Monday, April 2, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, April 2, 2012


Romney is such a schmuck.

(See newsbite #1)

(*SIGH*)
Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/01/us-usa-campaign-romney-russia-idUSBRE8300FK20120401

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Sunday came under political fire from two of President Barack Obama's top lieutenants, who dismissed Romney's tough talk on Russia as being behind the times.

In separate interviews, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to cast Romney as stuck in the days of the Cold War and unaware of the strategic interests that the United States and Russia share on Iran, Afghanistan and the world's oil supply.

(*SIGH*)

* HELL OF A THING... THEY'RE MORE RIGHT THAN WRONG.

"He acts like he thinks the Cold War is still on, Russia is still our major adversary. I don't know where he has been," Biden shot back during a Sunday interview on the CBS current affairs program "Face the Nation."

"This is not 1956," Biden added. "We have disagreements with Russia, but they're united with us on Iran. One of only two ways we're getting material into Afghanistan to our troops is through Russia ... if there is an oil shutdown in any way in the Gulf, they'll consider increasing oil supplies to Europe."

Meanwhile, Clinton told CNN that Romney needed to be more realistic about U.S.-Russian relations.

"I think it's somewhat dated to be looking backwards instead of being realistic about where we agree, where we don't agree," she said in an interview during a visit to Turkey.

* ONE MORE TIME: CHINA IS OUR ENEMY. KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE BALL, MITT. WE WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO HAVE RUSSIA AS AN ALLY - OR AT LEAST NOT CHINA'S ALLY.

April 2, 2012 at 8:42 AM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577303593174884820.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

We all know about the dire fiscal outlook arising from manic federal borrowing.

The interest cost of financing and refinancing the burgeoning national debt has climbed 55% over the last three years.

The Obama budget predicts net interest expenses tripling to over a half trillion dollars by fiscal 2015 from the 2010 level. (That is probably conservative, given the likelihood that the administration has lowballed inflation and interest-rate prospects.)

If that isn't bad enough, let's consider the risks not from federal borrowing but from federal lending:

The big bump in federalized lending came in August 2008 when the government took over failing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. With the addition of these two giants, the federal government now has a $5 trillion mortgage portfolio, much of it of dubious value.

Since the takeover, Fannie and Freddie have drawn a net $136 billion from the Treasury to cover their losses, and they could cost taxpayers $259 billion through 2013, according to their regulator, the Housing and Home Finance Agency (HHFA).

On top of that, the Federal Housing Administration is facing huge losses on the home mortgages it has guaranteed over the years and very likely will also require a taxpayer bailout.

As large as these numbers are and as likely that the HHFA is overly optimistic about the future of Fannie and Freddie, these exposures are only a part of the big picture of federal lending disarray.

Government lending, like government borrowing, is a political tool used by Washington to win favor with voters. According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report this month, the government has, in addition to Fannie, Freddie and TARP, a further $2.7 trillion in other loans and loan guarantees outstanding, and some of those loans don't look so good either.

One of the more worrisome categories is student lending, which the government took over directly in 2010 after having merely guaranteed private loans previously. Student lending has soared along with college tuition, and has even contributed to tuition inflation by flooding colleges and universities with government cash.

The CBO's new report says that federally issued or guaranteed student loans outstanding have grown to $706 billion from $79 billion a decade ago. (The government's new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that all student loans outstanding now total over $1 trillion.) They don't seem to be very good risks. A Journal story reporting on the CFPB estimate cites Federal Reserve Bank of New York data showing that as many as "one in four student borrowers who have begun repaying" are behind on their payments.

Liberals want further bailouts for debtors. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, has proposed that bankruptcy laws be liberalized so more former students can shed their debt burdens.

* MEANWHILE...

The Obama administration is pushing the idea of "forgiving" the portions of home mortgage debts that are under water.

(*SIGH*)

April 2, 2012 at 9:36 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Taking a more responsible but politically risky approach, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan is backing a budget bill provision that would put a more realistic value on the cost to taxpayers of government-subsidized lending. Currently, agencies calculate subsidies by comparing the interest rates on their loans to the rates on Treasury securities. Given rock-bottom Treasury rates, that often makes it look as if the agency is getting a positive return. Under Mr. Ryan's "true value" accounting (backed in the CBO's March report), the return instead would be measured against market interest rates.

The CBO analysis shows that true-value accounting on direct student loans would convert what the government records as a positive return into a budgetary loss.

Naturally, none of this pleases the agencies, the higher education lobby, the housing lobby or their friends in Congress. But it would be an important step in putting government lending on sounder footing and reducing the risk of future huge losses piling on top of those that the taxpayer has suffered these last three years.

Aside from undercounting the cost of politicized loan subsidies, there is another problem.

As the Federal Reserve pursues its zero interest-rate policy and the economy draws more on the enormous monetary reserves the Fed has created, inflation prospects are rising.

Inflation helps the government get out of its debt swamp by allowing it to pay off loans with devalued dollars. But it does the opposite with debts owed to the government. All those trillions of loans owed American taxpayers will be paid with devalued dollars as well. So the taxpayer loses not only through the ravages of inflation but also from the escape hatch inflation provides for the most irresponsible borrowers from the government.

