Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, December 18, 2012



Posted by at

8 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/boehner-s-house-has-increased-debt-18944-household

Under the leadership of [RINO] House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), the 112th House of Representatives has thus far approved legislation that has increased the debt of the federal government by $2,176,949,774,695.46 — or approximately $18,944 for per American household.

* LET'S JUST ROUND IT UP TO $19,000...

(*GIVING THE FINGER TO WASHINGTON DC*)

The 112th House of Representatives has achieved this in a little more than 20 months time — and it may not be done yet enacting laws to approve new federal borrowing and spending.

* BOEHNER... MUST... GO...

The 112th House came into power on Jan. 5, 2011, electing Rep. John Boehner as its speaker on that day, though the Boehner-led House did not have a direct impact on the fiscal policy of the federal government until March 4, 2011, when a continuing resolution enacted on Dec. 21, 2010 in the lame-duck session of the previous Congress expired.

On March 1, 2011, Boehner and President Barack Obama cut their first short-term federal spending deal.

* MY RINO CONGRESSWOMAN, NAN HAYWORTH, BACKED BOEHNER AGAINST MY RECOMMENDATION. NOW... COME JANUARY... SHE'LL BE MY EX-CONGRESSWOMAN.

That deal took effect on March 4, 2011. Since then all new borrowing and spending by the federal government has been approved in laws enacted by Boehner’s House consistent with its constitutional power to control the borrowing and spending by the federal government.

* YEP! FORGET THIS BULLSHIT THEY PEDDLE ABOUT REPUBLICANS NOT BEING ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT CONTROL OF THE SENATE! BOEHNER AND THE REPUBLICANS COULD HAVE REFUSED TO SPEND ONE SINGLE CENT BEYOND THE PREVIOUS (NON-REPUBLICAN HOUSE) BUDGET - OR BETTER YET... THEY COULD HAVE CUT SPENDING BY REFUSING TO AUTHORIZE SPENDING BEYOND SAY 2007 LEVELS... OR 2000 LEVELS IF YOU WANNA GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO CLINTON.

* BOEHNER IS A SCUMBAG. HIS SUPPORTERS ARE SCUMBAGS. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE.

December 18, 2012 at 5:52 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/18/audit-feds-immigration-check-system-fails-12-perce/

The federal government’s system of tracking immigrants’ status is so broken that it gives a green light to one in eight aliens who have been ordered deported, according to an audit Tuesday that found the government has gone on to approve some of those who slip through for work in sensitive areas of airports and granted them benefits such as Medicaid or food stamps.

* MAKES YA PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN, HUH?! GEEZ... I CAN HARDLY WAIT TILL OBAMACARE TOTALLY KICKS IN!

(*SNORT*) (*SPITTING ON THE FLOOR*)

Some of those aliens who should have been kicked out had serious criminal records, including for assault and extortion, according to the audit by the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

In his official response to the audit, USCIS Director Alejandro N. Mayorkas said Homeland Security officials recognize they need to do a better job of updating the records.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

December 18, 2012 at 5:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/17/next-generation-wont-inherit-the-american-dream/

Somewhere in this country, a child is being born to proud, hopeful and responsible parents. It doesn’t matter what race, creed or gender — the child is an American. Let’s call the child Zoey.

Her parents will bring her to a home full of joy and spend lots of time planning for her future. They will set a budget for themselves that will feed, clothe and care for their daughter. They also will plan for her education, and they may set up a 529 account just in case she wants to go to college like her parents. They will budget for that, too. They will do all they can to make the American dream come true for Zoey.

What they do not yet realize is that hundreds of miles away, Washington has other plans for her.

Washington has no budget. It is spending all the money Zoey’s parents send to it and then lots and lots more. Zoey has no idea what is happening to her, but her parents’ elected representatives are borrowing from Zoey and pawning her future.

Mr. Obama plans to leave office with a gross national debt of $20 trillion, about double the debt he inherited from his predecessor. In other words, in eight short years, this president will have burdened the country with about the same amount of debt it accumulated in its entire history. In fact, his policies will leave the country about $25 trillion in debt in the next 10 years. Then it will cost more to service the debt than it costs to pay for a wartime Defense Department today.

Where does that leave the next generation?

Zoey and her generation will not be able to afford to pay for the interest on the debt, the cost of her government, the cost of the nation’s security and the enormous cost of the entitlements the “me” generation takes for granted today. Yet under the Constitution that is supposed to guarantee her freedom, she cannot repudiate the debt government handed to her. She will ask why the Constitution, which sets the limits of the government’s powers, did not protect her from having to shoulder a debt she had no say over, from having her future put in hock by the spendthrift politicians in office today.

