Thursday, August 1, 2013
Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, August 1, 2013
And once again... it's August.
The July heatwave ended weeks ago. Today is overcast... cool... we're expecting off and on rain throughout the day and evening.
Kimmy has a friend - and the friend's baby - driving down from Massachusetts later on this afternoon to stay with us till Saturday. The baby just turned two. Mary and I are looking forward to having a baby in the house... for a couple days.
(*WINK*)
We're even set to babysit on Friday night while Erin and Kim go out!
Saturday... we owe Aunt Ruth a visit.
Sunday... bbq over at Colleen's to celebrate Kenny and Kevin's birthdays.
Tonight... Body Pump at 6:45 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
* FOUR-PARTER... (Part 1 of 4)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354867/me-and-my-obamaphones-jillian-kay-melchior
Confession: You’re paying my phone bill.
In the past month, I have received three shiny new cell phones - courtesy of American taxpayers - that should never have fallen into my hands.
The Federal Communications Commission oversees the so-called Lifeline program, created in 1984 to make sure impoverished Americans had telephone service available to call their moms, bosses, and 911. In 2008, the FCC expanded the program to offer subsidized cell-phone service, and since then, the expenses of running the program have soared.
As of June, there were 13.8 million active Lifeline subscriptions. In 2012, the program’s costs had risen to $2.189 billion...
To be eligible for Lifeline, the applicant is supposed to be receiving some significant government benefit — food stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, public housing assistance, etc. Alternatively, applicants can qualify if their household income is less than 136% of the federal poverty line.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Because welfare eligibility has expanded under the Obama administration, more people than ever before are qualified to receive “free” cell-phone service — part of the reason why Lifeline mobiles have become commonly known as Obamaphones.
But as with any federal program with too much funding, too little oversight, and perverse financial incentives, Lifeline has become infamous for rampant fraud and abuse. There have been news reports about recipients flaunting dozens of subsidized phones. And in February, the Wall Street Journal reported on an FCC audit of the top five Lifeline providers, which found that “41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn’t demonstrate their eligibility or didn’t respond to requests for certification.”
* GEEZUS FRIGGIN' CHRIST...
(*SLAMMING BOTH FISTS UPON MY DESK*)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 4)
The FCC supposedly buckled down on eligibility standards last year and established other safeguards aimed at reducing fraud.
* YEAH... RIGHT...
I was curious about how tough it was to get one of these phones, so last month I hit the streets of New York. (And out of respect for the law and my journalistic integrity, I did not lie to obtain a phone!)
Given my earnings, even if I were supporting a family of eight my income would still rule me out.
Nor do I receive any type of government benefit.
By the Lifeline program’s standards, I am unambiguously ineligible.
My first task was figuring out where to register. The rule of thumb is that wherever you can sign up for food stamps, you can apply for an Obamaphone.
* GEEZUS... FRIGGIN'... CHRIST...
Representatives from SafeLink and Assurance, two of the leading New York Lifeline vendors, stand outside the food-stamp offices, paired like Mormon missionaries, young and polite and earnest. They carry electronic tablets and ask all passersby whether they’ve received their free phone “yet” — as if it were an inevitability.
They approached me for the first time outside the food-stamp office at Tenth Avenue and 216th Street, on the northern tip of Manhattan. The SafeLink vendor, a man probably in his mid 20s, asked me whether I was enrolled in any benefit programs.
“No,” I said, “but I’d certainly like to be. I’m hoping to be.” And indeed, while doing research for another story, I had gone through the motions of applying for New York City welfare, which I also don’t qualify for. I showed him my Human Resources Administration paperwork packet and the case number assigned to me. I reiterated that though I had once applied, I had never been approved for any sort of benefit.
He brought out his electronic tablet immediately to sign me up for phone service. He asked if I had an insurance card, so I pulled out my trusty Blue Cross Blue Shield. He looked at it for a second, puzzled, then asked if I had Medicaid. No, I told him, just private insurance through my work plan.
