Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Websites and blogs I recommend
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(397)
-
▼
September
(20)
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, September 30, 2011
- The Clinton Gambit
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, September 29, 2011
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, September 28, 2011
- Philadelphia is Literally in a State of Societal C...
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, September 27, 2011
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, September 26, 2011
- Reforming Social Security (The Texas Model)
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, September 23, 2011
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, September 22, 2011
- The Power of the Media
- By Walter E. Williams
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, September 21, 2011
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, September 20, 2011
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, Sept. 19, 2011
- Post-Vacation Newsbites - From My Emails... (9/18/11)
- About the Newsbites...
- Back From Oregon
- Yet Another Barker Vacation Adventure, Folks!
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, September 1, 2011
-
▼
September
(20)
About Me
- William R. Barker
- Pearl River, NY High School Class of '81; Northeastern University, Boston, MA Class of '87.
6 comments:
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1907:were-from-the-government-were-here-to-help&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69
* BY THE HONORABLE (AND STRAIGHT THINKING!) CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-TX)
FEMA should never have been established. It is based on misguided ideas of disaster relief.
Victims of disasters should get any and all help possible, and there is virtually no limit to the generosity and compassion of good American people after devastation hits. (One only need to remember the outpouring after Katrina to know this is true.) FEMA, however, did more to get in the way of relief than to actually provide and facilitate it. The examples are numerous:
When the call was put out for volunteer firefighters, they volunteered by the thousands.
* SO FAR, DO GOOD... (BUT KEEP READING, FOLKS!)
It was FEMA, for reasons of control and bureaucratic ineptitude, who made sure they were not, in fact allowed to actually help.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
When a group of firefighters arrived from Houston, instead of being put immediately on the job, they were told to sit around and wait. After waiting for two days doing nothing, they were simply sent home. One thousand volunteer firefighters were sent to Atlanta to undergo sexual harassment training while fires actively raged in the city. The ones that remained through this stupidity were sent to escort the president around or to distribute fliers instead of putting out fires.
(*GNASHING MY TEETH*)
Computer engineer Jack Harrison was told his skills were needed to rebuild technological infrastructure. After being given the runaround for about two weeks, he was misallocated as head of security on the cruise ship FEMA had leased, when he should have been using his skills to help.
(*SIGH*)
All manner of help was turned away or mismanaged by FEMA while people suffered and waited. Even the Red Cross had its hands tied by FEMA!
It has only gotten worse since 9/11. Compare the stories of two flotillas - one after 9/11 and one after Katrina:
Within an hour of the 9/11 attacks, the largest boatlift in history was organized spontaneously by locals who saw an immediate need and responded immediately. Over 500,000 terrified New Yorkers were taken off the island by ferries, tugboats, pleasure crafts, fishing boats and barges when all other access points had been shut down.
A similar flotilla attempt was privately organized after Katrina. 500 boats caravanned to New Orleans to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and desperate. Unfortunately, FEMA had taken over by then and they were turned away, empty, while the patients languished, still stranded.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The establishment of FEMA is symptomatic of a blind belief in big government's ability to do anything and everything for anyone and everyone. FEMA is a bureaucratic organization. Bureaucracies, while staffed with well-meaning people, are notoriously slow and wasteful by their very nature. When people are starving, injured and dying they need speed and efficiency, yet FEMA comes along with forms and policies and rubber stamps. This sort of thing is bad enough at the DMV, but in matters of life and death where seconds count, this is just not acceptable.
True compassion would be to get FEMA out of the way.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/07/morning-bell-four-ways-obama-has-blocked-job-growth/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Though President Barack Obama constantly points fingers at others for America’s economic woes, his policies are to blame for preventing the U.S. economy from getting back on track.
During President Obama’s first 26 months in office, his Administration imposed 75 new major regulations, with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion... That’s more than any comparable period on record.
The annual cost of regulation - $1.75 trillion by one frequently cited estimate - represents twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year.
President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus was supposed to create jobs, but instead deficits mounted and economic growth is now stagnant. Meanwhile, all that money intended to “stimulate” the economy had to come from somewhere, which means taxing or borrowing from other sectors of the economy. The result? Less money for investment, and that means less job growth.