December 18, 2012 at 6:05 PM
William R. Barker said...

* FIVE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 4)

http://www.reuters.com/subjects/income-inequality/washington

In the town that launched the War on Poverty 48 years ago...

* WASHINGTON D.C., FOLKS... THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WASHINGTON D.C.

...the poor are getting poorer despite the government's help.

And the rich are getting richer because of it.

* AND IN WASHINGTON D.C. THE RICH ARE THE CONNECTED... AND THE CONNECTED BECOME THE RICH.

The top 5% of households in Washington, D.C., made more than $500,000 on average last year, while the bottom 20% earned less than $9,500 - a ratio of 54 to 1. (That gap is up from 39 to 1 two decades ago. It's wider than in any of the 50 states and all but two major cities.)

The federal government does redistribute wealth down to struggling Americans. But in the years since President Lyndon Johnson took aim at poverty in his first State of the Union address, there has been an increasingly strong crosscurrent: The government is redistributing wealth up, too - especially in the nation's capital. [And] the beneficiaries are not [just] the billionaire financiers and celebrities who have come to personify income inequality in the 21st century[!}

Two decades of record federal spending and expanding regulation have fostered a growing upper class of federal contractors, lobbyists and lawyers in the District of Columbia area. The federal government funneled $83.5 billion their way in defense and other work in 2010 - an increase of more than 300% since 1989, even after adjusting for inflation. Like spokes on a wheel, the high-rise offices of this elite radiate out from Capitol Hill along major arteries deep into suburban Maryland and Virginia. The latest Census figures placed 10 of the capital's surrounding counties in the top 20 nationwide for median household income - up from six in 1990. [And while] the government-outsourcing boom created new opportunity for entrepreneurs, it also hollowed out a class of federal jobs that once provided entry to the middle class for people without college degrees in the region.

The income shifts in Washington are part of a broader evolution in the United States and in much of the developed world. Income inequality has grown in advanced economies around the world. But it is wider in the United States than in all but a handful of Western democracies.

* AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL YOU'RE GONNA HEAR ABOUT THOSE OTHER WESTERN DEMOCRACIES... (*SMIRK*) TOO BAD. I'D LIKE TO SEE A COMPARE/CONTRAST ANALYSIS.

Reuters examined the breadth and depth of this historic redistribution of income through an analysis of decennial Census data, which allowed a detailed look at state-by-state trends. Reporters assessed each state on three metrics of well-being since 1989: changes in income inequality, median household income and the poverty rate. To trace how these shifts played out among families of different income levels, society was divided into five economic classes, from the 20% of households with the lowest incomes to the 20% with the highest, plus the top-earning 5%.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

December 18, 2012 at 8:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 5)

The analysis found that inequality has risen not just in plutocratic hubs such as Wall Street and Silicon Valley, but also in virtually every corner of the world's richest nation: 28 states saw all three metrics of socioeconomic well-being worsen. There, inequality and poverty rose and median income fell; in all 50 states, the richest 20% of households made far greater income gains than any other quintile - up 12% nationally; income for the median household fell in 28 states, with Michigan and Connecticut leading the way; the five largest increases in inequality all were in New England: Connecticut first, followed by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. The decline in manufacturing jobs hit New England's poor and middle hard, while the highly educated benefited from expansion in the biotech and finance industries. The only state that didn't see a rise in inequality: Mississippi, which had an insignificant dip. The Magnolia State was one of the few to post a drop in poverty and a rise in income, but it still ranks worst in the nation on both counts.

People on the winning side of tectonic [economic] shifts - entrepreneurs, financiers and chief executives - are earning ever-larger fortunes.

Two miles south of the Capitol Building, the confluence of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers marks an economic divide between the region's rich and the District's poor. Carved out of their eastern banks is the city's poorest ward, the 8th. As of late last decade, just over a third of all residents and nearly half of children there lived in poverty.

Several miles west, Lani Hay owns a $2 million house with towering windows that overlook the bluffs of the Potomac River in the District's wealthiest neighborhood. A striking figure with dark hair and a designer wardrobe, she gets mentions in local society columns for hosting charity galas and private parties with celebrity guests. Hay, who attended the U.S. Naval Academy, said she left the military at age 27 after five years in active duty to try her luck in the defense industry. It was 2002, the year after the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York. The United States was at war in Afghanistan and preparing to invade Iraq. Hay launched Lanmark Technology Inc., a national-security consulting company, joining hundreds of other federal contractors who opened or expanded businesses in the region after 9/11 - including many run by people fresh out of government.

