Monday, December 3, 2012
Barker's Newsbites: Monday, Dec. 3, 2012
Why, yes... yes it is The Most Wonderful Time of the Year!
On a somber note, my cousin Mick's pop passed the other day. He was a good guy. Here's to you, Dominick S. Cassisi... and tell Andy that when I get up there I wanna meet him!
And now... on to newsbites... (Found in the comments section - as always!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2031:headed-toward-the-11th-hour-compromise&catid=64:2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69
* BY THE RT. HON. RON PAUL
As the year draws to an end, America faces yet another Congressionally-manufactured crisis which will likely end in yet another 11th hour compromise, resulting in more government growth touted as “saving” the economy.
While cutting taxes is always a good idea, setting up a ticking time bomb with a sunset provision, as the Bush tax cuts did, is terrible policy. Congress should have just cut taxes. But instead, we have a crisis that is sure not to go to waste.
* UNDERSTAND, FOLKS... ALONG WITH PAUL'S PREMISE REGARDING TAXES IS HIS BELIEF THAT SPENDING SHOULD BE WITHIN REVENUE. IN OTHER WORDS, AT THE SAME TIME HE'S FOR LESS TAXES HE'S ALSO FOR LESS SPENDING... FOR BALANCING SPENDING WITH REVENUE.
The hysteria surrounding the January 1 deadline for the Budget Control Act’s spending cuts and expiration of the Bush tax cuts seems all too familiar. Even the language is predictably hysterical: if government reduces planned spending increases by even a tiny amount, the economy will go over a “fiscal cliff.” This is nonsense.
This rhetoric is based on the belief that government spending sustains the economy, when in fact the opposite is true. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken from consumers, businessmen, or investors. Reducing spending can only help the economy by putting money back in the hands of ordinary Americans. Politicians who claim to support the free market and the lower and middle-class should take this to heart.
The reality is, however, that neither Republicans nor Democrats are serious about cutting spending. Even though U.S. military spending is exponentially larger than any other country and is notorious for its inefficiency and cost overruns, Republicans cannot seem to stomach even one penny of cuts to the Pentagon’s budget. This is unfortunate because this is the easiest, most obvious place to start getting spending under control. The military-industrial complex and unconstitutional overseas military interventions should be the first place we look for budget cuts.
Similarly, Democrats are digging in their heels on not cutting any welfare or entitlement spending and instead propose to "fix" the deficit by raising taxes on the rich, even though the U.S. Government already has a progressive tax code and the rich already pay more than their fair share. Furthermore, these higher taxes would fall on small business owners, investors, and entrepreneurs — in other words, the source of economic growth and new jobs!
The truth is that there is no excuse for government spending being as high as it is, nor for taxes being as high as they are. Even the God of the Old Testament only asked for 10% as a tithe and offering, and Americans revolted against the King of England for taxes that amounted to less than five percent. Yet so many people today complain about “loopholes” for the rich that lower their actual tax rate to “only” 13% in some instances. Even that is a criminal amount to pay for a wasteful, abusive, unconstitutional government.
We are indeed headed to a fiscal cliff and have been long before this latest hysteria cropped up. But it is not cuts to spending or reduced government “revenue” that will send us over the cliff, it is continued government spending that will. Until the federal government limits itself to its Constitutionally-mandated role, spending and taxation will remain out of control.
Look for a “bipartisan” compromise in late December, with Republicans giving in to tax increases and settling for phony spending cuts that actually grow government, and Democrats caving on defense cuts in exchange for tax increases. This is how the government has always grown: both sides will sacrifice their pro-liberty, small government stances in certain areas in order to grow the government where they prefer.
Liberty always loses in the 11th hour.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/117/3137807/White-House-threatens-to-veto-Senate-Defense-bill
The White House is threatening to veto the $631 billion annual Defense bill the Senate is debating this week unless Congress makes changes.
The White House objected to a measure sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that would reduce the Defense Department's civilian workforce by 5% over the next five years.
* Er... ACCORDING TO MY MATH... THAT'S 1% PER YEAR.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
* WAY TO TAKE A SCALPEL TO BLOATED DEFENSE SPENDING, SENATOR!
* OH... BUT WAIT... MCCAIN IS THE ONE ACTUALLY PUSHING FOR SOME CUTS! NOT SO OBAMA... (KEEP READING!)
