Thursday, August 9, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, August 9, 2012



Posted by at

14 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-100-million-now-receiving-federal-welfare_649589.html

A new chart set to be released later today by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee details a startling statistic: "Over 100 Million People in U.S. Now Receiving Some Form Of Federal Welfare."

* GREAT... (*SIGH*)... ALMOST A THIRD OF THE POPULATION...

[T]he figures used in the chart do not include those who are only benefiting from Social Security and/or Medicare.

* DO... NOT... INCLUDE... (*HEADACHE*)

* SO IN OTHER WORDS... ADD MILLIONS... PERHAPS TENS OF MILLIONS... TO THIS EQUATION BECAUSE IF MEMORY SERVES THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IS NOW COLLECTING IN MEDICARE BENEFITS (NOT SURE ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY) ABOUT TWICE THE AMOUNT HE OR SHE "CONTRIBUTED." (OH... AND BACK TO SOCIAL SECURITY... IT'S BEEN UPSIDE DOWN FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW...)

* WE ARE SO FUCKED, PEOPLE!

"The federal government administers nearly 80 different overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs," the Senate Budget Committee notes. ... Food stamps and Medicaid make up a large - and growing - chunk of the more than 100 million recipients.

(*SIGH*)

"Among the major means tested welfare programs, since 2000 Medicaid has increased from 34 million people to 54 million in 2011 and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) from 17 million to 45 million in 2011," says the Senate Budget Committee. "Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $800 billion over the next decade."

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* FOLKS... YOU UNDERSTAND, DON'T YOU... THIS IS UNSUSTAINABLE.

* FOLKS... YOU UNDERSTAND, DON'T YOU... "BREAKING" THE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO HAVE THE EXCUSE THEY NEED TO "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE" AMERICA IS THE GOAL OF THE LEFT AND THUS THESE INSANE ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE DELIBERATE!

The data come "from the U.S. Census’s Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that nearly 110,000 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011. (These figures do not include other means-tested benefits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or the health insurance premium subsidies included in the President’s health care law. CBO estimates that the premium subsidies, scheduled to begin in 2014, will cover at least 25 million individuals by the end of the decade.)"

(*LITERALLY HOLDING BACK THE TEARS*)

August 9, 2012 at 9:43 AM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/8/slow-path-to-progress-for-us-immigrants/

[M]ost politicians want legal immigration expanded.

During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama backed bills that would have dramatically boosted legal immigration, potentially by hundreds of thousands a year. As president, he has called for the same thing.

His presumed Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, in June called for increasing legal immigration for students who study in high-tech fields and admitting unlimited family members of those who hold green cards.

* JEEZUS FUCKING CHRIST...

“Our immigration system should help promote strong families as well — not keep them apart.

* FUCK YOU, MITT! THIS IS INSANITY! WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR THE SCHOOL USAGE... THE HOSPITAL USAGE... THE STRAIN ON OUR ALREADY CRUMBLING AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE...?!?! YOU...??? YOU'RE NOT RICH ENOUGH, BUDDY! BESIDES THAT, YOU PAY TAXES AT A RATE OF 15% - PERHAPS LESS! YOU SCUMBAG! YOU FILTHY PIECE OF SHIT!

Our nation benefits when moms and dads and their kids are all living together under the same roof,” Mr. Romney told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

* BUT EVEN IF THAT WAS ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT - THE NUCLEAR FAMILY (WHICH IT ISN'T) - THE POINT REMAINS THAT THERE ARE HUGE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH EDUCATING AND PROVIDING MEDICAL CARE FOR ALL THESE IMMIGRANT FAMILY MEMBERS OF WORKING IMMIGRANTS!

* AND AGAIN... WE'RE NOT TALKING JUST THE NUCLEAR FAMILY... WE'RE TALKING "IMPORTING" PARENTS OF ADULTS... GRANDPARENTS... AUNTS... UNCLES... COUSINS... NEPHEWS... NIECES... IT'S INSANE! IT'S CALLED CHAIN IMMIGRATION! AND THE SYSTEM CAN'T HANDLE IT...!!!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 9, 2012 at 10:03 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Mr. Camarota’s report took a broad look at the immigrant population and found that immigrants are contributing to major changes in American society, including that one-fourth of public school students now speak languages other than English at home.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*) CLASSIC SOCIETAL BREAKDOWN STUFF!

It also found that immigrants as a population lead complex economic lives that aren’t easily put into one category or another.