“Private insurance? What’s that?” he asked, maybe not facetiously. My BCBS card was nevertheless photographed, as well as the first page of my Human Resources Administration paperwork. He asked for my name and my home address, and that was about it. The whole process took less than five minutes, and I had to provide no documentation verifying my income level or (nonexistent) welfare status.
The SafeLink vendor then referred me to his opposite number, a rep from Assurance. She too took down my information, registering me for another Obamaphone.
* FOR... ANOTHER... OBAMAPHONE...
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 3 of 4)
Traveling to several of the welfare offices in the city, I learned this was common practice. Obamaphone reps come in twos, and both will sign you up if they can.
(The Lifeline program’s rules: Each eligible household may receive only one Lifeline subsidy, and obtaining multiple subsidized phones from multiple Lifeline carriers is “a flat-out violation of our rules,” says Michelle Schaefer, an attorney-adviser from the FCC’s Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.)
Schaefer also tells me that “consumers are, on their applications, required to certify under penalty of perjury that they will only be receiving one Lifeline discount.”
But when I went around New York signing up for multiple phones, I never even saw the applications; SafeLink and Assurance vendors filled out the necessary forms on their tablets on my behalf, clicking through so quickly that it must have been nearly muscle memory. And nobody mentioned perjury.
(Granted, the first question the wireless reps asked was usually whether I was already enrolled in the Lifeline program. I told the truth: I had signed up recently, but the phone hadn’t arrived in the mail yet. Almost always, that got me re-entered into the system without hesitation.)
When I did receive my SafeLink phone a few days later, I started informing vendors that I did have one Lifeline phone. They assured me that the Lifeline program permitted me to have one phone from each participating wireless provider — which simply isn’t true.
Maybe there’s a disconnect between the corporate offices of wireless providers and their men on the street; a letter I later received from Assurance mentioned that “a household is not permitted to receive Lifeline benefits from multiple providers. Violation of the one-per-household rule constitutes a violation of federal rules and will result in de-enrollment from the Lifeline program and potentially prosecution by the United States government.”
But the wireless providers aren’t doing much due diligence, if my experience is indicative.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 4 of 4)
At the Union Square location, a SafeLink rep noted that I was already approved for a phone and declined to re-enter my information — but the rep from Assurance, standing only a few feet away, readily signed me up.
At the welfare office on Schermerhorn Street in Brooklyn, a vendor hesitated when I told her that I’d already applied but the phone had not yet been delivered. “Surely your system will catch if I’m actually enrolled,” I told her. She shrugged and signed me up once more.
At the DeKalb Avenue office in Brooklyn, when I told the rep I wasn’t receiving welfare, I was signed up for a phone but cautioned that I might well be denied upon secondary review.
And at one Lifeline location in East Harlem, I walked up to the wireless representative talking very loudly on my own smartphone. I hung up only to answer her questions. Now, keep in mind that the program is supposed to provide cell-phone service to people too poor to afford any phone whatsoever — but my application for a subsidized mobile was happily submitted, even as I dinked around very obviously on my existing smartphone.
So here’s the final count: I was able to apply on the street for one SafeLink phone and seven Assurance phones. I received one SafeLink phone and two Assurance phones, no questions asked. For several other applications, Assurance sent me requests for more financial information.
Finally, I received one other letter, full of grammatical errors, informing me that “there is already an Assurance Wireless account established at this address” and requesting further information about my application. I find it curious that Assurance caught a duplicate only once, considering that I’ve got seven entries in their system, and that they have on file my name, address, HRA case number, and, in some instances, photos of my insurance card and driver’s license. SafeLink was slightly better about catching duplications on the street, but it still gave me a phone when it shouldn’t have.
Since receiving my undeserved phones, I’ve repeatedly tried to reach both SafeLink and Assurance press reps for comment, all to no avail. Their corporate offices have sent me the numbers of their customer-service centers, which are easily accessible and happy to offer plan upgrades to Lifeline clients.
