*MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)

The report says there are 18 federal programs that spent a combined $62.5 billion in 2008 on food and nutrition assistance, but little is known about the effectiveness of 11 of these programs because they haven't been well studied.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

March 1, 2011 at 11:35 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://detnews.com/article/20110228/AUTO01/102280401

Consumer Reports offered a harsh initial review of the Chevrolet Volt, questioning whether General Motors Co.'s flagship vehicle makes economic sense.

"When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Volt isn't particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy," said David Champion, the senior director of Consumer Reports auto testing center at a meeting with reporters here.

The magazine said in its testing in Connecticut during a harsh winter, its Volt is getting 25 to 27 miles on electric power alone.

(*JUST SHAKING MY FRIGG'N HEAD*)

Champion believes a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, may make more sense for some trips. "If you drive about 70 miles, a Prius will actually get you more miles per gallon than the Volt does," Champion said.

(Champion noted the Volt is about twice as expensive as a Prius.)

* REMEMBER THE OLD ('92) HONDA CIVIC VS? IT GOT 48 mpg CITY/55 mpg HIGHWAY.

* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... SIMPLE MEMORY BUTTRESSED BY A FEW SECONDS GOOGLING.

(*SHRUG*)

The magazine has put about 2,500 miles on its Volt. It paid $48,700, including a $5,000 markup by a Chevy dealer. Champion said the five hour time to recharge the Volt was "annoying" and was also critical of the power of the Volt heating system. "You have seat heaters, which keep your body warm, but your feet get cold and your hands get cold," Champion said.

(*SMIRK*) (*CHUCKLE*)

Champion praised the heater on the all-electric Nissan Leaf - which Consumer Reports borrowed from the Japanese automaker -- but said it also got very short ranges in very cold weather. On one commute, his range in a Leaf was at 43 miles when he turned onto an eight-mile stretch of highway, but it fell from 43 to 16 miles after eight miles at 70 mph.

(*STILL CHUCKLING*)

March 1, 2011 at 11:51 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576172830417968912.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

President Obama waited until last Wednesday to make his first public statement [regarding Libya].

[Our president] didn't mention Gadhafi by name and deferred to the Europeans to push for U.N. sanctions.

White House officials are now explaining his reticence by saying the U.S. couldn't act forcefully until all Americans were evacuated from Libya.

A U.S. President must take care to protect Americans. But even if this was the White House calculation, you don't want to talk about it publicly.

In a front page article in Sunday's Washington Post, Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, was in full self-justification mode: "When you're sitting in government and you're told that ignoring that advice" - to temper U.S. rhetoric and action in Libya - "could endanger American citizens, that's a line you don't feel very comfortable crossing."

In [politicizing the issue,] trying to blunt criticism of his boss at home, Mr. Rhodes has told the next rogue regime in Gadhafi-like straits how easy it is to paralyze U.S. policy: You don't even need to hold Americans hostage. All you need to do is keep them around with an implicit threat that you might do so.

This will not make it easier to get Americans out of harm's way in the next crisis.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Throughout the Libyan uprising, European leaders - especially Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy - haven't been tongue-tied or action-tied by the plight of their nationals. This weekend, German and British special forces rescued a couple hundred of their nationals in covert missions without Libyan assent.

(The U.S. sent a catamaran and ferry to Tripoli, after Libya denied permission for a plane to land. The ships were stuck in port for two days due to bad weather and finally brought the 167 Americans out by Friday night.)

(*JUST RUBBING MY FACE*) (*HEADACHE*)

European leaders continue to show more energy than President Obama. Mr. Cameron said he is working with allies on a plan to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Gadhafi from using his air force against rebel forces.

While the French sent two planes with humanitarian relief supplies to Libya, the U.S. set aside $10 million and pledged to "study" Libya's needs.

(*STANDING UP; BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL*)

Speaking before the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, which voted to "suspend" Libya's membership yesterday, [Secretary of State Clinton] said that "we will continue to explore all possible options for actions. . . . Nothing is off the table." But she didn't put much on the table.