Immigrants made up more than half of all farmworkers, 41% of taxi drivers and 48% of maids and housekeepers, but they also represented about one-third of all computer programmers and 27 percent of doctors. The statistics varied greatly by geography. In Massachusetts, native-led households averaged $89,000 in income while immigrant households averaged $66,000.

* FORGET "AVERAGES." IT BENEFITS US TO TAKE IN THE BEST OF THE BEST. WHAT DOESN'T BENEFIT US IS TO TAKE UNSKILLED/LOW SKILLED LABORERS! (AMERICAN BORN BLACK UNEMPLOYMENT IS 14.1%... AND THAT'S "AVERAGED." FOR BLACK TEENS AND 20-SOMETHINGS... IT'S WAY HIGHER!

In Virginia, immigrant-led households averaged $93,000 in income, far outstripping native households’ $80,000 average. Likewise, immigrant families averaged a larger tax burden in Virginia — though they also had higher rates of use of welfare or Medicaid.

* YOU CAN'T HAVE A OPEN IMMIGRATION COMBINED WITH A WELFARE STATE! IT DOESN'T WORK!

The center found that use of public benefits varied dramatically based on where immigrants originated. Mexicans were most likely to use means-tested benefit programs, with 57%, while 6% of those from the United Kingdom did. The rate for native-born Americans is 23%.

* SO WE'RE BASICALLY "IMPORTING" WELFARE BURDENS! IT'S INSANE!

Mr. Camarota said a key dividing line is educational attainment. Immigrants who have been in the U.S. 20 years and who have bachelor’s degrees or higher make slightly more than the average native-born American. But immigrants with only high school educations make less no matter how long they have been in the U.S.

“The fact is the less-educated in particular — they don’t do well over time,” he said. “It’s not reasonable to expect an immigrant who comes to America with only a high school education to close the gap with the native-born.”

* FOLKS... HERE'S WHAT THE ARTICLE DOESN'T NOTE: EVEN EARNING "SLIGHTLY MORE" THAN THE AVERAGE NATIVE-BORN AMERICAN MEANS THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE A NET DRAIN ON THE AMERICAN ECONOMY THE WAY OUR PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX CODE WORKS! JEEZUS... IT'S LIKE AMERICA IS DETERMINED TO COMMIT NATIONAL SUICIDE!

August 9, 2012 at 10:03 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WHOLESALE_INVENTORIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-09-10-05-53

U.S. wholesale companies cut back their stockpiles in June as sales fell by the most in three years.

* THE OBAMA RECOVERY...

(*SIGH*)

August 9, 2012 at 10:15 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061151932&format=text

Elizabeth Warren scoffed at U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s charges that her daughter is leading a taxpayer-funded crusade to get welfare recipients out to vote for her mom, even as records show the Democrat scored thousands in campaign dough from the group’s bigwigs — including a former Boston Globe publisher.

* JEEZUS, FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... WHAT'S IT GONNA TAKE...?

Demos — a liberal nonprofit chaired by Amelia Warren Tyagi — joined forces with a spinoff of the defunct, scandal-plagued ACORN in a legal bid last May to compel the state welfare department to send nearly half a million get-out-the-vote letters to welfare recipients, the Herald reported yesterday.

* FRANKLY... (*PAUSE*)... I'D FAVOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SUSPENDING THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR ANYONE ON WELFARE. SINCE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT GONNA HAPPEN, THOUGH... YOU SEE THE PROBLEM.

(*SHRUG*)

Republicans howled that the mailings, which went out last month, were a bid to boost Warren in her neck-and-neck race with Brown.

Brown said yesterday that the get-out-the-welfare vote campaign — which cost taxpayers more than $275,000 — “smells wrong and ... is wrong.”

* YA THINK...?!?!

Warren Tyagi did not return calls left at her home and office. But campaign finance documents show Demos, which has targeted state welfare departments across the country, is top-heavy with several Warren backers. Four Demos board members, the group’s senior counsel and a PAC led by another board member have donated thousands to the Democrat’s campaign.

Demos President Miles Rapoport, a former Democratic secretary of state of Connecticut, ponied up $200 to Warren in January. Board member Adele Simmons gave $1,000.

Arnie Miller and former Boston Globe publisher Benjamin Taylor — both Demos board members — donated $500 apiece. Demos’ senior counsel, Lisa Danetz, gave Warren another $500. Demos board member Gina Glantz chairs the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which controls a PAC that donated $3,500 to the Democrat.

