Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
We are NOT French...!
We are NOT Socialists...!
We are NOT Anarchists...!
(But, hey... it IS one hell of a song...)
Do you understand what America is... what America was... what America was founded upon?
Do you understand how different were the French and American Revolutions and do you recall what came out of each compared to and in contrast with each other...???
I beg of you all... REMEMBER...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/white-house-was-not-involved-in-ices-decision-to-release-158027.html
The White House and the Department of Homeland Security were unaware of Immigration Customs and Enforcement's decision to release detainees until the agency announced it, administration officials said Wednesday.
* FUNNY... THEY DIDN'T SAY THIS ON TUESDAY...
(*PURSED LIPS*)
"This was a decision made by career officials at ICE without any input from the White House, as a result of fiscal uncertainty over the continuing resolution, as well as possible sequestration," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.
(*LAUGHING*)
* OH... "CAREER OFFICIALS..." NOT EVEN POLITICAL APPOINTEES, FOLKS! IT WAS THE "CAREER OFFICIALS." YEAH... SURE...
(*STILL CHUCKLING*)
Personnel at Department of Homeland Security headquarters in Washington were also unaware of the decision until the announcement was made, a department official told Politico.
(*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*)
* DOES ANYONE... ANYONE AT ALL... BUY THIS...?
* ALLOW ME TO REMIND YOU, FOLKS... I WAS AGAINST CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF "HOMELAND SECURITY" FROM THE GETGO! I WAS ALSO AGAINST CREATING "TSA."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/27/us-usa-fiscal-aviation-idUSBRE91Q0UK20130227
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has "very limited" flexibility to avoid furloughing air traffic controllers if automatic budget cuts go into effect beginning on Friday, agency head Michael Huerta told Congress on Wednesday.
* THEN I SUGGEST WE START CUTTING COSTS BY DISMISSING MICHAEL HUERTA AND GIVING THE SECOND RANKING OFFICIAL AT THE FAA HUERTA's RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS AND IF HE (OR SHE) CAN'T DO A BETTER JOB... REPEAT AS NECESSARY.
Huerta's testimony echoed a warning last week by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who told White House reporters the proposed cuts would lead to delayed flights, shuttered control towers and irate passengers from coast to coast.
* FIRE LAHOOD.
(*SHRUG*)
* FOLKS... NOTICE A PATTERN HERE? OBAMA's APPOINTEES SAY THEY CAN'T DO THEIR JOBS. WHY WERE SUCH INCOMPETENTS APPOINTED IN THE FIRST PLACE THEN...???
Republicans took issue at the hearing with that grim scenario, telling Huerta it should be possible to find some $627 million in savings from the agency's $16 billion budget without having to furlough most of the FAA's 47,000 employees for one or more days per pay period.
* FOLKS... THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY: YOUR EXPENSE ACCOUNT LUNCH BUDGET USED TO BE $16. YOU'RE TOLD THAT DUE TO THE SEQUESTER YOU'LL NOW ONLY HAVE $15.37 TO SPEND ON LUNCH. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE AN INSURMOUNTABLE CRISIS TO YOU...???
* FOLKS... THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE PUT AGAINST A WALL AND SHOT!
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/senate-gop-ponders-shifting-power-to-obama-88149.html?hp=l1
Days before the March 1 deadline, Senate Republicans are circulating a draft bill that would cancel $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts and instead turn over authority to President Barack Obama to achieve the same level of savings under a plan to be filed by March 8.
The five- page document, which has the tacit support of Senate GOP leaders, represents a remarkable shift for the party. Having railed against Senate Democrats for not passing a budget, Republicans are now proposing that Congress surrender an important piece of its Constitutional “power of the purse” for the last seven months of this fiscal year.
* YEP... SOUNDS LIKE THE MCCONNELL "REPUBLICANS."
* AGAIN... FOLKS... WITH "REPUBLICANS" LIKE MCCONNELL AND BOEHNER... (*SHRUG*)
(*TEARS*)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100501174
Stocks rallied more than 1% across the board Wednesday, boosted by a batch of upbeat earnings economic reports and as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke reaffirmed his support of the central bank's stimulus policy.