(*SHRUG*) (*SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)

The Pentagon yesterday announced plans to move armed forces into the region - a process that should have started more than a week ago.

* YEP!

The U.S. made no promises to support a no-fly zone. Mrs. Clinton spent her time lobbying the Russians for their continued support in the U.N. Security Council, while the battles in Libya raged on.

(*SIGH*)

The moral and strategic case for U.S. leadership in Libya is obvious. A terrorist regime is slaughtering people who will appreciate America's support and protection. A bloody civil war could create chaos that turns Libya into a northern African failed state, an ideal home for terrorist groups. The U.S. should support a provisional government that can take over when the regime collapses to restore order with as little bloodshed as possible.

What is Mr. Obama waiting for?

March 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704900004576152453734610660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

* UPDATE: HOW'S ROMNEYCARE'S WORKING OUT... OR RATHER... NOT WORKING OUT:

[Let's] take a look at Massachusetts, whose 2006 health-care overhaul was by all accounts the model for [ObamaCare].

[RomneyCare] was launched in promising circumstances: The Bay State already had the lowest percentage of uninsured people in the nation, and some of [the future] ObamaCare's provisions such as community rating - everyone can buy insurance at the same price, regardless of health - were already in place.

The easy part was getting more people insured. Coverage increased from about 88% to 96%.

But the number of emergency room visits, which everyone expected to drop once people had to purchase insurance, is still going up. Surveys show roughly half the visits are unnecessary. Surveys also indicate that finding a primary care physician is becoming more difficult.

Cities and townships were expected to move their employees into cheaper health policies through the new state-sponsored insurance exchange, the Health Care Connector. None have - because unions fear the very tools that keep costs competitive in the private sector, such as co-pays.

Despite an individual insurance mandate, thousands of consumers wait to purchase coverage until they require costly procedures and then exit after paying a modest penalty. That makes insurance more expensive for everyone else.

Four years after [RomneyCare's] "reforms," Massachusetts still has the highest insurance premiums in the nation, and the gap is getting wider.

March 1, 2011 at 1:06 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576172701898769040.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The raucous Wisconsin debate over collective bargaining may be ugly at times, but it has been worth it for the splendid public education. For the first time in decades, Americans have been asked to look under the government hood at the causes of runaway spending.

For decades as the private union movement rose in power, even left-of-center politicians resisted collective bargaining for public unions. We've previously mentioned FDR and Fiorello La Guardia. But George Meany, the legendary AFL-CIO president during the Cold War, also opposed the right to bargain collectively with the government.

Why?

Because unlike in the private economy, a public union has a natural monopoly over government services.

An industrial union will fight for a greater share of corporate profits, but it also knows that a business must make profits or it will move or shut down. The union chief for teachers, transit workers or firemen knows that the city is not going to close the schools, buses or firehouses.

* AND IF THEY BET WRONG... IF GOVERNMENT SERVICES ARE EFFECTIVELY "BANKRUPTED"... EVERYONE SUFFERS!

[M]onopoly power...gives public unions inordinate sway over elected officials. The money [public "service" unions] collect from member dues helps to elect politicians who are then supposed to represent the taxpayers during the next round of collective bargaining.

* BUT INSTEAD...

In effect union representatives sit on both sides of the bargaining table, with no one sitting in for taxpayers.

* CASE IN POINT...

In 2006 in New Jersey, this led to the preposterous episode in which Governor Jon Corzine addressed a Trenton rally of thousands of public workers and shouted, "We will fight for a fair contract." He was promising to fight himself.

* YA SEE, FOLKS, THE GOVERNOR - AND ALL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES - ARE SUPPOSED TO FIGHT FOR THE GENERAL TAXPAYER... NOT THE SPECIAL INTERESTS WHICH POUR MONEY AND MANPOWER INTO THEIR OWN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.

Public unions depend entirely on tax revenues to fund their pay and benefits. They thus have every incentive to elect politicians who favor higher taxes and more government spending. The great expansion of state and local spending followed the rise of public unions.