* IT'S NOT ABOUT THE DONATIONS. OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN AFFORD IT! AND, HEY... IT'S THEIR MONEY! NO... IT'S ABOUT THE FIX BEING IN! IT'S ABOUT THE $275,000 IN TAXPAYER MONEY CLEARLY "DIRECTED" WITH THE IDEA OF A PARTISAN POLITICAL PAYOFF IN MIND.

Meanwhile, court filings show that Ropes & Gray, where First Lady Diane Patrick is a partner, was one of the law firms involved in the suit against the state. The suit charged that the Department of Transitional Assistance violated federal law by not offering welfare recipients a chance to register to vote during office visits.

* JEEZUS...

* FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... THE LEFT IS TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE.

August 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-09/goldman-sachs-leads-split-with-obama-as-ge-jilts-him-too.html

Four years ago, employees of New York based Goldman-Sachs gave three-fourths of their campaign donations to Democratic candidates and committees, including presidential nominee Barack Obama.

This time, they’re showering 70% of their contributions on Republicans.

* THE OLIGARCHY IS ALIVE AND WELL, FOLKS.

Employees of General Electric Co. (GE) are giving 63% of their contributions to Republicans this year, almost a mirror image of their distribution in 2008 when Democrats received 66% of their donations.

* THE OLIGARCHY IS ALIVE, WELL, AND KICKING... (*SIGH*)

The top company source of funding for Obama in 2008 was Goldman, where employees gave him more than $1 million in campaign cash. JPMorgan and Citigroup employees were also in Obama’s top 10.

* SO MUCH FOR THE CANDIDATE OF THE COMMON MAN... (*SIGH*)

* FOLKS... HERE'S MY POINT: THE WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM IS DYSFUNCTIONAL! IT'S CORRUPT FROM TOP TO BOTTOM AND BOTH PARTIES ARE THE PARTIES OF CORPORATE (AND UNION) WELFARE.

* FOLKS... VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY ANSWER. OTHERWISE THEY'LL JUST KEEP ON PLUNDERING THE PUBLIC TREASURY TO REWARD THEIR BUDDIES (WHILE HANDSOMELY "REWARDED") AND KEEP ON ADDING DEBT UPON OUR CHILDRENS' AND GRANDCHILDRENS' SHOULDERS.

August 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-a-golden-state-train-wreck/2012/08/08/c469d642-e0ae-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_story.html

California State Senator Joe Simitian’s district office near Stanford’s campus is nestled among shops sporting excruciatingly cute names such as "A Street Bike Named Desire" and "Mom’s the Word Maternity Wear" intended to make the progressive gentry comfortable with upscale consumption by presenting it as whimsical.

This community surely has its share of "advanced thinkers" who think trains are wonderful because they are not cars (rampant individualism; people going wherever and whenever they want, unsupervised).

Nevertheless, Simitian was one of just four Democratic state senators who recently voted — in vain — to derail plans that eventually may involve spending more than $100 billion on a 500-mile bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

(*SIGH*)

* THE PROJECT WILL NEVER BE COMPLETED. EVERY BIT OF "PREP WORK" - COSTINGS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS... POSSIBLY EVEN BILLIONS... WILL BE MONEY WASTED ON STARTING A WHITE ELEPHANT PROJECT THAT WILL NEVER BE COMPLETED.

Simitian makes the obligatory genuflection: He favors high-speed rail “done right.” But having passed sixth-grade arithmetic, he has doubts. At one point, an estimate of 44 million riders a year — subsequently revised downward, substantially — assumed gasoline costing $40 a gallon.

* WHICH WOULD MEAN A TOTAL BREAKDOWN OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

In 2008, [idiot] Californians passed an initiative authorizing $9.95 billion in bonds...

* FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW... "BONDS" ARE DEBTS. DEBTS HAVE TO BE PAID BACK. CALIFORNIA - AND OTHER STATES - ARE CURRENTLY "AFFORDING" REPAYMENT OF PRESENT DEBTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS ONLY VIA TAKING OUT NEW DEBT TO PAY INTEREST ON OLD DEBT!

...to build what they were told would be a $33 billion high-speed rail system.

(*SNORT*) "TO BUILD WHAT THEY WERE TOLD WOULD BE A $33 BILLION HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM." UH-HUH.