McCain said with the Pentagon planning reductions to military troop numbers, the department should also cut the civilian workforce.
* MAKES SENSE. SOUNDS REASONABLE.
"The administration believes the size of the civilian workforce should be determined based on workload and funding, not on arbitrary comparisons to the military," according to a statement of administration policy released by the Office of Management and Budget. "To comply with this legislation, the Department would need to significantly divest workload and impose workforce caps."
* JUST TRY TO MAKE SENSE OF THAT. JUST TRY! TAKE FOR INSTANCE "DETERMINED BY FUNDING." TO ME THAT MEANS IF YOU'RE DEFUNDING THE MILITARY... WELL... THEN THE MILITARY - AND IT'S CIVILIAN SUPPORT NETWORK - MUST THEREFORE SHRINK. AND YET... OBAMA SEEMS TO BE CALLING SUCH LOGIC "ARBITTRARY."
Earlier this week, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) introduced a floor amendment, seeking to strike the McCain provision from the bill, calling it a "slash and burn approach."
* CUTTING 1% A YEAR... SLASH AND BURN... UH-HUH...
* FOLKS... AS I OFTEN NOTE... AS SCUMMY AS THE REPUBLICANS ARE... THE DEMS ARE MOSTLY WORSE!
The Senate, which hopes to finish the bill this week, already eliminated one provision that had attracted White House objections. In a strong bipartisan vote Wednesday, the Senate voted to allow Pentagon investment in alternative fuels.
* IN ENGLISH: A BIPARTISAN MAJORITY OF THE SENATE VOTED TO SPEND MORE MONEY THAN NECESSARY WHILE NO DOUBT ENGAGING IN MORE CRONY CAPITALISTIC CORPORATE WELFARE.
http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/120312-635425-fiscal-cliff-talks-stall-as-obama-white-house-erects-its-own-tree-grove.htm?p=full
Amazing how a re-election can reshape an incumbent's thinking about many things.
Now safely ensconced in the White House for 49 more months, the Obamas have decorated the place with 54 Christmas trees this year.
(Even allowing for the usual Washington excesses with taxpayer money, that's a whole grove of Christmas trees.)
[T]he Obamas' 54 trees this year are almost 50% more Christmas trees than last year.
(That was during the campaign before Obama whispered a reminder to the Russians that he had to be careful until Nov. 6, when a victory would give him more "flexibility.")
Now, how much carbon do you suppose those 54 trees could be sequestering had they not been chopped by this green president?
* YA KNOW... WISEASS COMMENTARY OR NOT... THIS IS A GOOD POINT IN TERMS OF WHERE'S THE CONSISTENCY REGARDING OBAMA'S SUPPOSED BELIEFS AS OPPOSED TO HOW HE LIVES HIS LIFE.
And no wonder Obama talked over the weekend about addressing tax increases before any of that annoying business about cutting spending to address this thing called the national debt, now having soared past $16.3 trillion..
Last year, according to Mrs. Obama, some 90,000 visitors viewed "her" White House decorations. The irony is this year the main residents of the White House won't be there for most of the holiday period and for both major holidays. According to notices distributed to residents of an exclusive waterfront neighborhood in Hawaii, they can expect to enjoy restricted access and other inconveniences to their homes and normal lives from Dec. 17 through Jan. 6.
(That's about a 50% longer holiday vacation than last year.)
The inconveniences stem from security requirements for the vacationing Obamas and a large number of their accompanying friends. Obama's staff will have to put up with rooms in a nearby luxury hotel.
* ALL AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE OF COURSE - INCLUDING ALL THEIR MEALS AND INCIDENTALS I'M ASSUMING. (AFTER ALL... THEY'RE "GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TRAVELING ON GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.")
The Coast Guard will be patrolling surrounding canals. Navy SEALs will be doing whatever SEALs do on security detail. The Secret Service and local police will man numerous area roadblocks and perhaps even some bushes.
* FOLKS... HE HAS CAMP DAVID.
* HE... HAS... CAMP... DAVID...!!!
Besides covering the Christmas and New Year holidays, Obama's vacation dates also strangely coincide with what was expected to be the peak negotiating window for Obama and congressional Democrats and Republicans to address the so-called fiscal cliff.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
So far, according to both sides, the talks have not progressed well. The president, who took yesterday off to play golf, may be confident of complete success in the remaining 14 days.