Representative Tim Griffin (R., Ark.) has long opposed the Lifeline wireless subsidies, making it a pet cause. He reiterated the basic point I had learned from this experience: The problems began when the federal government got in the business of providing free cell phones, and the FCC’s recent reforms aren’t sufficient.
“I saw all the horror stories of people getting 10, 20, 30, 40 phones,” Griffin says, “the [wireless] companies not paying a lot of attention and in some cases no attention to who was getting them and whether they were getting duplicates.”
And if you’ve been wondering why the companies are so eager to hand out free phones, the incentive is built into the program. As Griffin explains, “Of course, the way the program was set up, [wireless companies] were getting money for every one they could give out, so they gave out as many as they could.”
And still do.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/31/elephants-rhinos-lions-and-drones-tanzania-conside/?page=all#pagebreak
Tanzania’s storied wildlife reserves could soon get a watchful, winged inhabitant: U.S. drones.
* AT WHOSE EXPENSE...???
“The American administration is ready to put up funds to help us in areas where we think we can be able to work together and put an end to this trafficking and killings,” says Tanzanian Ambassador Liberata Mulamula.
* BUT... BUT... BUT... CONGRESS CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS... (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)
* BUT... BUT... BUT... WE'RE (AT LEAST) $17 TRILLION IN DEBT AND THE "GOOD NEWS" IS THAT THIS YEAR'S FEDERAL DEFICIT SPENDING SHOULD COME IN AT UNDER $1 TRILLION FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE!
On his visit to the East African nation last month, President Obama discussed the possibility of using unarmed, unmanned aircraft to help overstretched park rangers combat the growing problem of elephant poaching in Tanzania’s vast wildlife reserves and national parks, Mulamula told editors and reporters at The Washington Times this week. However, a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, later said the U.S. is not considering providing drones to Tanzania but declined to elaborate on a meeting between Mr. Obama and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete in Tanzania on July 1.
* AN "ANONYMOUS" SENIOR OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL...
(*SIGH*)
Mrs. Mulamula said Mr. Obama did not make any commitment to provide drones to Tanzania. “But this was being said [in the discussions] that this was one of the possibilities,” she added.
* SO... WE'RE ALL AGREED... NO COMMITMENT WAS MADE. (THAT'S GOOD!)
Right after that meeting, Mr. Obama acknowledged the threat posed by poaching and trafficking of animal parts. Mr. Obama issued an executive order to, in part, help foreign governments tackle the problem. “[T]his includes additional millions of dollars to help countries across the region build their capacity to meet this challenge, because the entire world has a stake in making sure that we preserve Africa’s beauty for future generations,” Mr. Obama said.
* BUT... BUT... BUT... BY WHAT AUTHORITY... BY WHAT "EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORITY" AS OUTLINED IN THE CONSTITUTION... DOES THE PRESIDENT SPEND MONEY...???
* LISTEN... FOLKS... I'M NOT AGAINST THE DRONES! IN FACT, I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF THE IDEA! BUT THE U.S. TAXPAYER SHOULDN'T BE CARRYING THIS BURDEN. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE PRIVATELY FINANCED. HELL... I'D CONTRIBUTE!
Drones have been used to monitor poachers in other parts of Africa as well, including the Kruger National Park in South Africa. In December, the World Wildlife Fund received a $5 million grant from Google to develop technological solutions to combat poaching. The project combines the use of drones with animal-tagging technologies and ranger patrols guided by analytical software. The technology will be tested over the three-year grant period in Africa and Asia.
* NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT!
The Ol Pejeta wildlife conservancy in Kenya has teamed up with Airware, a California-based firm, to build drones to protect endangered wildlife, including the northern white rhino, which is hunted for its horn.