* NOW, FOLKS... WE KNOW THAT THIS IS BAD NEWS... THAT BERNANKE'S POLICIES HAVE BEEN DISASTROUS... AND YET THE MARKETS CHEER MORE CALLS FOR "FULL SPEED AHEAD" WHILE THE BOW IS POINTED AT THE ROCKY SHORE.
* FOLKS... WE KNOW THIS IS ALL AN INSIDERS SCAM... THE OLIGARCHY FOR THE OLIGARCHY... BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S PORTRAYED AND THAT'S NOT HOW THE MEDIA SPINS IT.
(*SHRUG*)
* FOLKS... IT'S NEWS LIKE THIS WHICH LEADS ME TO SKIP NEWSBITING MUCH MORE OFTEN NOW THAN I DID IN OBAMA's FIRST TERM. NOW I KNOW IT'S OVER. SOMETIMES I ALLOW THE HOPELESSNESS TO WASH OVER ME.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/abc-defends-editing-michelle-obamas-automatic-weapon-claim/article/2522628
ABC is defending its decision to edit out an apparently erroneous claim by Michelle Obama in its broadcast of the first lady’s interview on Good Morning America today, saying it made the changes “solely” for the sake of time.
* "APPARENTLY" ERRONEOUS...???
As The Washington Examiner reported this morning, the first lady claimed during an interview with Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts that 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, who was killed in Chicago shortly after performing during the President’s Inauguration, was shot because “some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need.”
In fact, Chicago Police reported Pendleton was shot by a man who “opened fire with a handgun before fleeing in a waiting car,” according to the Associated Press.
* OOPS...
* I'M STILL SCRATCHING MY HEAD OVER THE AUTHOR'S "APPARENTLY." THE "IN FACT" KINDA RENDERS "APPARENTLY"... er... INOPERATIVE.
(*SMIRK*)
For the broadcast, ABC’s Good Morning America producers edited out the first lady’s “automatic weapon” line.
* AND... THEY ALSO EDITED OUT THE "SOME KIDS" LINE.
(*SMIRK*)
* GEEZUS... EVEN THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER SEEMS READY, WILLING, AND ABLE TO PROVIDE THE FIRST LADY LIMITED "COVER" AS NEEDED!
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323384604578327792209356054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Scare tactics...
President Obama's message could not be clearer: Life as we know it in America will change dramatically on March 1, when automatic cuts are imposed to achieve $85 billion in government-spending reductions. Furloughed government employees, flight delays and criminals set free are among the dire consequences the president has predicted. If the Washington Monument weren't already closed for repairs, no doubt it too would be shut down.
The president's response to the sequester demonstrates how out of touch he is with the real world of working families.
Even after the sequester, the federal government will spend $15 billion more than it did last year...
* EVEN AFTER THE SEQUESTER (IF IT COMES TO PASS... IF IT'S NOT "ADJUSTED") THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL SPEND $15 BILLION MORE THIS YEAR THAN IT DID LAST YEAR!
...and 30% more than it spent in 2007.
* AND 30% MORE THAN IT SPENT IN 2007 - THE YEAR THE SHIT HIT THE FAN... THE YEAR DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE FROM JANUARY THRU DECEMBER AND THEN AGAIN FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND THE YEAR AFTER AND THE YEAR AFTER THAT!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
Government spending on non-defense discretionary programs will be 19.2% higher and spending on defense will be 13.8% higher than it was in 2007.
For a typical American family that earns less than it did in the year President Obama was elected, the anguished cries and dark predictions coming out of the White House should elicit not sympathy but revulsion.
* THEY DO! FROM ME! BUT APPARENTLY I'M THE ODD MAN OUT...
When the 1985 sequester was created...
* OH, YES! THE NATION HAS SURVIVED SEQUESTERS BEFORE!
...the formula for cuts was closely examined, debated, amended and agreed to by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and White House. Today's sequester is denounced because of the allegedly arbitrary nature of its across-the-board cuts. Yet the sequester formula that goes into effect on Friday preserves the spending priorities legislated by the Congress and the president, including exemptions and limitations they favored when the Budget Control Act of 2011 became law. The president himself first proposed the sequester. He may not like the way it works, but he has offered no real alternative.
