Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, November 27, 2012


Well, folks... back to "normal" newsbiting today!

 (As always, the actual newsbites can be found within the comments section...)

Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/27/ambassador-susan-rice-biography-benghazi/1728985/

After meeting with U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Tuesday, three GOP lawmakers said their concerns have only grown about misleading statements Rice made concerning the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.

Rice's meeting with Sens. John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Kelly Ayotte on Capitol Hill came as the White House signaled it may nominate Rice to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of State.

* AS YOU KNOW, FOLKS, I'M (TO PUT IT NICELY!) NOT A BIG FAN OF MCCAIN AND GRAHAM. (NO STRONG FEELINGS ON AYOTTE.) BUT ON THIS ONE... THEY'RE REPRESENTING ME!

McCain (R-AZ0) has said he may oppose her nomination because she should have known her statements on the Sept. 11 attack were false.

* ...MAY...???

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA operations officer and now an analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a conservative think tank, says Rice's performance after the Benghazi attack raises a red flag.

"These officials are supposed to assess these things for themselves," Gerecht said. "If you see a situation where a consulate safe house is being attacked by mortars and organized teams, that should tell you this was planned before that video came out."

* FOLKS... COM'ON... RICE LIED - DELIBERATELY LIED - THAT'S THE ONLY EXPLANATION THAT GIVES HER CREDIT FOR HAVING AN IQ OVER 70.

(*SHRUG*)

Rice knew the narrative that would satisfy the White House, Gerecht said. Included in that narrative is that al-Qaeda is losing ground, public sentiments toward the United States are improving in the Middle East, and the attack was not connected to U.S. foreign policy.

* UM-HMM! YEP!

But she still would have had access numerous news reports that contradicted that narrative, he said.

* OF COURSE SHE DID; HELL... I DID! YOU ALL DID! CHECK OUT THE USUALLY RIGHT ARCHIVES!

Graham and McCain would not say on Tuesday whether they planned to block her potential nomination.

* FOLKS... IF THE U.S. WAS STILL A FUNCTIONING CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC NOT ONE SINGLE U.S. SENATOR - REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT - WOULD VOTE FOR SUSAN RIGHT!

* FOLKS... IF THE U.S. WAS STILL A FUNCTIONING CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC WITH LEGISLATORS WHO TOOK THEIR OATHS SERIOUSLY... OBAMA WOULD RIGHT NOW BE FACING IMPEACHMENT.

November 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Sandy-Heat-Power-Apartments-NYC-Landlords-Mayor-180896181.html?dr

Under estimates Mayor Bloomberg gave Monday, more than 800 storm-damaged NYC apartment buildings lack heat because equipment in the buildings needs repair.

Roughly 500 lack power.

An estimated 6,000 private homes also lack heat and power.

* AMERICA 2012.

* BUT REMEMBER, FOLKS... IT WAS... er... BUSH WHO WAS INCOMPETENT DURING KATRINA...

* NOPE... DON'T BLAME BLOOMBERG. DON'T BLAME CUOMO. AND CERTAINLY DON'T BLAME OBAMA!

* FOLKS... IMAGINE... JUST IMAGINE IF BUSH WERE STILL PRESIDENT. IMAGINE IF ANY REPUBLICAN WAS PRESIDENT.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

November 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/black-friday-treasury-borrowed-21169-us-household-day-after-thanksgiving

The U.S. Treasury increased the net debt of the United States $24,327,048,384.38 on the day after Thanksgiving...

At the close of business last Wednesday, according to the Treasury, the national debt was $16,283,161,895,179.85.

On Thanksgiving, the Treasury took the day off and did no borrowing.

But on Friday, the Treasury increased the debt of the United States to $16,307,488,943,564.23.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

That was a one-day increase of $24,327,048,384.38.

When President Barack Obama first took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.

Since then, it has increased by $5,680,611,894,651.15.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

November 27, 2012 at 2:11 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/mortgage-interest-deduction-once-a-sacred-cow-is-seen-as-vulnerable/?hp

A tax break that has long been untouchable could soon be in for some serious scrutiny.

* GOOD!

Many home buyers deduct their mortgage interest when assessing their tax bill, a perk that has helped bolster the income of millions of families — and the broader housing market.

* BY "BOLSTER" THEY MEAN "ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE" (EVEN THOUGH - SADLY - THE WRITER PROBABLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THIS).

But as President Obama and Congress try to hash out a deal to reduce the budget deficit, the mortgage interest deduction will likely be part of the discussion.

* GET RID OF IT WHILE GRANDFATHERING EXISTING HOMEOWNERS WHILE CREATING SOME SORT OF PATHWAY TOWARDS ENDING IT EVEN FOR THEM GRADUALLY OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.