* WELCOME TO THE AGE OF OBAMA, MY FRIENDS!

April 2, 2012 at 9:37 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/03/31/mpls-police-ponder-8-p-m-curfew-after-youth-mob-attacks/

Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis, MN., is a destination for many. Outdoor patios where drinks and food are served are a draw not only to people who live here, but also tourists.

Since February, when the sun goes down, later in the evening, mobs of teens take advantage of the darkness and attack.

* Hmm... TEENS, HUH...???

A video captured on 6th Street and Nicollet shows how the mob of teens viciously attacks innocent people.

* ANYONE WANNA CARE TO GUESS WHAT THE VIDEO SHOWS...? I'LL GIVE YOU A HINT... THREE WORDS: "A PARTICULAR DEMOGRAPHIC."

Police have made four arrests, but continue to search for others.

* FUNNY... THE REPORTING FAILS TO PROVIDE NAMES AND FACES IDENTIFYING THOSE ARRESTED AND SUSPECTED.

(*SMIRK*)

* OH... AND HERE'S ANOTHER ARTICLE. I'll JUST LEAVE THE LINK.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/trouble-in-loop-was-anomaly-officials-say/article_0b6ce699-d202-5733-9211-66eab93aa4b6.html

April 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1961:the-supreme-court-and-obamacare&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

* BY THE RIGHT HONORABLE RON PAUL, (R-TX) - CONGRESSMAN AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the ObamaCare law, focusing on the mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced by the IRS.

Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination, but we must recognize that the federal judiciary has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting liberty. It’s doubtful the entire law will be struck down.

Regardless, the Left will continue its drive toward a single-payer, government run health care system.

The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to “regulate” commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way.

The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state - a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many German principalities.

But the Supreme Court has utterly abused the commerce clause for decades, at least since the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. In that instance the Court decided that a farmer growing wheat for purely personal use still affected interstate commerce - presumably by not participating in it!

As economist Thomas Sowell explains in a recent article, the Wickard case marked the final death of federalism; if the federal government can regulate “anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the 10th Amendment’s limitations on the power of the federal government virtually disappeared.”

It is precisely this lawless usurpation of federalism that liberty-minded Americans must oppose.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Why should a single swing vote on the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with ObamaCare?

The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against extra-constitutional excesses by government.

It is federalism and states’ rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.

While I’m heartened that many conservatives understand this mandate exceeds the strictly enumerated powers of Congress, there are many federal mandates conservatives casually accept. The Medicare part D bill - passed under a Republican President and a Republican House - mandates that you submit payroll taxes to provide prescription drugs to seniors.

* AT LEAST THAT'S A TAX!

The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, also passed by Republicans, mandates that companies expend countless hours of costly manpower producing useless reports.

* ALSO AT LEAST ARGUABLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY GRANTED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Selective service laws, supported by defense hawks, mandate that young people sign up for potential conscription.

* IF THE DRAFT IS LEGAL (WHICH IT IS) THEN SELECTIVE SERVICE SEEMS AS IF IT WOULD BE EQUALLY LEGAL. THAT SAID... I'D ENTERTAIN THE OPPOSITE VIEW WERE A CASE TO BE PRESENTED.

I understand the distinction between these mandates and ObamaCare, but the bigger point is that Congress routinely imposes mandates that are wildly beyond the scope of Article I, Section 8.

Perhaps the most important lesson from ObamaCare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. ObamaCare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning.

Advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.

We must forcefully oppose lawless government, and demand a return to federalism by electing a Congress that legislates only within its strictly limited authority under Article I, Section 8.

* BUT WE WON'T. THEREFORE... ALL IS LOST.

April 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/holders_revenge.html

Attorney General Holder recently addressed the question of affirmative action, and for how long it would be required.

He answered, stunningly, that reverse discrimination has only just begun:

"Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices," Holder said. "The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin[.] ... When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?"

We see in these remarks the soil out of which rises the bitter fruit of racial resentment.

Holder's attitude is best summed up as the elite victim mentality. The belief is one of perpetual entitlement, fueled by bitterness, and given the stamp of official approval by politicians at the highest levels of national office.

Not all minorities share this attitude, while many non-minorities do. For instance, Professor William B. Eimicke of Columbia University supports a lawsuit against New York City because the city doesn't have enough black firefighters. Eimicke, who is white, says, "The reality is the [fire] department should look like the city it serves." In other words, the fire department has something wrong with it because there are not enough blacks employed. This is an example of an educated, mainstream leader promoting an arbitrary standard of under-representation.

Such standards will only fuel more demands for special treatment, and more resentment when the arbitrary standard proves predictably impossible to meet.

Take the example of Eimicke's fellow Columbia faculty. Of the 70 core faculty members in Prof. Eimicke's department, there are 3 blacks. Seventy-five percent of the faculty is white, and 4% is black, whereas New York City is 45% white and 27% black. Presumably, the principle that a fire department "should look like the city it serves" also applies to the faculty of a tony university. If the faculty "should look like the city it serves," then Columbia needs to expedite the removal of white professors. Will Eimicke enlist in the righteous cause of minority representation and quit? Or is that a sacrifice he prefers to delegate to students or middle- and working-class whites?