* AGAIN... THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-detroits-death-by-democracy/2013/07/31/74a109c2-f94a-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_story.html
In 1860, an uneasy Charles Darwin confided in a letter to a friend: “I had no intention to write atheistically” but “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars.”
What appalled him had fascinated entomologist William Kirby (1759-1850): The ichneumon fly inserts an egg in a caterpillar, and the larva hatched from the egg, he said, “gnaws the inside of the caterpillar, and though at last it has devoured almost every part of it except the skin and intestines, carefully all this time avoids injuring the vital organs, as if aware that its own existence depends on that of the insect on which it preys!”
Government employees’ unions living parasitically on Detroit have been less aware than ichneumon larvae. About them, and their collaborators in the political class, the question is: What... Were... They... Thinking...?
Detroit failed long ago. And not even Washington, whose recklessness is almost limitless, is oblivious to the minefield of moral hazard it would stride into if it rescued this city and, then inevitably, others that are buckling beneath the weight of their cumulative follies.
It is axiomatic: When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate.
* ONLY... I'M NOT SO SURE THAT WASHINGTON CARES.
This bedraggled city’s decay poses no theological conundrum of the sort that troubled Darwin, but it does pose worrisome questions about the viability of democracy in jurisdictions where big government and its unionized employees collaborate in pillaging taxpayers. Self-government has failed in what once was America’s fourth largest city...
* SELF-GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED IN WASHINGTON. SELF-GOVERNMENT HAS ARGUABLY FAILED THROUGHOUT MOST OF AMERICA IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
* THIS ISN'T TO SAY I'M AGAINST SELF-GOVERNMENT. NO! BUT SELF-GOVERNMENT... "DEMOCRACY"... ABSENT A CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES A TIME-BOME WHICH BLOWS ONLY AFTER THE A MAJORITY OF "WE THE PEOPLE" UNITE (UNWITTINGLY, IRONICALLY) WITH THE OLIGARCHS.
Detroit, which boomed during World War II when industrial America was “the arsenal of democracy,” died of democracy.
* YOU FOLKS KNOW WHAT THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT OF "DEMOCRACY," RIGHT...?
Today, among the exculpatory alibis invoked to deflect blame from the political class and the docile voters who empowered it, is the myth that Detroit is simply a victim of “de-industrialization.”
Detroit’s population, which is 62% smaller than in 1950, has contracted less than the United Auto Workers membership...
(*SHRUG*)
Auto industry executives, who often were invertebrate mediocrities, continually bought labor peace by mortgaging their companies’ futures in surrenders to union demands.
* YEP...
Then city officials gave their employees — who have 47 unions, including one for crossing guards — pay scales comparable to those of autoworkers.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Thus did private-sector decadence drive public-sector dysfunction — government negotiating with government-employees’ unions that are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself to do what it wants to do: Grow.
* YEP...
The restoration of America’s vitality depends on, among many other things, avoiding the bottomless sinkhole that would be created by the federal government rescuing one-party cities and one-party states...from the consequences of unchecked power.
The consequences of such power...are written in Detroit’s ruins.
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324136204578639953580480838.html?mod=hp_opinion
If we learned anything about Barack Obama in his first term it is that when he starts repeating the same idea over and over...
(*PAUSE*)
...what's on his mind is something else.
* YEP. THE OL' BAIT AND SWITCH.
The first term's over-and-over subject was "the wealthiest 1%." Past some point, people wondered why he kept beating these half-dead horses. After the election, we knew. It was to propagandize the targeted voting base that would provide his 4% popular-vote margin of victory — very young voters and minorities. They believed. He won.
The second-term over-and-over, elevated in his summer speech tour, is the shafting of the middle class. But the real purpose here isn't the speeches' parboiled proposals. It is what he says the shafting of the middle class is forcing him to do. It is forcing him to "act" — to undertake an unprecedented exercise of presidential power in domestic policy-making.
* LOOK AT IT THIS WAY. IN HIS FIRST TERM...