California, constantly lurching from one budget crisis to a worse one, could not nearly afford even that, and soon the price was re-estimated at about $100 billion.

* OOPS! JUST A "ROUNDING ERROR" TO GOOD OL' GOV. MOONBEAM!

Not to worry, said Gov. Jerry Brown — the real price will be only $68.5 billion.

* HMM... EVEN IF TRUE... $68.5 BILLION IS OVER DOUBLE $33 BILLION - IS IT NOT? (BUT BACK TO HOW THE "REAL PRICE" WILL "ONLY" BE $68.5 BILLION...)

Why?

Partly because it will be less than bullet-like, not requiring extra-expensive roadbed.

(*SNORT*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 9, 2012 at 4:12 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

(Note Brown’s hilarious “.5.” Such is his precision that in May his projection of a $15.7 billion state budget deficit was 70% higher than his January estimate!)

Eager to hook states on higher spending, especially for "high-speed" rail, the Obama administration wants California to quickly spend $3.3 billion of federal funding (much of it borrowed from China, one source of President Obama’s train envy). Simitian says the $3.3 billion is about 5% of the cost “if the project stays on budget.”

If.

The $3.3 billion and $2.7 billion of state money would finance 130 miles of track in the Central Valley — a train from, and to, nowhere.

* FOLKS... YOU SIMPLY CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP!

Simitian notes that the 130 miles would not be high-speed rail and would not be electrified, and that there are no commitments for more federal funds, or for any dedicated funding source, or for private funding.

* JUST... er... JUST... (*SIGH*)... JUST... (*THROWING MY HANDS UP IN THE AIR*)

(*SILENCE*)

And the 2008 ballot measure that launched this folly forbids tax money for operating subsidies.

(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL*)

California’s voters evidently understand that Washington’s $3.3 billion is spending for the purpose of committing Sacramento to much greater spending: Polls show that 59% would now reject the project they authorized. But Democrats will not allow reconsideration.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) rejected $810 million in federal money for a 78-mile high-speed rail project paralleling Interstate 94 between Milwaukee and Madison.

(*THUMBS UP*)

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) rejected $400 million for a high-speed (well, about automobile speed) train paralleling Interstate 71 between Cleveland and Cincinnati.

(*HIGH FIVE*)

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) rejected $2.4 billion for 90 miles of high-speed rail paralleling Interstate 4 between Tampa and Orlando.

(*STANDING OVATION*)

(In faith-based transportation policy, rail worshipers think people will park their cars in Tampa and then rent cars in Orlando.)

* AGAIN... FOLKS... YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP!

Brown’s reverence for his rail bauble is fanaticism. ... His prescription for California’s ailments is higher taxes and expensive trains.

* INSANITY...

Come November, Californians will vote on Brown’s recipe for reviving this slow-growth, high-tax state: Raise income taxes “temporarily” on the rich and on everybody with a “temporary” sales tax increase.

(*SIGH*)

But with public services being slashed — some communities have lopped a week off the school year, with other contractions perhaps still to come — voters may reject more revenue for Sacramento while it is showering scores of billions on trains.

* ONE MAY HOPE...

(*SIGH*)

The 21st century may end before Brown’s sort-of-high-speed rail service begins. Coagulated California is so clotted with environmental regulations and lawyers that turning a spade of earth (Spare that endangered toad!) invites decades of litigation.

Regarding high-speed rail, this is the good news.

August 9, 2012 at 4:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/08/heritage-legal-memo-welfare-reforms-work-requirements-cannot-be-waived/

The Obama Administration is denying that it has gutted the work requirements from the 1996 welfare reform law, despite all evidence that it has.

Heritage is going in-depth with analysis of the law and the reasoning Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius gives for rewriting it.

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO REWRITE LAWS! HELL... THE SUPREME COURT DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO REWRITE LAWS!

A new Legal Memo by visiting legal fellow Andrew Grossman lays out the details of the HHS argument and pointedly states that there is no basis in law for the changes the Administration has made.

* IF NECESSARY I'LL POST FOLLOW-UPS CONCERNING THIS.

The centerpiece of the 1996 law — and the center of controversy in the HHS action — is a part of the original law called Section 407, which set an absolute requirement that state welfare programs achieve specific work-participation rates or forfeit federal funding.