(*NOD*)

Current AFL-CIO chief Rich Trumka has tried to portray Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's reforms as an attack on all unions, but they clearly are not. If anything, by reining in public union power, Mr. Walker is trying to protect private workers of all stripes from the tax increases that will eventually have to finance larger government. Regarding public finances, the interests of public union workers and those of private union taxpayers are in direct conflict. Mr. Walker is the better friend of the union manufacturing worker in Oshkosh than is Mr. Trumka.

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS... YOU NEED TO POINT THIS OUT TO YOUR IDIOT FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS!

Notice, too, how fiercely the public unions are willing to fight for collective bargaining power even if it means public job layoffs. Without Mr. Walker's budget reforms, Wisconsin will have to begin laying off thousands of workers as early as today. The unions would rather give up those jobs - typically for their younger members - than give up their political negotiating advantages.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)

March 1, 2011 at 1:06 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704288304576170974226083178.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Years of tremendous overspending by federal, state and local governments have brought us face-to-face with an economic crisis.

Federal spending will total at least $3.8 trillion this year - double what it was 10 years ago.

[T]his year's projected budget deficit is more than $1.6 trillion.

Several trillions more in debt have been accumulated by state and local governments. States are looking at a combined total of more than $130 billion in budget shortfalls this year. Next year, they will be in even worse shape as most so-called stimulus payments end.

In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tiptoed around the issue of overspending by suggesting relatively minor cuts in mostly discretionary items. There have been few serious proposals for necessary cuts in military and entitlement programs, even though these account for about three-fourths of all federal spending.

[S]ome House leaders have suggested cutting spending to 2008 levels. But getting back to a balanced budget would mean a return to at least 2003 spending levels - and would still leave us with the problem of paying off our enormous debts.

The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already exceed $106 trillion. That's well over $300,000 for every man, woman and child in America (and exceeds the combined value of every U.S. bank account, stock certificate, building and piece of personal or public property).

The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the interest on our federal debt is "poised to skyrocket."

[President Obama and most democrats] insist that substantial spending cuts would hurt the economy and increase unemployment [but] plenty of compelling examples indicate just the opposite.

When Canada recently reduced its federal spending to 11.3% of GDP from 17.5% eight years earlier, the economy rebounded and unemployment dropped. By comparison, our federal spending is 25% of GDP.

* FOLKS... WE MUST DEAL IN FACTS!

Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay. Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want. The purpose of business is to efficiently convert resources into products and services that make people's lives better. Businesses that fail to do so should be allowed to go bankrupt rather than be bailed out.

(*WILD APPLAUSE*)

March 1, 2011 at 1:06 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/27198084-43fe-11e0-8f20-00144feab49a.html#axzz1FMeW5EHu

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, has hit out at US and UK calls for military intervention in the Libya crisis, warning that would be an “absurdity” for the Nato alliance to intervene in the region.

As the stance of Turkey, a prominent western ally, was bolstered by similar comments from non-Nato member Russia...

* AS I OFTEN NOTE, WE - THE U.S. UNDER VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS AND CONGRESSES - HAVE TOTALLY SCREWED UP WITH REGARD TO TURKEY AND RUSSIA.

* I BELIEVE WE SHOULD INSTITUTE (INDEED, SHOULD HAVE INSTITUTED LAST WEEK OR PERHAPS EVEN EARLIER) A NO-FLY ZONE OVER LIBYA (AND A NO USE OF ARMOR OR ARTILLERY AS WELL!) IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE SLAUGTER OF GADHAFI OPPONENTS. THAT SAID... WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH TURKEY (WITH RUSSIA IN THE LOOP AS WELL) ALL ALONG, AND OUR POSITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT IT WOULD BE THE TURKISH MILITARY WHO WOULD TAKE THE OPERATIONAL LEAD.

* THINK ABOUT IT... YOU APPEAL TO THE PRIDE AND HUMANITY OF THE TURKS WHILE DOWNPLAYING RUSSIA'S LEGITIMATE SUSPICION THAT THE U.S. IS "TAKING ADVANTAGE" OF THE SITUATION IN LIBYA FOR OUR OWN INTERESTS.