ObamaCare was legislated.
* AND...?
In the second term, new law will come from him.
(*NOD*) (*BITING MY LOWER LIP*)
Please don't complain later that you didn't see it coming.
* I KNOW I'VE BEEN SCREAMING IT FROM THE HILLTOPS! THE SHEEPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO LISTEN!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)
As always, Mr. Obama states publicly what his intentions are. He is doing that now. Toward the end of his speech last week in Jacksonville, Fla., he said: "So where I can act on my own, I'm going to act on my own. I won't wait for Congress."
* FOLKS... THE REASON I SAY OBAMA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION IS... WELL... SIMPLY... BECAUSE OBAMA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION!
The July 24 speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., has at least four references to his intent to act on "his own authority" - as he interprets it:
"That means whatever executive authority I have to help the middle class, I'll use it."
"We're going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress."
* THAT'S TWO... KEEP READING!
This president is "done" with Congress. The political Left, historically inclined by ideological belief to public policy that is imposed rather than legislated, will support Mr. Obama's expansion of authority.
The U.S. has a system of checks and balances.
* HAD. WHAT REMAINS IN FACT IS FAR LESS THAN EXISTS ON PAPER... WITHIN THE PAGES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Mr. Obama is "rebalancing" the system toward a national-leader model that is alien to the American tradition.
* NOT REALLY. LINCOLN. ROOSEVELT. WILSON. ROOSEVELT AGAIN. (EVEN REAGAN... BUT WITH FAR MORE RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND REPUBLICAN VALUES THAN THE DEMOCRATS AND TEDDY ROOSEVELT WHO WERE OUT TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA.) (LINCOLN? HE HAD TO WIN THE CIVIL WAR.)
To create public support for so much unilateral authority, Mr. Obama needs to lessen support for the other two branches of government — Congress and the judiciary. He is doing that.
* THE TWO OTHER BRANCHES HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME.
Mr. Obama and his supporters in the punditocracy are defending this escalation by arguing that Congress is "gridlocked." But don't overstate that low congressional approval rating. This is the one branch that represents the views of all Americans. It's gridlocked because voters are.
* AGREED ON THE GRIDLOCK... BUT I DISAGREE ON THIS "REPRESENT" NONSENSE. NEITHER OF MY NY SENATORS REPRESENTS ME. MY HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE DOESN'T REPRESENT ME. CERTAINLY PRESIDENT OBAMA DOESN'T REPRESENT ME. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE CARE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
Take a closer look at the Galesburg and Jacksonville speeches. Mr. Obama doesn't merely criticize Congress. He mocks it repeatedly. Washington "ignored" problems. It "made things worse." It "manufactures" crises and "phony scandals." He is persuading his audiences to set Congress aside and let him act.
* WITH THE COOPERATION OF DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS...
(*SHRUG*)
So too the judiciary. During his 2010 State of the Union speech, Mr. Obama denounced the Supreme Court Justices in front of him.
* AND HAD THE JUSTICES WALKED OUT - IN MASS - THAT GESTURE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. UNFORTUNATELY... THEY LACKED THE QUICK-WITTEDNESS (AT BEST), THE INTEGRITY (AT WORST).
The National Labor Relations Board has continued to issue orders despite two federal court rulings forbidding it to do so. Attorney General Eric Holder says he will use a different section of the Voting Rights Act to impose requirements on Southern states that the Supreme Court ruled illegal. Mr. Obama's repeated flouting of the judiciary and its decisions are undermining its institutional authority, as intended.
* YEP... JUST BROWSE THROUGH USUALLY RIGHT...
The three administration nominees enabled by the Senate's filibuster deal — Richard Cordray at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Thomas Perez at the Labor Department and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy — open a vast swath of American life to executive authority on steroids. There won't be enough hours in the day for Mr. Obama to "act on my own."