Brian Riedl explain[ed] in The Wall Street Journal: "Large stimulus bills often reduce long-term productivity by transferring resources from the more productive private sector to the less productive government. The government rarely receives good value for the dollars it spends. However, stimulus bills provide politicians with the political justification to grant tax dollars to favored constituencies. By increasing the budget deficit, large stimulus bills eventually contribute to higher interest rates while dropping even more debt on future generations."
In South Carolina, Boeing sought to build a new factory to produce one of its airliners, which would have created new jobs in the state. Enter the Obama Administration’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which filed a complaint against the company, arguing that using a non-union facility constituted an "unfair labor practice." And that’s just one example of the Obama Administration’s pro-union, anti-business policies.
Other recent NLRB decisions include several rulings on snap elections and restricting secret ballot elections, and it instituted a new rule that allows unions to cherry-pick which workers get to vote on unionizing. Rather than putting the economy first, the President has decided to put unions first, and unemployed Americans are paying the price.
Earlier this summer, businessman Steve Wynn said that the Obama Administration has been “the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime.” And when Investors Business Daily asked Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, “What’s the single biggest impediment to job growth today?” he replied, “The U.S. government.”
Business owners - those men and women who create jobs in America - know that the Obama Administration is the root cause of the stalled economy.
There’s a disturbing trend if you look at job growth in America over the past two and a half years. Heritage’s James Sherk writes that, following the recession, the U.S. was on a track for a steady recovery. The economy went from losing 841,000 jobs in January 2009 - the recession’s low point - to gaining 229,000 jobs in April 2010.
* WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...
But then Obamacare became law.
“From May 2010 onward, private job growth improved by only 6,500 jobs per month - less than one-tenth the previous rate,” Sherk explains and as illustrated by this chart.
Though correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation, there’s reason to believe that ObamCare helped turned off the spigot on job growth. The law imposes costly new requirements on businesses, which remain uncertain of what their costs will be down the road, leaving them to postpone hiring decisions. In fact, one survey showed that 33% of small business owners said ObamaCare was either their greatest or second-greatest obstacle to new hiring.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/09/morning-bell-more-stimulus-from-president-obama/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
President Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits yet again as a way to boost the economy. That just won’t work. Heritage’s James Sherk writes, “For welfare reasons Congress wants to help workers who cannot find jobs. This is understandable. That doesn’t mean it will help the economy, no matter how much the President wants it to.” The stimulus bill extended unemployment benefits, Congress has kept them in place several times since then, and the federal government has spent over $300 billion on unemployment benefits since Obama took office. It hasn’t stimulated the economy before. It’s not going to stimulate it now.
* AGREED.
In order to help businesses create new jobs, the President proposed a tax credit for businesses hiring new workers. The trouble is that he’s been there, done that, and it didn’t work. Why try it again? Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains the problem with the proposal: “A credit of a few thousand dollars, a mere fraction of the cost of hiring a worker, does nothing to change that calculation. The only positive effect on hiring the credit could have would be on temporary positions if it makes adding a few new temps profitable in the short term. But once the credit expires businesses will let those workers go.”
* AGREED.
Taxing those who create jobs as a way to help create jobs is entirely counterintuitive, but the President proposed it anyway. Even though he has agreed that tax hikes slow economic growth and deter job creation, he's proposed raising taxes on investors, businesses, and entrepreneurs. Dubay says, “This is akin to bailing water into an already sinking ship.” And with businesses looking for more certainty, continuing to threaten more tax hikes will only dampen America’s chances of real recovery.
* YEP...
Throwing more money at building roads and bridges, President Obama tells us, will create new jobs. So he is proposing the creation of an infrastructure bank that would require a whole new bureaucracy. Heritage’s Patrick Knudsen says that increasing spending on these projects “simply moves resources from one place to another - it may employ construction workers, but only by reducing jobs in other sectors.” And taxpayers end up paying the price, all without creating net job growth or boosting the economy in the near term.
* YEP...