It was a hard-fought battle, Grossman recalls: “Even after President Bill Clinton twice vetoed welfare reform legislation, Congress refused to budge on the core requirement of Section 407, insisting on strong work incentives to discourage abuses and to help lift recipients off of welfare and out of poverty.”

Grossman explains that Section 407 is very specific about what “work” means and how much would be required:

Section 407 enumerates 12 “work activities” — including subsidized and unsubsidized employment, on-the-job training, and vocational training — that satisfy the state and individual work requirements.

It specified the number of hours per week that family members would be required to work to be considered “participating in work activities.”

It put a hard cap of 30% on the proportion of a state’s welfare recipients who could participate in educational activities and still be counted as engaged in work.

Finally, the law requires HHS to oversee and verify states’ compliance with all work requirements.

Obama’s HHS now claims that it has the authority to waive the requirements of Section 407.

* THE VERY CLAIM IS LUDACRIS! (BUT... THIS BEING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION... NOT UNEXPECTED.)

Grossman spotlights the department’s twisted legal reasoning, exposing its flaws.

What’s more, Grossman says that waiving the work requirements “is not only terrible policy, but also a violation of the President’s constitutional obligation to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’”

* FOLKS... IT'S CRUCIAL WE GET THIS MAN OUT OF OFFICE. THE RULE OF LAW MEANS NOTHING TO HIM.

August 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/welfare-reforms-work-requirements-cannot-be-waived

* FOLKS... THIS IS THE LINK TO THE LEGAL RESEARCH DONE ON THE "WAIVER" ISSUE REFERENCED IN THE PRECEDING NEWSBITE.

Under the guise of providing states greater “flexibility” in operating their welfare programs, the Obama Administration now claims the authority to weaken or waive the work requirements that are at the heart of welfare reform. But Congress intended that those requirements be absolutely mandatory in all instances and specifically withheld any authority to weaken or waive them.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 stands as perhaps the most important entitlement reform in the nation’s history, chiefly because of its core requirement that able-bodied parents eligible for welfare assistance work, search for work, or train to work. Its centerpiece (and the most controversial provision at the time of its passage) is Section 407, “Mandatory Work Requirements,” which sets out an absolute requirement that state welfare programs achieve specific work-participation rates or forfeit federal funding.

[T]he Obama Administration’s claim that it may weaken or waive work requirements is contrary to law.

Section 407 establishes a stand-alone requirement for state welfare plans that brooks no exceptions, befitting its status as the core component of the 1996 reform. It is also absent from the list of requirements that may be waived under Section 1115.

(The Obama Administration...argues that Section 1115, which provides waiver authority for states to establish demonstration projects, authorizes it to approve state programs that “test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407,” including different “definitions of work activities and engagement.” In this way, states could evade Section 407’s work-participation requirement without sacrificing federal funding.)

* HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH THAT FALSE ARGUMENT:

[T]o eliminate any possible ambiguity as to whether the work requirements could be waived immediately following passage of the 1996 reform, a separate provision specifically states that waivers “shall not affect the applicability of section [407].”

The Obama Administration’s argument that the authority to waive a separate section that merely mentions Section 407 places all work requirements at the Administration’s mercy simply beggars belief.

(*NOD*)

* THE LEGAL MEME IS... WELL... A LEGAL MEME. (*SMILE*) BUT, HEY... I PROVIDE THE LINK UP ABOVE IN CASE YOU WANNA READ THE WHOLE THING FOR YOURSELF.

August 9, 2012 at 5:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/yes_vote_fraud_real_B5KsHFqcgUjYJCivnI6IuN#ixzz231mFJ4bd

The vote of one idiot can cancel out the vote of a single genius — such is the glory of our one-man, one-vote system. But what about the vote of an illegal alien? The deceased? Or a convicted felon? Should they be allowed to spoil the electoral process — and perhaps change history?

And why — in the name of “civil rights” — is Attorney General Eric Holder using the power of the Justice Department to hamstring states trying to put a stop to voter fraud by requiring a secure ID in order to vote?

The answer is clear: In an election that promises to be every bit as close as Bush v. Gore in 2000, each side is going to need every vote it can get. And one way, historically, that Democrats have been able to swing close elections is through fraud.

Consider:

1) In the 2004 Washington state governor’s race, the Republican’s early lead was overcome by the miraculous discovery of previously uncounted ballots squirreled away in the Democratic stronghold of Seattle, handing the election to the Democrat.