(Or perhaps Obama will leave Joe Biden in charge of closing the deal, since the vice president's oversight of the $800 billion stimulus spending so effectively spurred the economy.)
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-colleges-have-free-speech-on-the-run/2012/11/30/9457072c-3a54-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html
* BY GEORGE WILL
In 2007, Keith John Sampson, a middle-aged student working his way through Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis as a janitor, was declared guilty of racial harassment.
Without granting Sampson a hearing, the university administration — acting as prosecutor, judge and jury — convicted him of “openly reading a book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject.”
“Openly.” “Related to.” Good grief.
The book, “Notre Dame vs. the Klan,” celebrated the 1924 defeat of the Ku Klux Klan in a fight with Notre Dame students.
* AND THE PROBLEM...? (READ ON!)
But some of Sampson’s co-workers disliked the book’s cover, which featured a black-and-white photograph of a Klan rally. Someone was offended, therefore someone else must be guilty of harassment.
This non sequitur reflects the right never to be annoyed, a new campus entitlement.
Legions of administrators, who now outnumber full-time faculty, are kept busy making students mind their manners, with good manners understood as conformity to liberal politics.
Liberals are most concentrated and untrammeled on campuses, so look there for evidence of what, given the opportunity, they would do to America.
Ample evidence is in “Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate” by Greg Lukianoff, 38, a graduate of Stanford Law School who describes himself as a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, lifelong Democrat who belongs to “the notoriously politically correct Park Slope Food Co-Op in Brooklyn” and has never voted for a Republican “nor do I plan to.” But as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), he knows that the most common justifications for liberal censorship are “sensitivity” about “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” as academic liberals understand those things.
In recent years, a University of Oklahoma vice president has declared that no university resources, including e-mail, could be used for “the forwarding of political humor/commentary.”
The College at Brockport in New York banned using the Internet to “annoy or otherwise inconvenience” anyone.
Rhode Island College prohibited, among many other things, certain “attitudes.”
Texas Southern University’s comprehensive proscriptions included “verbal harm” from damaging “assumptions” or “implications.”
Texas A&M promised “freedom from indignity of any type.”
Davidson banned “patronizing remarks.”
Drexel University forbade “inappropriately directed laughter.”
Western Michigan University banned “sexism,” including “the perception” of a person “not as an individual, but as a member of a category based on sex.”
(Banning “perceptions” must provide full employment for the burgeoning ranks of academic administrators.)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Many campuses congratulate themselves on their broad-mindedness when they establish small “free-speech zones” where political advocacy can be scheduled. At one point Texas Tech’s 28,000 students had a “free-speech gazebo” that was 20 feet wide.
(And you thought the First Amendment made America a free-speech zone.)
At Tufts, a conservative newspaper committed “harassment” by printing accurate quotations from the Koran and a verified fact about the status of women in Saudi Arabia.
(Lukianoff says that Tufts may have been the first American institution “to find someone guilty of harassment for stating verifiable facts directed at no one in particular.”)
He documents how “orientation” programs for freshmen become propaganda to (in the words of one orthodoxy enforcer) “leave a mental footprint on their consciousness.”
(Faculty, too, can face mandatory consciousness-raising.)
In 2007, Donald Hindley, a politics professor at Brandeis, was found guilty of harassment because when teaching Latin American politics he explained the origin of the word “wetbacks,” which refers to immigrants crossing the Rio Grande. Without a hearing, the university provost sent Hindley a letter stating that the university “will not tolerate inappropriate, racial and discriminatory conduct.” The assistant provost was assigned to monitor Hindley’s classes “to ensure that you do not engage in further violations of the nondiscrimination and harassment policy.” Hindley was required to attend “anti-discrimination training.”
Such coercion is a natural augmentation of censorship. Next comes mob rule.
Last year, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the vice provost for diversity and climate (really; you can’t make this stuff up) encouraged students to disrupt a news conference by a speaker opposed to racial preferences.
They did, which the vice provost called “awesome.”
This is the climate on an especially liberal campus that celebrates “diversity” in everything but thought.
“What happens on campus,” Lukianoff says, “doesn’t stay on campus” because censorship has “downstream effects.” He quotes a sociologist whose data he says demonstrate that “those with the highest levels of education have the lowest exposure to people with conflicting points of view.” This encourages “the human tendency to live within our own echo chambers.”
Parents’ tuition dollars and student indebtedness pay for this. Good grief.
Post a Comment