America’s education system needs less federal involvement, not more. But the President used his jobs speech as a way to shoehorn the federal government further into the education business, proposing that Washington spend billions on school construction and new jobs for teachers. (Never mind that since 1970, school enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has increased just 7%, while staff hires have increased 83%.) Heritage’s Lindsey Burke explains, “On a per-pupil basis, federal spending on education has nearly tripled since the 1970′s.” And for all that spending, Washington hasn’t improved results.
(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE DESK*)
President Obama has spent two and a half years increasing federal spending, growing government, and punishing businesses with burdensome regulations, and today 14 million Americans remain unemployed.
Now the President is demanding more of the same at an even higher price.
* EITHER OBAMA IS AN INCOMPETENT BEYOND ANYTHING WE'VE EVER SEEN BEFORE... OR... OBAMA'S POLICIES ARE A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO "BREAK" CAPITALISM SO AS TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPLACE IT WITH SOCIALISM. (IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE, FOLKS.)
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1909:foreign-occupation-leads-to-more-terror&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=1&Itemid=69
* MORE WORDS OF WISDOM FROM THE HONORABLE RON PAUL (R-TX)
Ten years ago shocking and horrific acts of terrorism were carried out on US soil, taking over 3,000 innocent American lives. Without a doubt, this action demanded retaliation and retribution. However, much has been done in the name of protecting the American people from terrorism that has reduced our prosperity and liberty and even made us less safe.
* I AGREE!
Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily "occupation."
* BY "OCCUPATION" CONGRESSMAN PAUL IS SPEAKING HOW OUR VAST OVERSEAS MILITARY PRESENCE - OUR POLITICAL AND MILIITARY FOOTPRINT - IS PERCEIVED BY... WELL... FRANKLY... THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION.
(*SHRUG*)
* FOLKS... I WON'T LIE TO YOU. THIS IS MY AREA OF EXPERTISE. PAUL IS RIGHT. NO ONE IS TALKING ISOLATIONISM... BUT THERE'S GOTTA BE A HAPPY MEDIAN BETWEEN THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PRE-WW1 AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.
Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book "Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It". In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95% were in response to foreign "occupation." Pape notes that before our invasion of Iraq, only about 10% of suicide terrorism was aimed at Americans or American interests. Since, then however, not only is suicide terrorism greatly on the rise, but 91% of it is now directed at us.
Yes, the attacks of 9/11 deserved a response. But the manner in which we responded has allowed radicals in the Muslim world to advance a very threatening narrative about us and our motivation in occupying their lands. Osama bin Laden referred to us as "crusaders" with a religious agenda to convert Muslims, westernize their culture and take control of their resources. If we had targeted our response to only the thugs and criminals who attacked us, and refrained from invading countries that had nothing to do with it, this characterization would seem less plausible to the desperate and displaced.
Sometimes it can be very uncomfortable to ask the right questions and face the truth. When a slick politician comes along and gives a much more soothing, self-congratulating version of events, it is very tempting to simply believe what we would like to hear. But listening to lies does not make us safer, even though it might make us feel better about ourselves.
The truth is that ending these misguided wars...
* PAUL IS TALKING NATION BUILDING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
...and occupations will make us safer, more prosperous and more free.
* I AGREE.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/16/morning-bell-solyndra-scandal-ends-green-jobs-myth/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
[The] scandal involving Solyndra, a bankrupt solar panel company in California, should be the final nail in the coffin for the government’s meddling in the free market.
* "SHOULD." (*FROWN*) IF ONLY "SHOULD" WERE "WOULD" WE'D BE IN DECENT SHAPE. AS THINGS STAND, HOWEVER... (*SIGH*)
“[W]e can see the positive impacts [of the stimulus] right here at Solyndra,” Obama claimed when he spoke at the company’s newly unveiled factory in May of last year.
The President was correct that the results of his stimulus would be on display at that factory. But he was wrong that those results would be positive.
Little more than a year later, the company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and plans to lay off more than 1,000 employees.
