Monday, June 27, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, June 27, 2011


And now... a blast from the past!
Posted by at

5 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23183a78-a0c6-11e0-b14e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1QVFPgZXi

The US dollar will lose its status as the global reserve currency over the next 25 years, according to a survey of central bank reserve managers who collectively control more than $8 trillion.

* DUH! TELL US SOMETHING WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW. INDEED TELL US ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN HAPPENING ALREADY OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS!

More than half the managers, who were polled by UBS, predicted that the dollar would be replaced by a portfolio of currencies within the next 25 years.

* 25 YEARS...? THAT'S RICH! I WOULDN'T BE THE FARM THAT THE UNITED STATES IS GONNA STILL BE THE UNITED STATES IN 25 YEARS!

That marks a departure from previous years, when the central bank reserve managers have said the dollar would retain its status as the sole reserve currency.

* DOES NO ONE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REALIZE THAT, BY AND LARGE, CENTRAL BANK RESERVE MANAGERS ARE... FAIRLY INCOMPETENT...?

The results are the latest sign of dissatisfaction with the dollar as a reserve currency, amid concerns over the US government’s inability to rein in spending and the Federal Reserve’s huge expansion of its balance sheet.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*) IN OTHER WORDS... OBAMA AND THE DEMS WHO STILL CONTROL THE SENATE. (*SHRUG*)

The US currency has slid 5% so far this year, and is trading close to its lowest ever level against a basket of the world’s major currencies.

* BY DESIGN, FOLKS! BY DESIGN! THIS IS ALL PART OF THE OBAMA/BERNANKE/GEITHNER ECONOMIC "RECOVERY" PLAN! (AND NO...! I'M NOT BEING SARCASTIC! I'M BEING DEAD SERIOUS AS ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ADMINISTRATION'S AND THIS FED's ECONOMIC POLICIES MUST REALIZE.)

Holders of large reserves, most notably China, have been diversifying away from the dollar. In the first four months of this year, three quarters of the $200bn expansion in China’s foreign exchange reserves was invested in non-US dollar assets...

(*SHRUG*)

June 27, 2011 at 4:43 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/7627737.html

Homeland Security officials misled the public and Congress last year in an effort to downplay a wave of immigration case dismissals in Houston and other cities...

* YET NO ONE GOES TO JAIL. (*SHRUG*)

The records, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, include a series of internal memos from Immigration and Customs Enforcement's chief counsel in Houston dated last August ordering attorneys to review all new, incoming cases and thousands already pending on the immigration court docket and to file paperwork to dismiss any that did not meet the agency's "top priorities."

* DISMISS... (*SHRUG*)

[A]ccusations [are] that they...created a "back-door amnesty"...

The secretive review process resulted in the dismissal of hundreds of cases in Houston, most of them involving illegal immigrants who had lived in the United States for years without committing serious crimes.

* WITHOUT "SERIOUS" CRIMES...??? (*SNORT*)

A string of emails shows the dismissals had the blessings of top attorneys at ICE headquarters in Washington, D.C. last summer and that other ICE legal offices across the country were encouraged to consider measures to "better use" the agency's limited resources to target dangerous criminals. [D]ocuments show conclusively that government attorneys in Houston were given wide latitude to file motions to dismiss cases, including some involving immigrants with convictions for primarily misdemeanor offenses.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

"It now appears that DHS attempted to mislead the public and Congress on its policy of directing dismissals of cases against criminal aliens," said Jessica Sandlin, Sen. John Cornyn's Texas press secretary. "After this failed attempt at stonewalling and obstruction of the public's right to know, the truth is now coming out."

ICE officials declined to answer a reporter's questions about whether they intentionally misled the news media, the general public or Congress in connection with the dismissals. In a statement, the agency's spokeswoman, Barbara Gonzalez, said the Houston memos "misconstrued and exceeded the agency's official guidance" on prosecutorial discretion and were rescinded quickly. (However, the internal records show the Houston office's efforts were praised internally by supervisors at ICE headquarters in Washington until news of the dismissals broke.) And immigration court data shows the number of cases dismissed nationally grew by about 40% last fiscal year, with several courts scattered across the country reporting major increases.