In a recent Journal op-ed, "Obama Suspends the Law," former federal judge Michael McConnell noted there are few means to stop a president who decides he is not obligated to execute laws as passed by Congress. So there's little reason to doubt we'll see more Obamaesque dismissals of established law, as with ObamaCare's employer mandate. Mr. Obama is pushing in a direction that has the potential for a political crisis.
* WE'RE IN POLITICAL CRISIS NOW... IT'S JUST THAT THE SHEEPLE DON'T REALIZE IT. (BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION EITHER...)
A principled opposition would speak out.
* THE GOP IS NOT A PRINCIPLED OPPOSITION. AS FOR THE TEA PARTY... IT ISN'T REALLY A PARTY.
Barack Obama is right that he isn't running again. But the Democratic Party is. Their Republican opponents should force the party's incumbents to defend the president's creeping authoritarianism.
* THERE IS NO DEFENSE. THE GOP MUST DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL TERMS. BUT THEY WON'T. WHY NOT? BECAUSE OFTEN THE CONSTITUTION STANDS BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR POLITICAL GOALS JUST AS IT STANDS BETWEEN THE DEMS AND THEIR POLITICAL GOALS.
(*SHRUG*)
If Democratic Senate incumbents or candidates from Louisiana, Alaska, Missouri, Arkansas, North Carolina, Montana and Iowa think voters should accede to a new American system in which a president forces laws into place as his prerogative rather than first passing them through Congress, they should be made to say so.
NO! THIS ISN'T ENOUGH TO DEMAND! I DON'T CARE IF THEY'RE FORTHRIGHT IN WANTING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION! I WANT TO STOP THEM!
And to be sure, the other purpose of the shafted middle-class tour is to demolish the GOP's standing with independent voters and take back the House in 2014. If that happens — and absent a more public, aggressive Republican voice it may — an unchecked, unbalanced presidential system will finally arrive.
* FOLKS... IN MANY WAYS WE'RE ALREADY THERE.
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324809004578638393310868974.html?mod=hp_opinion
We have a robust and growing economy for high-income Americans.
* BUT...???
Those at the bottom see few prospects for growth and little reason for optimism.
* TRUE... BUT WORSE... THE MIDDLE CLASS IS BEING DESTROYED.
Census Bureau data show that in 2006-11, real annual income for the top 20% (quintile) of Americans fell by about 5% but rose almost 2% in 2010-11 and shows signs of continuing an upswing.
For the bottom quintile, income fell by over 11%, and there was no upswing.
* BUT THE GOALPOSTS ARE CONSTANTLY BEING MOVED! WE RECLASSIFY PEOPLE AS "POOR" AND THEN THOW WELFARE AT THEM THUS TAKING THE MEANING OUT OF THE DEFINITION!
In 2011, workers in households earning between $40,000 and $60,000 had a 7.8% unemployment rate.
* THAT'S THE MIDDLE CLASS!
In households earning under $20,000, unemployment was 24.4%.
* UH... UM... ISN'T THE MORE REALISTIC WAY OF LOOKING AT IT THAT UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE MAKE LESS MONEY THAN EMPLOYED PEOPLE...???
(*SNORT*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
The unemployment for households earning more than $150,000 was 3.2%
* BUT... BUT... BUT... WHAT DOES THAT MEAN...? HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS EARN MORE THAN $150,000 WITH NO ONE ACTUALLY WORKING...? (OTHER THAN WEALTHY RETIRED AND TRUST FUND FOLKS?)
"Growing inequality isn't just morally wrong," Mr. Obama said on July 24 in Illinois. "It's bad economics."
* OK... BUT IT'S YOUR POLICIES WHICH ARE DRIVING INEQUALITY! (FOLKS... JUST SCROLL BACK TO THE BOEING NEWSBITE... UNION WORKERS vs. EVERYONE ELSE!)
[T]he real problem — and crisis — is declining opportunity.