Limits on a broad array of deductions could emerge in any budget deal. It is likely that any caps would be structured to aim at high-income households, and would diminish or end the mortgage tax break for many of those taxpayers.

* WHILE THIS IS A NO-BRAINER, IT SHOULD APPLY TO EVERYONE. ENOUGH WITH DIVIDING PEOPLE!

“This is definitely a chance worth jumping for,” said Amir Sufi, a professor at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago. “For a fixed amount of revenue, it’s better to remove deductions than increase marginal tax rates.”

* WELL "DUH!"

One of the reasons the mortgage tax break is so vulnerable is that both Democrats and Republicans have recently favored capping deductions, including both President Obama and the recent Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

* UH... FOLKS... IF OBAMA REALLY FAVORED THIS... WHY DIDN'T IT GET DONE IN 2009 OR 2010 WHEN HE AND HIS PARTY EXERCISED TOTAL CONTROL OF BOTH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH? HMM...???

(*SHRUG*)

With the mortgage interest deduction, households realized tax savings of $83 billion in 2010, according to figures from the Reason Foundation. The bulk of those savings are enjoyed by the higher earners.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)

Under the current rules, a high-earning household deducting $20,000 in interest payments would probably apply a 35% rate to that amount and receive $7,000 in tax savings.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The Obama budget aims to limit that tax saving by capping that rate at 28%. If that rate were applied to $20,000 of interest payments, the saving would fall to $5,800.

(*SNORT*)

* FOLKS... THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BORROWS 43-CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR IT SQUANDERS... AND THIS IS OBAMA'S BIG "REFORM?"

* FOLKS... WE'RE FUCKED. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS... WE'RE FUCKED.

* FOLKS... BOTTOM LINE... WE NEED REAL TAX REFORM. WE NEED TO END ALL THESE LOOPHOLES AND ESTABLISH TAX FLOORS AND CEILINGS. PERIOD.

November 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324469304578143344246556774.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Several months ago, while flipping channels with the remote, I stopped on an MTV show about a working mom whose whole life was upended when her "partner" announced that he was splitting.

It caught my attention because this mother lived in a nice apartment that looked like one in my suburban New Jersey town, and she was applying for food stamps.

This wasn't your caricature "taker" — the woman had a real job.

With her "partner" leaving, however, she could no longer afford the rent, and she would have trouble providing for her two young boys alone.

* SO EITHER FIND A HIGHER PAYING JOB, OR, FIND A LESS EXPENSIVE PLACE TO LIVE!

As she walked up to an office to sign up for food stamps, she said something like, "I can't believe I am applying for public assistance."

Her situation provoked two questions. First, how could her boyfriend just abandon his sons without having to pay child support? Second, what is the conservative response to a woman who finds herself in this situation?

* MY RESPONSE...? DENY HER FOOD STAMPS! FORCE THE FATHER TO PAY TOWARDS CHILD SUPPORT!

The show comes back to me in wake of the thumping Mitt Romney took in the presidential election among the demographic this mom represents: unmarried women. During the 2012 campaign, we conservatives had great sport at the expense of the Obama administration's "Life of Julia" — a cartoon explaining the cradle-to-grave government programs that provided for Julia's happy and successful life. The president, alas, had the last laugh. For the voting blocs that went so disproportionately for the president's re-election — notably, Latinos and single women — the Julia view of government clearly resonates.

* WHICH IS WHY WE MUST LIMIT THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT - SO THE "TAKERS" CAN'T TAKE BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT!

To put it another way, maybe Americans who have reason to feel insecure about their futures don't find a government that promises to be there for them when they need it all that menacing.

* WHICH IS WHY WE NEED TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM... THE FREEDOM TO TELL THE TAKERS "NO." THE FREEDOM TO BE TAXED AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE GOVERNMENT IS AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE!

The dominant media conclusion from this is that the Republican Party is cooked unless it surrenders its principles. I'm not so sure. To the contrary, it strikes me that now is a pretty good time to get back to principles — and to do more to show people who gave President Obama his victory why their dreams and families would be better served by a philosophy of free markets and limited government.

* UNFORTUNATELY... FREEDOM IS NOT A PRINCIPLE MUCH RESPECTED BY TODAY'S AMERICANS. CERTAINLY MOST AMERICANS DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LINK BETWEEN INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM. BOTTOM LINE... FREEDOM EQUALS LIMITATION UPON OTHERS RIGHTS TO IMPACT UPON ONES FREEDOM - WE MUST EXPLAIN THIS AND FIGHT FOR THIS!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

November 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Let's concede that those who are pushing to expand government have one huge advantage. Their advantage is that their solutions are immediate, direct and easy to explain. Take that MTV mom. As it turned out, the reason her partner could abandon those two young boys is because they weren't his. He'd been supporting another man's children, and apparently decided he'd had enough.