(*SMIRK*) OH... AND FOLKS... IT'S NOT JUST JOHN CORNYN WHO'S RAISING A FUSS... READ ON!

Tre Rebstock, president of the Houston ICE union, said he was concerned that the agency's leadership may have jeopardized public safety by dismissing some cases involving immigrants with criminal records. But Rebstock said he was equally concerned about the official reaction to the controversy, saying it had the hallmarks of a cover-up.

"As law enforcement officers, we are held to a higher standard than the public because we have the public's trust," Rebstock said. "And then they go and stand up in front of the Senate and throw all of their credibility out of the window when they say, 'Oh no, we weren't doing this. This wasn't our policy.'"

"They did it," Rebstock said. "And then they lied - or misrepresented the truth, at the very least - about what they were doing."

* YET I DOUBT ANYONE WILL BE FIRED, LET ALONE CHARGED WITH A CRIME, TRIED, CONVICTED, AND SENT TO PRISON.

* FOLKS, THERE'S A LOT OF MEAT TO THIS STORY. I SUGGEST ANYONE INTERESTED READ THE FULL ARTICLE.

June 27, 2011 at 5:12 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/06/27/michelles-south-africa-trip-cost-taxpayers-500000/

First Lady Michelle Obama’s trip to South Africa and Botswana last week cost taxpayers well over half a million dollars, possibly in the range of $700,000 or $800,000, according to an analysis by White House Dossier.

[T]he trip, while featuring many "official" events, also included tourist components such as visits to historical landmarks and museums, a nonworking chance to meet Nelson Mandela that Mrs. Obama described as “surreal,” and a safari. Mrs. Obama also brought along her mother, her daughters and two of their cousins – the children of her brother Craig Robinson.

In a conversation last week with a South African online newspaper, U.S. Embassy Spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau made clear that the trip was partially a personal pilgrimage for the first lady.

* SO WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE EXPENSES WILL SHE BE PAYING FOR... er... PERSONALLY?

Based on the plane’s tail number and a description of it in a press pool report, it’s clear Mrs. Obama flew over and back on a C-32, a specially configured military version of the Boeing 757 that also ferries the vice president on occasion... According to publicly available Defense Department figures, DOD charges other federal agencies $12,723 an hour to cover expenses for the use of a C-32. Based on the distance traveled and the flight speed of the plane, this adds up to about $430,000 for use of the aircraft alone.

In addition, a military cargo plane typically accompanies a first lady on overseas trips to bring cars and other gear. It is not clear if a cargo plane also went along on this trip, but if it did – as is likely – it could easily have added another $200,000 to the cost, based on Defense Department rates for cargo planes.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Mrs. Obama’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

June 27, 2011 at 5:22 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070104576399530309071422.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

While the national media has focused on state budget face-offs between government unions and governors such as Wisconsin's Scott Walker, municipal officials...are engaged in their own budget warfare.

Wages and benefits account for 30% of state general fund expenditures, according to data from the National Governors Association. But U.S. Census surveys show that in the typical town or school district, employee pay and benefits can consume from 70% to 80% of the budget.

Pensions are an enormous part of the problem. While pension payments now consume about 4% of state budgets, many municipalities are already spending 15% to 20% of their finances on pension costs.

Costa Mesa, Calif. (population 110,000) made news earlier this year when it sent layoff notices to 43% of its employees. [Why? Because] in 10 years, the city's annual pension bill increased to $15 million from $5 million and now consumes 16% of the city's $93 million budget.

In nearby Anaheim, pensions already account for 22% of its $252 million budget.

San Jose's pension costs for police and firefighters have quadrupled in a past decade. Without reform, the city estimates that its yearly pension costs, $63 million in 2000, will swell to $650 million in 2015.

Elsewhere the numbers are even scarier.

Chicago's unfunded public pension fund liabilities are estimated by Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University and Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester at $44 billion - nearly eight times annual city tax revenues.