* THE... PRESIDENT... HIMSELF... FIRST... PROPOSED... THE... SEQUESTER...!!!
Congress and the president might have worked together to avoid this outcome. Congress could have passed a budget resolution. The Republican House has repeatedly passed budgets, but the Democratic Senate hasn't passed one in four years.
* THESE ARE THE FACTS...!!!
Past sequesters allowed for fast-track consideration of alternatives or modifications to the cuts — but the 2013 version doesn't allow for those.
* THE 2013 VERSION APPROVED BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS... BUT OBAMA, BIDEN, BOEHNER, PELOSI, REID, AND MCCONNELL!
Even if the sequester goes into effect, the magnitude of the automatic cuts won't be very different from those imposed in 1986. Nor is the job of finding alternative spending reductions any harder than it was when alternative cuts were enacted in 1987.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
The first Gramm-Rudman sequester took effect on March 1, 1986. It cut non-defense spending by 4.3% and defense spending by 4.9%.
The most recent estimate by the Congressional Budget Office for this year's sequester is that non-defense spending will be cut by 4.6% and defense spending will be cut by 7.9%. While the sequester will reduce spending authority by $85 billion, the actual cuts that will occur in 2013 will be $44 billion. That is a mere 1.2% of total federal spending this year.
* AND AGAIN FOLKS... (*PAUSE*)... EVEN AFTER THE SEQUESTER (IF IT COMES TO PASS... IF IT'S NOT "ADJUSTED") THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL SPEND $15 BILLION MORE THIS YEAR THAN IT DID LAST YEAR!
The first round of cuts under Gramm-Rudman weren't so devastating that Congress and the president rushed to repeal them. In July 1986, Congress had the opportunity simply to stop the sequester after the Supreme Court invalidated its triggering mechanism. Instead it voted overwhelmingly to reaffirm the across-the-board cuts. The vote in the Democratic House was 339 to 72, and the Republican Senate approved it by acclamation, not deeming it worthy of a roll-call vote.
In 1987, Congress fixed the triggering mechanism and restored the sequester in Gramm-Rudman II. That deal would have cut non-defense discretionary spending by 8.5% and defense spending by 10.5%, far greater cuts than will be triggered this year. Yet a Democratic Congress and a Republican White House came together to replace that sequester with spending cuts in fiscal years 1988 and 1989 that were larger than those called for by Gramm-Rudman II.
While history shows that a divided government can enact significant spending cuts as an alternative to sequesters, that doesn't appear to be the path Mr. Obama intends to follow. Instead of protecting civilian defense workers, the president will continue to force the Pentagon to buy biofuels at $27 per gallon to promote his green agenda.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Instead of protecting children from cuts in nutrition programs, the president will continue to allow $2.7 billion of fraud and mismanagement he has identified in the food-stamp program.
* FOLKS... THAT'S THE ADMINISTRATION'S OWN ESTIMATE!
Instead of protecting Medicare from a 2% cut, the president will ignore $62 billion in annual waste that his administration has identified in Medicare and Medicaid.
But governing is not about blaming someone else — it is about choosing. While Mr. Obama may choose to make the cuts ordered by the sequester in the most painful way possible, the best alternative — which is practiced every year to some extent — is allowing federal agencies to transfer funds among individual programs with congressional approval or by rearranging priorities as part of the March 27 resolution to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.
* MAKES SENSE TO ME!
That doesn't sound like a herculean task to Americans who make hard choices every day. Their choices have become harder and more frequent because the country's political leaders seem unwilling to do the same in Washington.
http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2
Earlier today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," [journalist Bob] Woodward [of Watergate fame] ripped into Obama...[saying] Obama was showing a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf [supposedly] because of budget concerns.
(*SHRUG*)
Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this..."
* NICE...
* WOODWARD COULD "OUT" THE SCUMBAG... BUT IF THE SCUMBAG WEREN'T A SCUMBAG HE'D "OUT" HIMSELF AND EITHER PROUDLY STAND BY HIS THREAT OR APOLOGIZE.
(*SHRUG*)
CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.
(*SMIRK*)
Woodward last weekend called out Obama for what he said was [Obama's] "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.
Post a Comment