(*NOD*)
The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston has shown that in 1980, 21% of Americans in the bottom income quintile rose to the middle quintile or higher by 1990.
(*THUMBS UP*)
* FOLKS... THIS WAS BECAUSE OF REAGAN'S POLICIES!
Those who started off in the bottom quintile in 1995 had only a 15% chance of becoming middle class in 2005. That is a one-third decline in mobility in under a generation.
* CLINTON... BUSH... OBAMA...
* YES, FOLKS... RECALL HOW THE CLINTON ECONOMIC "BOOM" ENDED - WITH A BANG! (OR RATHER A POP!)
The key to increasing opportunity is simple: real jobs for adults and good education for children. The president's speeches disappointed on both counts.
In Tennessee on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said: "A job is a source of pride and dignity — the way you support your family, the proof that you're doing the right thing." Exactly — which is why it is so distressing that work has been collapsing in the past five years, with the poor hardest hit.
In 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that total nonfarm seasonally adjusted employment was 138 million workers. Today, it is fewer than 136 million.
* THAT'S TWO MILLION "LOST" WORKERS RIGHT THERE!
Meanwhile, the number of Americans has grown by 12.8 million. In many areas of the country, more than one in five adults who want full-time employment can't find it.
* THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE OBAMA ECONOMY!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
Where are the policies that will actually help Americans at the bottom regain the dignity of real, value-creating jobs? I don't mean the high-skill workers who would benefit from high-tech innovation, biofuels, electric vehicles and other favored industries of the administration... but rather the people left behind?
Again and again, the president offers a higher minimum wage as a solution.
* THE EXACT WRONG SOLUTION!
Yet as the overwhelming majority of economists have argued for decades, the minimum wage actually harms the poorest and most marginalized workers — those with the most tenuous grip on their jobs. In January, a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research surveyed the most recent studies and concluded: "The evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others."
The story for strivers and entrepreneurs is no better. Scott Shane of Case Western Reserve University has shown that business formation fell by 17.3% between 2007 and 2009. Launching a business is never a walk in the park, especially given the explosion of red tape at all levels of government. While it is still possible for the educated and comfortable, government bureaucracy can crush entrepreneurship entirely for those at the bottom of the income scale. As a pro-poor rule of thumb, I suggest this: If you want to start a landscaping business, all you should need is a lawn mower, not an accountant and a lawyer to help you hack through all the red tape before setting up shop.
* GOD DAMN RIGHT...!!!
Imagine if President Obama fought for such business-friendly simplification.
* YES... IMAGINE... CAUSE IT'S NEVER GONNA HAPPEN AND WE ALL KNOW IT!
Perhaps the president's proposals on education are better for the poor? Sadly, no. Mr. Obama, on his speaking tour, talked about subsidizing college loans — a policy that largely does relatively little for those at the bottom.
* AND AGAIN IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE WHEN ONE CONNECTS ALL THE DOTS!
According to research from the Pew Charitable Trusts published in 2009, four out of five children whose parents are in the top income quintile enroll in college, and 53% finish. Despite Pell Grants and other aid, only one in three children from the bottom quintile go to college — and just 11% graduate. More troublingly, the government's growing direct and indirect subsidies to pay for higher education end up inflating tuition rates and push college even further out of reach of people of modest means.
* NOTICE THE AUTHOR SEEMS UNAWARE THAT JUST ATTACHING THE WORD "EDUCATION" TO "COLLEGE" DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE MISGUIDED AND ULTIMATELY HARMFUL "COLLEGE FOR ALL" PHILOSOPHY OF OBAMA AND FAR TOO MANY SHEEPLE?
Instead, the administration could go to bat for real education reforms that drive social and economic mobility. The president could do much more than any Republican administration to rescue marginalized children from the complex of bureaucracy and organized labor, while creating opportunities for educational entrepreneurs and disruptive technologies. Eliminating federal barriers to for-profit schools and creating meaningful national standards to compare educational performance would be two steps in the right direction. By being a warrior for true education reform, Mr. Obama could leave a legacy that would lift up the poorest kids for decades to come.