(We all know the answer: elite liberal hypocrisy protects many academics and politicians from the application of their own dogmas. Columbia's faculty will never match the ethnic makeup of New York City because professors are typically protected from purported racial favoritism, while firemen are fair game.)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 2, 2012 at 6:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

* OOPS! MAKE THAT "THREE-PARTER" AND MAKE THIS PART 2 OF 3...

As the attorney general's remark shows, the cycle of elite liberal hypocrisy and racial favoritism will never end, so long as liberals control racial discourse.

In the meantime, the results will become increasingly absurd.

The attorney general's daughters, and each successive generation, will continue to benefit from affirmative action to the same degree as truly disadvantaged minorities.

Racial preferences extend to business star-tups, prestigious academic admissions, job promotions, and expensive government contracts. Many of these preferences have no relationship to discrimination, oppression, or even socioeconomic class level; they even benefit recent immigrants whose ancestors never faced discrimination in America. Instead, we are actually creating a government-sanctioned nobility - a favored class of citizens with officially endorsed, race-based hereditary privileges.

Under the sway of of identity politics and racial grievance, even the most privileged members of our society will hold onto petty gripes. In a 2009 commencement address, the First Lady complained about her childhood experience with the University of Chicago. Recalling that she grew up right near the campus, she stated:

"[The] university never played a meaningful role in my academic development. The institution made no effort to reach out to me, a bright and promising student in their midst, and I had no reason to believe there was a place for me there."

That she felt entitled to be "reached out to" in the first place is astonishing. The egomaniacal sense of entitlement contained in her remarks will strike most people as utterly foreign. Yet this way of conceiving of one's own position in society is commonly shared. [Take for example] demands for "Obama money" and other such hilarity.

Perhaps Michelle Obama should have made an effort at some point to understand why young white students, many of whom were not from Chicago, would have been reticent about venturing out into the South Side of Chicago. The reasons are not hard to discover.

Immediately after their report on the First Lady's address, CNN aired a segment on violent crime on the South Side. Chief Ernest Brown of Chicago's Organized Crime Division explained the high rate of youth violence by saying that "their behavior is just inconsistent with civility." With that in mind, many students - of all races - may not feel that it is their place to step into another community and attempt to help its youth. In fact, not even Dr. Martin Luther King and his family stayed in urban Chicago for long after starting to work in the city in 1966. (Cohen and Taylor write that Coretta Scott King was concerned about violence in the neighborhood, and the Kings spent little time there.)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

Our own attorney general, ostensibly committed to even-handed enforcement of the nation's laws, referred to blacks as "my people."

Strangely, it is socially acceptable for only certain groups to proudly claim ethnic group membership.

If similar tribal loyalties were publicly boasted by a white ethnic, that would be seen as sinister.

(Just imagine the reaction if a President Bush had identified - on the basis of race - with a victim of minority-on-white crime by saying, "Channon Christian looks like my daughters.")

Identifying with an ethnic group as one's own "people" will lead in most cases to in-group favoritism. Cultural pride is one thing, but proclaiming exclusive ethnic group affiliation while occupying a position of public trust is another. This tendency is too often written off as a harmless cultural tic or a healthy form of therapeutic identity formation. The trouble is that there is a worldview lying beneath the "my people" language.

In his remarks, the attorney general has provided the most explicit statement of ethnic favoritism and racial grievance by a high public official in [modern] American history. And the racket has just begun: "When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?" asks Holder. The question is rhetorical, and his constituents know the answer.

In this liberal, racialized conception of society, minority groups are supposedly not getting "benefits to which they are entitled." The danger in this attitude is not just that people are asking for free stuff from the government. The danger is that minority group members are made to believe that society is purposefully withholding benefits from them due to their racial group membership. Hence the resentment and latent animosity lurking at the core of the welfare state, and its ever-expanding legion of dependents.

This menacing fact was once openly recognized by sociologists. Decades ago, Edward C. Banfield wrote that urban social problems will increasingly come to be regarded as the fault of "callousness or neglect by the 'white power structure'". Just as expected, we now have a cult of anti-white resentment named Critical Race Theory being taught in law schools around the nation.

The constant use of physical metaphors like "white power structure" will guarantee that some people view themselves - usually falsely - as being intentionally excluded from that structure. Of course, structures comprise people, so real human beings will inevitably become targets of the resentment originally intended for abstract "power structures."

The victim mentality feeds off racial bitterness, which is constantly politicized and enflamed. We see this in the rhetoric of Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-FL), who said that Trayvon Martin was "hunted down like a dog."

The attorney general and president are doing their part to sow the seeds of bitterness, entitlement, and racial favoritism. By acknowledging those seeds, one begins to understand why racial double standards and potential violence are so easily stirred up amidst controversies such as the current one involving Trayvon Martin.

April 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)