March 1, 2011 at 1:35 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42058

* BY PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

The anti-democratic methods President Obama's union allies are using in Wisconsin testify to the crucial character of the battle being fought.

Teachers have walked off in wildcat strikes, taking pupils with them.

Doctors have issued lying affidavits saying the teachers were sick, a good example of ethical conduct for the school kids.

Thousands of demonstrators have daily invaded the Capitol, chanting, hooting, banging drums. Hundreds have camped out there and refused to leave so the Capitol building can be cleaned.

Is this democracy in action? Is this what 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green went out to see that Saturday morning in Tucson?

Picketers have carried placards with the face of Gov. Scott Walker in the cross hairs of a gun sight. He has been compared to Hitler, Mussolini, Mubarak. Democrats have fled the state to deny the elected Wisconsin Senate a quorum to vote. Such tactics cannot be allowed to triumph in a republic.

Since the 1960s, government unions have been able to sit behind closed doors with the politicians they put in office and write contracts, the cost of which is borne by taxpayers who have no one at the table.

They call this collective bargaining.

(*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*) (*SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)

A more accurate term is collusive bargaining.

(*NOD*)

[W]hat [Scott Walker, the Republican] governor [of Wisconsin] wants to end is the scandalous practice of powerful unions raising millions and running phone banks and get-out-the-vote operations for politicians who thank them with wages, benefits and job security no private employer can match.

* WHILE LEAVING THE LONGTERM BILL FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF TAXPAYERS TO SHOULDER!

When government unions sit down with the politicians they put into office, the relationship is not adversarial. It is not healthy. It is incestuous. And taxpayers must pay the cost of their cohabitation.

In Wisconsin, the die is cast and Walker cannot yield - for if he yields, the state and its 3,000 cities, counties, towns and school districts will be forever at the mercy of these unions.

If he yields, it will be a triumph for the tactics of intimidation, wildcat strikes and mass demonstrations to block legislative action.

Scott Walker cannot lose this fight, because his country cannot afford to have him lose it.

March 1, 2011 at 7:42 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/police-blotter/article355093.ece

A federal Homeland Security employee who assisted in screening passengers at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport was arrested today on charges that she provided help to drug dealers at the airport.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

Walker works for the Transportation Security Administration...TSA officials had no immediate comment on the arrest when contacted by The Buffalo News.

* NEW BUMPER STICKER -- TSA: ON THE JOB... ON THE TAKE.

March 1, 2011 at 7:42 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1832:congress-must-reject-the-welfarewarfare-state&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

* BY THE HONORABLE CONGESSMAN RON PAUL (R-TX)

During the past few weeks, Congress has been locked in a battle to pass a continuing resolution to fund government operations through September.

H.R. 1 only reduces real federal spending by $66 billion compared to last year’s budget. This may seem like a lot to the average American, but in the context of an overwhelming trillion-dollar budget and a national debt that could exceed 100% of GNP in September, it is barely a drop in the bucket.

(*NOD*)

One reason that H.R. 1 does not cut spending enough is that too many fiscal conservatives continue to embrace the fallacy that we can balance the budget without reducing spending on militarism. Until Congress realizes the folly of spending trillions pretending to impose democracy on the world we will never be able to seriously reduce spending.

* AGREED!

H.R. 1 is more aggressive in ending domestic spending than foreign spending, and does zero out some objectionable federal programs such as AmeriCorps, however, [the bill] leaves most of the current functions of the federal government undisturbed. This bill thus continues the delusion that we can have a fiscally responsible and efficient welfare state.

The failure to even attempt to address the serious threat the Welfare/Warfare State poses to American liberty and prosperity is the main reason why supporters of limited government and individual liberty ultimately should find HR 1 unsatisfactory. Only a rejection of the view that Congress can run the economy, run our lives, and run the world will allow us to make the spending reductions necessary to avert a serious financial crisis.

This does not mean we should not prioritize and discuss how to gradually transition away from the welfare state in a manner that does not harm those currently relying on these programs. However, we must go beyond balancing the budget to transitioning back to a free society, and that means eventually placing responsibility for social welfare back in the hands of individuals and private institutions.

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

March 1, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)