* AND WHAT THE FUCK WERE HER QUALIFICATIONS AND WHAT EXACTLY DOES HER COMPANY DO...???

She received a no-bid federal contract for $99,912 from the Department of Defense in 2003. Since then Lanmark has won more than $120 million in federal contracts, according to government records. Hers is a modest success story by Washington standards. "I have peers that are doing over a hundred million in revenue annually," she said.

* WHAT... DOES... HER... COMPANY... DO...?!?!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

December 18, 2012 at 8:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 3 of 5)

President Bill Clinton launched his "reinventing government" initiative in the 1990s. The federal money flowing to business rose 7% during his second term and 72% under Bush, who outsourced a record amount of national-security and defense work after the 2001 attacks by al Qaeda and through two wars.

* FOLKS... BUSH SUCKED... THE AUTHOR IS PREACHING TO THE CHOIR HERE!

The upward trend continued under President Barack Obama until leveling off in 2010.

* HMM... KINDA "FUNNY" THAT THE AUTHOR FAILS TO QUANTIFY THE RISE UNDER OBAMA...

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

The outsourcing boom has been particularly dramatic in the Washington region. Direct spending by the federal government accounts for 40% of the area's $425 billion-a-year economy. The government spends more on private-sector procurement here than in any other metropolitan area or state - up 300% since 1990. Roughly 15 cents of every dollar from the entire federal procurement budget stays in or around the government's hometown, said Stephen S. Fuller, director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University. Last year, that was about $80 billion out of $536 billion in procurement spending, he said. The 15% share is far greater than the region's 2% portion of the U.S. population.

"We're seeing an enormous transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the Washington economy," said Fuller.

* NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!

The federal largess kicked off a gold rush to the capital region. Since 1990, five of the top 10 major defense contractors have moved their headquarters to the Washington area - joining Lockheed Martin, the No. 1 defense contractor and a longtime resident of suburban Maryland.

The Washington area has produced 385 of the nation's fastest-growing small- and medium-sized companies since 2000, more than any other metropolitan area, according to a study this year by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. (Nearly half were government-service companies.)

* AND AGAIN... WHAT THE FUCK DO THEY DO...?!?! WHAT DO THEY PRODUCE...?!?!

"It's the rich getting richer phenomenon," said Dane Stangler, Kauffman's director of research. "Because Washington has a concentration of high-growth companies, that attracts higher-skilled people to work there, which will attract more companies."

* HIGH... SKILLED... IN... WHAT...??? WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE DO...???

The ranks of Washington-area workers with incomes above $100,000 rose to 22% of the workforce, up from 14% in 1990, adjusted for inflation, a Reuters analysis of Census data found. The share making less than $40,000 stayed flat, while the middle hollowed out to 41% from 49%.

* TO REITERATE: "... while the middle hollowed out to 41% from 49%."

December 18, 2012 at 8:16 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 4 of 5)

Executives, lawyers and high-tech workers are among the occupations that increased most in both numbers and average income. At the bottom, one of the fastest-growing areas is personal services, such as hairdressers and childcare workers.

* I ASSUME THE VALUE OF "HIGH-TECH WORKERS." NOT SO THE VALUE OF "EXECUTIVES" AND "LAWYERS."

The federal government historically lifted the fortunes of poor Washingtonians, too. It provided one of the sturdiest rungs on the economic ladder for low-income high-school graduates, who had a shot at thousands of entry-level federal jobs. Orlando D. Epps, 38, started working at the Census Bureau through a work-study program while a senior in high school. Upon his graduation in 1992, the bureau hired him full-time in an administrative job at the lowest pay grade on the federal scale, GS-1. "I kept time cards, and I typed memos," he said. Today, he is at the National Weather Service. He worked his way up to program analyst at the GS-13 level, which pays $89,000 to $115,000.

* AND... er... JUST OUT OF CURIOUSITY... WHAT EXACTLY IS IT HE DOES...??? (FOLKS... WE'VE BEEN OVER THE BLOATED FEDERAL PAY SCALE...)

But foot-in-the-door jobs are fast disappearing. Epps left the Census Bureau in 1997 because the agency laid off his entire section. Now he is working toward an associate degree in accounting after hours. "I'm preaching to my kids that they have to get college degrees," he said.

* SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT... HE SUPPOSEDLY HAS THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO JUSTIFY A GS-13 POSITION... AND YET HE IS WORKING TOWARDS AN ASSOCIATES DEGREE IN ACCOUNTING WHEN EVEN WITH A BACHELORS IN ACCOUNTING ONE WOULD START OUT AS MAYBE A GS-7. DOESN'T THAT TELL YOU HOW FUCKED UP OUR "HIGHER EDUCATION" SYSTEM IS...?!

In 1998, one in four federal civilian jobs in the District was a clerical, blue-collar or technical position. Last year: one in eight.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Today there are 320,000 federal jobs in the Washington area. Within the District of Columbia, 55% pay $100,000 or more... [while] many of the low-level jobs that remain are outsourced to temp agencies.

In a geographic study of inequality, economist James K. Galbraith found that the Washington region led the nation in per-capita income gains during the five years leading up to the latest recession. He attributed this largely to the increase in federal spending on defense and intelligence contractors, but also to "substantial growth in spending by private sector lobbies."

Nearly 13,000 lobbyists registered with the government last year and reported $3.3 billion in fees, or about $260,000 per lobbyist.

* GEEZUS...

That's 22% more lobbyists and 37% more inflation-adjusted revenue per lobbyist than in 1998, according to a Reuters analysis of data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Times are flush for Washington lawyers as well. The number of attorneys in the area has risen 44%, twice the national rate, to 41,000 since 1999.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

December 18, 2012 at 8:17 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 5 of 5)

The number of organizations with a political presence in Washington - that maintain an office or are represented by lobbyists or lawyers - more than doubled between 1981 and 2006 to nearly 14,000, according to a study by political scientists Kay L. Schlozman, Sidney Verba and Henry E. Brady. These professionals work predominantly for groups representing the top of society. Schlozman and her colleagues found that more than half the groups were devoted to furthering the interests of businesses. The next closest were state and local governments, at 12%. The rest were fragmented into single-digit shares among divergent interests. Second to last on the list, just above unions, were groups advocating for the poor, at 0.9%.

* SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE, FOLKS. LABOR UNIONS ARE MAJOR POLITICAL PLAYERS; MAJOR POLITICAL DONORS. EITHER THE STATS ARE... er... FLAWED... OR THE REPORTING IS.

(*SHRUG*)

Business lobbyists say there's a good reason why they've grown so numerous. The rise of their industry traces the growth of government, said Kirk Blalock, a top Republican lobbyist. "The size and scope of government is increasing," said Blalock, a 43-year-old with close-cropped brown hair. "Look at the number of laws, regulations and lawsuits companies have to contend with. It's no wonder."

His firm has flourished. Lobbying income at Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock rose from $3.2 million when he joined in 2002 to $10.8 million last year... the firm employs eight lobbyists and an office manager. Blalock's income exceeded $1 million, he confirmed, placing him among Washington's elite.

Last year, two nonpartisan government bodies, the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service, each undertook studies of income inequality for lawmakers. Both concluded that a major driver in the years leading up to the recession was the growth in capital gains among top earners - but that the ["Bush" tax] cuts also reduced the equalizing influence of the income-tax system. The 2011 CRS paper said tax cuts were the second-largest contributor to the rise in inequality in the decade through 2006.

* I DON'T BUY IT. FOLKS... THIS IS A HUGE ARTICLE. I'VE CUT A LOT OUT. PART OF WHAT I'VE CUT OUT IS WHAT I CONSIDER IDEOLOGICAL AND PARTISAN HITS AGAINST REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC POLICIES BY THE AUTHORS. YOU CAN OF COURSE READ THE "UNABRIDGED" FULL ARTICLE FOR YOURSELF TO SEE WHAT I'VE CUT AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELVES WHETHER I'M MAKING MY CASE HERE FOR THE CUTS.

Conservative economists point out that even after the tax cuts, the rich overall wound up paying a larger dollar amount in income taxes. That's mainly because the incomes of the wealthy kept climbing.

* SEE... THIS IS WHAT I MEAN! IF THE GOAL IS TO RAISE REVENUE... THEN MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! THE RICH PAID MORE!

The top quintile paid 15% more in taxes but made 30% more money in 2006 than in 1996, the CRS reported.

* PAID... 15%... MORE... IN... TAXES...

* WOULD WE RATHER THEY HAD MADE 0% MORE AND PAID 0% MORE IN TAXES...???

(*HEADACHE*)

* FOLKS... MY REGULARS KNOW WHERE I STAND ON TAXES. I'M FOR AN AS FLAT AS POSSIBLE PROGRESSIVE TAX CODE WITH REASONABLE FLOOR AND CEILING.

(*SHRUG*)

December 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)