* WHERE... IS... THE... FATHER...?!?!

The conservative might feel vindicated here: Had the mom been married to and living with her children's father, chances are she and her boys would not find themselves so vulnerable.

Being correct, however, isn't the same thing as being persuasive.

The conservative is rightly concerned with incentives and the long-term effects of any government program for relief, which are vital concerns for workable policy. The liberal is far less abstract: Here are some food stamps so your children don't go hungry tonight. Never mind the long-term costs and consequences of these "solutions."

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Yes, the education loans that supposedly make college "affordable" actually drive its costs up faster than normal inflation.

Yes, housing subsidies have saddled people with homes they cannot afford.

And, yes, minimum-wage laws price the people who can least afford it out of the job market.

The dilemma for those of us who oppose Big Government solutions is that the true costs of these "solutions" are seldom clear until it's too late.

* AND THIS IGNORANCE IS DELIBERATELY FOSTERED BY OUR "EDUCATION" SYSTEM - WHICH IS LARGELY RUN AND STAFFED BY LIBERALS!

So what's a Republican to do?

Conservatives' top priority should be promoting an alternative — that in a highly competitive, global economy, the only real economic security for ordinary Americans is the security of opportunity.

* HERE'S THE PROBLEM: WE LIVE IN A TWO-PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM WHERE NEITHER PARTY IS ACTUALLY A CONSERVATIVE PARTY IN THE SENSE THAT I'M CONSERVATIVE... IN THE SENSE THAT THE FOUNDERS WERE CONSERVATIVE (ACTUALLY THEY WERE "BIG L" LIBERALS... AND SO AM I IN PART... BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION...)... IN THE SENSE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS CONSERVATIVE...

Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, describes the conservative task this way: "The Left's approach to social policy is to shield people from the American economy, while conservatives' approach must be to enable them to enjoy its benefits — to enable people to move up rather than to make them more secure in poverty. Conservatives know that this is where our principles point, but we need to make sure that the striving immigrant worker or the struggling single mom knows that too."

It can be done.

* DOUBTFUL. THE LEFT CONTROLS THE SCHOOLS... THEY CONTROL THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY... THEY CONTROL THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA... THEY CONTROL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT... THEY CONTROL MOST OF THE LARGER AND MORE POLITICALLY AND CULTURALLY INFLUENCIAL STATE'S GOVERNMENTS...

(*SIGH*)

Three decades ago, Milton and Rose Friedman illustrated the benefits of capitalism to millions of ordinary citizens through their television series and book, "Free to Choose."

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

* NOT EXACTLY A MASS MOVEMENT. (I DO GET THE POINT, THOUGH...)

We need a similar popular effort today, to bring home the benefits of the free market to Americans who think it works only for the kind of folks who work at Bain Capital — or write columns for The Wall Street Journal.

* AGREED; BUT THE ESTABLISHMENT GOP WOULD FIGHT AGAINST SUCH A MASS MOVEMENT ALMOST AS HARD AS WOULD THE LEFT. WE HAVE SUCH A MOVEMENT - IT'S CALLED THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT. WE'VE ALREADY SEEN EXACTLY WHAT I'VE JUST FORECAST.

November 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

A decade and a half ago, both of us served on President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, the forerunner to President Obama's recent National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

* THE AUTHORS: CHRIS COX AND BILL ARCHER

In 1994 we predicted that unless something was done to control runaway entitlement spending Medicare and Social Security would eventually go bankrupt or confront severe benefit cuts.

* "SOMETHING." GEE... THANKS.

Eighteen years later, nothing has been done.

Why?

The usual reason is that entitlement reform is the third rail of American politics. That explanation presupposes voter demand for entitlements at any cost, even if it means bankrupting the nation. A better explanation is that the full extent of the problem has remained hidden from policy makers and the public because of less than transparent government financial statements. How else could responsible officials claim that Medicare and Social Security have the resources they need to fulfill their commitments for years to come?

* OH, PLEASE...! WHAT NONSENSE! WHILE IT'S TRUE THAT THE AVERAGE SCHMUCK DOESN'T KNOW JACK, THOSE RUNNING THE SYSTEM KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING!