The Solyndra factory where Obama spoke was built after the company received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Energy Department as part of the stimulus’s green jobs push. “Through the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations,” Obama noted. “This new factory is the result of those loans.”
(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
But “everyone knew that the plant wouldn’t work,” according to a former Solyndra employee.
Mohammed Walahi, who began working as a process technician for Solyndra in 2005, showed up at the company Thursday morning to file a workers’ compensation claim for a repetitive stress injury and was surprised to see FBI agents instead of security guards. Solyndra’s employees were laid off with no severance pay and an immediate end to health benefits, and Walahi, 41, has a wife and two young children to support. He lashed out at his former employer, saying Solyndra manufactured solar panels that often contained imperfections that had to be thrown away. “At least $100,000 a day was thrown away,” Walahi said. “If they are wasting $100,000 a day, how much is that a month or a year? Of course that’s going to lead to bankruptcy.”
* ONE WOULD THINK!
What’s more, the company was built on “a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars,” according to an industry analyst. That would normally be a red flag for investors. So why did the President claim that “the true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra”? [W]hy was the President so sure of the plant’s success when he spoke there?
The answer to both of those questions: The government’s decisions are driven by politics and ideology and are divorced from economic reality.
* To be continued...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Want proof? Take a look at a January 31 e-mail between Office of Management and Budget staff regarding “Solyndra optics” - that is, how the issue looks in the public’s eyes.
”If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will arguably be worse later than they would be today,” they wrote, adding: In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up, whereas a default today could be put in the context of (and perhaps even get some credit for) fiscal discipline/good government because the Administration would be limiting further taxpayer exposure letting bad projects go, and could make public steps it is taking to learn lessons and improve / limit future lending.
* FOLKS... YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP...!!!
In other words, in January the Administration was essentially letting the 2012 campaign dictate decisions on the federal government’s financial involvement with Solyndra. They were not responding to normal profit-and-loss signals, as they should. Had Energy Department bureaucrats been investing their own money, they might have been more careful. But it was others’ money - taxpayers’ money - at stake.
* OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE. HE'S A DANGERIOUS INCOMPETENT - AT BEST...!
Self-interested investors, who naturally weed out bad investments, were wholly absent. The result: Taxpayers are likely to lose up to $535 million, while the people who made the decision to throw money at Solyndra have, so far, been completely insulated from reprisal.
Much attention has been paid to accusations of cronyism in the Energy Department, given that a major Solyndra investor is also a big Obama donor. But the fundamental lesson of the Solyndra scandal is not that money buys political favors. That now goes without saying. The real takeaway is that government intervention in the economy is a fool’s errand...
[A]s Heritage’s Nicolas Loris notes: Solyndra exemplifies the government’s abysmal track record of picking winners and losers in the marketplace, and the solar company is not the only example of energy stimulus struggles. With a number of targeted energy tax credits set to expire at the end of this year or next, industry groups are lobbying hard for extensions. Especially given the U.S. fiscal situation, this is a time to end all energy subsidies - not to extend wasteful, market-distorting policies.
When the government decides to favor a technology with subsidies, it’s a good bet that subsidy ‘winner’ is a loser in the marketplace.
(*NOD*)
Indeed, at least four other companies to receive money from Obama’s stimulus package have gone bankrupt, Fox News reports.
(*MASSIVE MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)
Even where companies do create jobs, they do so at such exorbitant cost that the effort cannot reasonably be considered a success. To date, The Washington Post reports, the Energy Department loan guarantee program from which Solyndra benefitted has created one new permanent job for every $5.5 million spent.
(*BLOOD SHOOTING OUT OF MY EYES, EARS, NOSE, AND MOUTH*)
Government subsidies are invitations for political favoritism, of course. But more importantly, as engines of job creation, they simply don’t work - just ask Spain!
(*NOD*)
Sure, the Administration’s “green jobs” program has led to allegations of corruption. But it has also failed even in its foremost task of creating jobs for an economy with a chronic unemployment problem. Columnist Jim Pethokoukis writes, “Solyndra is the logical endpoint of Obamanomics.” Unfortunately, the American people are paying the price for getting us there.
Post a Comment