New York City's annual pension contributions were $1.5 billion (6% of city revenues) in 2002. They've exploded to an estimated $8.4 billion (18% of city revenues) in 2012.

School districts in New York State contributed $900 million last year to the state's teacher pension system, but districts may have to spend as much as $4.5 billion on pensions within five years to meet rising costs, according to a December 2010 study by the Manhattan Institute.

* FOLKS... WHERE'S THE MONEY COMING FROM...?!?!

Local governments have contributed to their budget nightmares by expanding hiring and wages well beyond the growth in population and private wage gains during recent boom years.

In New Jersey, where student enrollment increased by just 69,000 students from 2000 through 2009, public schools hired 33,000 new full-time staffers - nearly one for every two new students.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

California's local governments padded their employee count by 15% in the decade leading up to the fiscal crisis in 2008, with average annual pay rising 60%...

(*HEADACHE*)

To balance its 2010 budget, Providence, R.I., borrowed some $48 million (using its fire stations as collateral); it also drained most of its reserve fund, which shrank to $3 million from $17 million in one year. But the city remains under severe budget pressure - its annual retiree costs now amount to an astounding 50% of its tax collections, according to a new study from the Rhode Island Expenditure Council.

* FOLKS... WE'RE IN DEEP DOO-DOO.

June 27, 2011 at 5:42 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1883:how-should-government-treat-energy-producers&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

* BY CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-TX)

As the economy continues in its downward spiral and talks in Congress about reducing spending have only amounted to political theater, the subject of how the tax code treats energy has become a topic of controversy.

Specifically, should we subsidize, enforce mandates, or give tax credits and deductions to industries like ethanol and natural gas?

Of course, the government should neither inhibit nor subsidize any particular type of energy, [but] while many people agree with that statement, there is much confusion over the difference between government subsidies and tax credits or deductions. The difference is night and day...

(*NOD*)

A subsidy is a government handout. It amounts to the government taking money from the people and giving it to a favored interest. It is the worst sort of market manipulation and it is something I can never support. This kind of government mischief is anathema to the Constitution and the principles of freedom and the free market.

(*APPLAUSE*)

By contrast, with tax credits and deductions, industries, business, and individuals simply get to keep more of the money they have earned.

Ideally, the tax code should not be used for social engineering, but, until we have true tax reform, I will always support tax credits and deductions that keep more dollars in the private sector where they are spent, saved, or invested. ... Any measure that keeps money in the private sector to spend, save or invest, rather than allowing the government to waste or misallocate, is a win for the economy.

(*APPROVING NOD*)

Inequities in the tax code dealing with tax credits should be solved by giving all participants equal treatment.

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

I oppose ethanol mandates because I do not think anyone should be forced to use or buy ethanol. Ethanol mandates often serve as corporate welfare for big agriculture ethanol producers. The marketplace should decide whether or not to use ethanol, and producers of ethanol have to discover if they can produce it at a price that makes good business sense. No industry should be allowed to use legislation to create a "market" for its products. The real reason ethanol mandates continue to surface in federal legislation is that agribusiness continues to have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.

(*NOD*)

[W]hile I do not support providing federal grants to any industry, I do support the tax credits contained in the NAT Gas Act, HR 1380.

* NOPE, CONGRESSMAN... YOU'RE WRONG ON THIS ONE.

These credits reduce taxes for the production or purchase of vehicles that run on American-made natural gas.

* WHICH IS A SUBSIDY.

These credits are not subsidies.

* ACTUALLY... YES THEY ARE.

Of course, we should repeal federal barriers to energy production and reduce taxes on all forms of energy. Therefore, I have also introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act HR 1102 which would remove governmental barriers to offshore drilling, encourage private investment in new refineries and suspend taxes on gasoline when the price at the pump reaches a certain threshold.

Lowering taxes to encourage the domestic production of energy and getting government out of the way of the American energy market is not a government giveaway; it is the way it should be in a free country.

* AGREED!

June 27, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)