As Washington wrestles with the roughly $600 billion "fiscal cliff" and the 2013 budget, the far greater fiscal challenge of the U.S. government's unfunded pension and health-care liabilities remains offstage. The truly important figures would appear on the federal balance sheet — if the government prepared an accurate one.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

* FOLKS... WE'RE DEALING WITH AN OLIGARCHY! WHAT...??? YOU DON'T THINK THAT THE FOLKS AT THE NYT... THE WASHINGTON POST... THE NETWORKS... KNOW EVERYTHING THAT COX AND ARCHER ARE ABOUT TO "SHARE" WITH US...?!?!

(*SNORT*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

November 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

For years, the government has gotten by without having to produce the kind of financial statements that are required of most significant for-profit and nonprofit enterprises.

* YES, YES... TELL ME SOMETHING I HAVEN'T KNOWN SINCE I WAS A KID IN HIGH SCHOOL, WHY DON'T YOU?!

(*SMIRK*)

The U.S. Treasury "balance sheet" does list liabilities such as Treasury debt issued to the public, federal employee pensions, and post-retirement health benefits. But it does not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security and other outsized and very real obligations.

* WORSE... IT DOUBLE-COUNTS LIABILITIES AS ASSETS... BUT I'M GUESSING THE AUTHORS WILL GET TO THIS...

(*SNORT*)

As a result, fiscal policy discussions generally focus on current-year budget deficits, the accumulated national debt, and the relationships between these two items and gross domestic product. We most often hear about the alarming national debt (more than 100% of GDP), and the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1 trillion (6.97% of GDP). As dangerous as those numbers are, they do not begin to tell the story of the federal government's true liabilities.

The actual liabilities of the federal government — including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits — already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP.

* LISTEN... THE CONCEPT THEY'RE HIGHLIGHTING IS CORRECT. THE NUMBERS, THOUGH... IT ALL DEPENDS UPON WHAT NUMBERS (FORECASTS... PREDICTIONS) YOU PLUG IN AND HOW FAR OUT (HOW MANY YEARS) WE'RE TALKING. BUT IN ANY CASE... YEAH... IT'S A DISASTER...

For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet. But it is possible to discover them. Included in the annual Medicare Trustees' report are separate actuarial estimates of the unfunded liability for Medicare Part A (the hospital portion), Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage).

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.

Were American policy makers to have the benefit of transparent financial statements prepared the way public companies must report their pension liabilities, they would see clearly the magnitude of the future borrowing that these liabilities imply.

* OH, PLEASE... THEY SEE THEM... (FOR CHRIST'S SAKE... I SEE THEM!)

Borrowing on this scale could eclipse the capacity of global capital markets and bankrupt not only the programs themselves but the entire federal government.

These real-world impacts will be felt when currently unfunded liabilities need to be paid.

* DON'T FOOL YOURSELVES, FOLKS... WE'RE ALREADY FEELING IT. WE'RE FEELING IT IN INFLATION... LOWERED STANDARD OF LIVING... HIGHER DEBT... LESS GROWTH... HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT... AND ON AND ON AND ON...

* TO BE CONTINUED...

November 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM
William R. Barker said...

CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

In theory, the Medicare and Social Security trust funds have at least some money to pay a portion of the bills that are coming due. In actuality, the cupboard is bare: 100% of the payroll taxes for these programs were spent in the same year they were collected.

(*NOD*)

* NOTICE HOW THE MEDIA DOESN'T HARP ON THIS BEFORE ELECTIONS...

(*SMIRK*)

In exchange for the payroll taxes that aren't paid out in benefits to current retirees in any given year, the trust funds got non-marketable Treasury debt.

* DEBT! D*E*B*T!

Now, as the baby boomers' promised benefits swamp the payroll-tax collections from today's workers, the government has to swap the trust funds' nonmarketable securities for marketable Treasury debt. The Treasury will then have to sell not only this debt, but far more, in order to pay the benefits as they come due.

* BOTTOM LINE... D*E*B*T!

When combined with funding the general cash deficits, these multitrillion-dollar Treasury operations will dominate the capital markets in the years ahead, particularly given China's de-emphasis of new investment in U.S. Treasurys in favor of increasing foreign direct investment, and Japan's and Europe's own sovereign-debt challenges.

When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.

* WE'RE... SO... FUCKED...

Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target.

* ONE... MORE... TIME...

Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target.

According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion.

(*SNORT*)

In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion.

$5.1 trillion + $1.6 trillion = $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.

In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities.

Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved.

Neither the public nor policy makers will be able to fully understand and deal with these issues unless the government publishes financial statements that present the government's largest financial liabilities in accordance with well-established norms in the private sector.

When the new Congress convenes in January, making the numbers clear and establishing policies that finally address them before it is too late should be a top order of business.

* YEAH... I WON'T BE HOLDING MY BREATH...

November 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)