2) In the close governor’s race in Connecticut in 2010, a mysterious shortage of ballots in Bridgeport kept the polls open an extra two hours as allegedly blank ballots were photocopied and handed out in the heavily Democratic city. Dannel Malloy defeated Republican Tom Foley by nearly 7,000 votes statewide — but by almost 14,000 votes in Bridgeport.

3) [A] new book (“Who’s Counting?”) - by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky — charges that Al Franken’s 2008 defeat of incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman may be directly attributable to felons voting illegally. Coleman led on election night, but a series of recounts lasting eight months eventually gave the seat to the former Saturday Night Live star.

The Minnesota win gave the Democrats their 60th Senate seat, creating the filibuster-proof majority that helped shovel ObamaCare into law.

Later, a conservative watchdog group matched criminal records with the voting rolls and discovered that 1,099 felons had illegally cast ballots. State law mandates prosecutions in such cases; 177 have been convicted so far, with 66 more awaiting trial.

Franken’s eventual margin of “victory”? A mere 312 votes.

Democrats’ chicanery extends back to the days of Tammany Hall and other big-city machines. But today, much of the dirty work is done by lawyers. So maybe it’s not so surprising that Holder is either “investigating” or actually suing states like South Carolina, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania that have instituted tougher new requirements, including the presentation of government-issued ID.

Never mind that the Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote has already upheld the constitutionality of requiring valid identification in a 2008 case in Indiana.

Holder, the most politicized attorney general since Nixon’s John Mitchell, has consistently moved against any efforts to protect the integrity of the ballot box in the service of the party that keeps him employed. Infamously, he dropped prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party, who were intimidating white voters outside a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 presidential election.

(And he killed the case despite the urging of lawyers at Justice and members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which in a 2010 report accused Justice of “open hostility and opposition” to prosecuting cases with white victims.)

In a speech last month to the NAACP, the AG charged that Republican efforts to ensure the integrity of the electoral process effectively amount to “voter suppression,” under the absurd premise that minorities are incapable of obtaining proper ID.

Risibly, Holder likened the tougher ID requirements to the days of Jim Crow and the poll tax — despite the fact that, in Pennsylvania for example, the state provides photo IDs free of charge.

Studies show that the cemetery, illegal-immigrant and felon votes tends to break heavily Democratic. Just ask Norm Coleman...

August 9, 2012 at 5:28 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313429/keep-pay-raise-i-can-t-afford-it-michael-g-franc

Does our $927-billion-per-year welfare state discourage the poor from seeking work?

Does it cause them to shun pay hikes?

Does it, in short, create dependency?

* YES, YES, AND YES!

Our 80 or so federal welfare programs are designed so that benefits phase out as incomes rise.

Fair enough.

But this feature of welfare — the necessity of phasing out benefits as incomes rise — brings a serious moral hazard. In many cases, economists have calculated, welfare recipients who enter the work force or receive pay raises lose a dollar or more of benefits for each additional dollar they earn.

The system makes fools of those who work hard.

Recently the chairmen of two important subcommittees on Capitol Hill convened a hearing on this issue. Davis invited Great Britain’s chief welfare reformer, Sir Ian Duncan Smith, and a panel of esteemed economists and social scientists to testify on the extent of this problem. But it was another witness, Representative Gwen Moore (D-WI), whose testimony - which raised some eyebrows - stood out.

Moore is a product of inner-city Milwaukee. She persevered through hard times to graduate from Marquette University and win election first to the Wisconsin assembly and then to the state senate, where she rose to be senate president. She is the first African American to represent Wisconsin in Congress.

In her written statement, Moore challenged the premise of the hearing, describing it as “predicated on a series of false assumptions about our social-safety net.”

She went on: "I can tell you that I didn’t sit down after a long day of work to calculate the “marginal tax rate” of government benefits to determine my choices. I think that the panelists here today — who make it sound like low-income women get home every night and pore over a spreadsheet to figure out how much they’ll be taxed on the next dollar they earn, or their next dollar in benefits — need a bit of a reality check."

* YES... ONLY... (*DRUM ROLL*)... READ ON...

But her oral testimony sent an entirely different message.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 9, 2012 at 6:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

She drew from her own compelling personal experience as a young mother on welfare to illustrate why we need to turn our welfare state upside down and start over.

“I once had a job,” Moore acknowledged, “and begged my supervisor not to give me a 50-cents-an-hour raise lest I lose Title 20 day care.”

The same work disincentive arose when she contemplated the health coverage she received through Medicaid. “I would want to work if in fact I didn’t risk losing Medicaid.”

Low-wage workers may not sit in front of spreadsheets at night calculating their marginal tax rates to determine whether or when they should take a job or agree to a pay raise. But some providers of welfare benefits, it seems, perform that function for them. Representative Moore explained:

"My day-care provider told me that I was . . . earning $17,000 a year with three kids, I was still poor, that I had in fact hit that marginal tax rate, and that if I earned any more, I was still poor, that . . . so, when . . . January came around, and the automatic increases . . . in Title 20 occurred, the inflationary increases, then I could take . . . the 50-cents-an-hour raise."

So, with a little “welfare math” welfare recipients are instructed in how to time their entry into the work force, their departure from it, and any salary increases.

(*SIGH*)

Should that raise come before or after the next scheduled cost-of-living increase in a welfare program?

Should she accept that promising entry-level position without first calculating whether the new source of income would mean a reduction in the welfare benefits she receives?

(*SIGH*)

Every time these considerations, which are based on rational economic self-interest, compete with what should be no-brainer decisions — take the job! accept the pay raise, and work even harder for the next one! — the aspiring poor lose.

Let’s fix the system by injecting some much-needed moral clarity into the rewards and benefits it offers.

* AMEN!

August 9, 2012 at 6:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577579170132171552.html?grcc=af867d07eeff64a83fbca0eea4b15c95Z3ZhpgeZ0Z810Z200Z79Z2&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_news&grcc2=fff8aa52948a33f136306f15050167d8~1344555435539~18f3b45caef80572d421f68a979bd6dc~tsteub~1344555390703~3~2~0~0~0~810~200~79~0~2~

Four staff members of former Rep. Thaddeus McCotter's were charged with election fraud Thursday after they were accused of padding nomination petitions with old and duplicate signatures.

The 10-week investigation by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette concluded with 34 felony and misdemeanor charges in state court against the staffers.

Mr. McCotter, a Republican, represented Detroit's northwest suburbs from 2003 until his resignation last month.

* YEP... (*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)... A REPUBLICAN.

"This was not simply Keystone Kops run amok," Mr. Schuette, also a Republican, said Thursday. "Serious criminal acts were committed." No charges were filed against Mr. McCotter.

* Hmm... WE'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS ONE...

To get on the ballot for a primary election in Michigan, a congressional candidate needs to collect and submit more than 1,000 valid signatures of eligible voters living in the district.

This year, the staff of Mr. McCotter, who was running for a sixth term, submitted petitions with 1,800 signatures, but state officials in May found that only 244 were valid after knocking out duplicates and triplicates, according to election officials. That conclusion kept Mr. McCotter's name off the ballot and launched the criminal investigation.

The ex-lawmaker "was asleep at the switch" in overseeing the collection and submission of signatures, Mr. Schuette said.

* Hmm... I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM SOMEONE IN THE KNOW WHO HAS A DIFFERENT TAKE. SEEMS LIKE A COP-OUT TO ME.

(*SHRUG*)

But the state's top attorney said he found no direct evidence of criminal fraud against Mr. McCotter, who briefly ran for the GOP presidential nomination last year.

* I WONDER HOW HARD HE LOOKED? (JUST SAYIN'...!)

Investigators say they discovered Mr. McCotter's staff altered petitions by pasting in signatures collected in previous elections and duplicating signature pages to boost the numbers.

Those charged were Mr. McCotter's deputy district director Don Yowchuang, 33 years old; deputy director Paul Seewald, 47; district representative Mary Melissa Turnbull, 58; and former scheduler Lorianne O'Brady, 52.

Three face felonies, including criminal conspiracy, which carries up to five years in prison. Ms. O'Brady was charged only with misdemeanors of falsely signing a nominating petition that she didn't circulate herself.

* DID SHE KNOWINGLY COMMIT FRAUD OR NOT - THAT'S ALL I WANNA KNOW. IF SHE DID... SHE SHOULD GO TO JAIL. PERIOD.

An attorney for Messrs. Yowchuang and Seewald, who are no longer working in the district office, declined to comment about the case. Lawyers for the other defendants didn't return calls.

Kerry Bentivolio, a tea-party-backed candidate, won Tuesday's Republican primary for Mr. McCotter's old seat.

* THANK GOD!

He will face Democrat Syed Taj in November.

August 9, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)