* HIS KIDS GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOL. IN CONTRAST...
* Amy Carter attended Washington, D.C., public schools, including Stevens Elementary School and Hardy Middle School as well as Tri-County High School in Buena Vista, Georgia.
Barack Obama won two elections with laudable promises to fight for people.
* YEAH. "HIS" PEOPLE. HIS CAMPAIGN DONORS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/us/fbi-said-to-conclude-it-could-not-have-averted-boston-attack.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus&_r=1&
The F.B.I. has concluded that there was little its agents could have done to prevent the Boston Marathon bombings...
* WOW... HOW SURPRISING... HOW SHOCKING... THE FBI FINDS... er... ITSELF... er... "NOT-GUILTY."
(*SNORT*)
That conclusion is based on several internal reviews that examined how the bureau handled a request from a Russian intelligence agency in 2011 to investigate whether one of the suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had been radicalized during his time in the United States.
* YES... er... SEVERAL... er... "INTERNAL REVIEWS."
* FOLKS... YA CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP!
F.B.I. officials have concluded that the agents who conducted the investigation and ultimately told the Russians that there was no evidence that Mr. Tsarnaev had become radicalized were constrained from conducting a more extensive investigation because of federal laws and Justice Department protocols.
* SO MUCH FOR POST-9/11 REFORMS...
Agents cannot use surveillance tools like wiretapping for the type of investigation they were conducting.
* AND YET THE GOVERNMENT CAN SPY ON ALL AMERICANS... OR ANY AMERICANS... AT WILL. (FOLKS... COM'ON... THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO SHAME! THERE'S NO INTELLECTUAL CONSISTENCY TO THEIR VARIOUS DAY TO DAY ARGUMENTS! THEY'LL SAY ANYTHING, ANYTIME, AND DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO COVER THEIR ASSES - OR AT LEAST TRY!)
* READ THE FULL ARTICLE, FOLKS... IF YOU CAN STOMACH IT.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/planned-parenthood-fraud-case_n_3647480.html
Planned Parenthood has agreed to pay the state of Texas $1.4 million to settle allegations of fraud in billing to a health program for the poor, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said on Wednesday.
* APPARENTLY THAT $1.4 MILLION REPORTED SETTLEMENT IS ACTUALLY A $4.3 MILLION SETTLEMENT!
But a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast strongly denied the allegations and said the group settled to avoid a lengthy battle with Texas.
* WHY...? ONE WOULD THINK PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAS A CRACKERJACK IN-HOUSE LEGAL STAFF SUPPORTED BY SOME OF THE FINEST ATTORNIES IN THE COUNTRY - PRO-BONO - UPON REQUEST. ($4.3 MILLION ISN'T EXACTLY A "NUISANCE" SETTLEMENT...)
The settlement is the latest in a series of confrontations between Planned Parenthood and the Republican-led state government of Texas.
* YEAH, YEAH... BUT WHAT DID PLANNED PARENTHOOD DO WRONG?
It follows one week after Texas approved a new law that will force Texas clinics performing abortions to upgrade facilities to those of out-patient surgery centers, which could cost thousands of dollars for each clinic.
* AND..? SO...?
Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider operating 13 clinics in Texas which perform abortions, staunchly opposed the new law and has threatened to sue the state.
* SO...???
Texas had previously banned Planned Parenthood facilities in Texas from participating in a state health program for poor women which funds care such as annual exams, cancer screenings and birth control. Planned Parenthood sued the state but ultimately lost in court.
* SO...??? (I MEAN... WHAT'S ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE $4.3 MILLION SETTLEMENT THAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD AGREED TO RATHER THAN GO TO COURT?)
* FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... I PICKED THIS HOFFPOST PIECE DELIBERATELY. BUT EVEN WITH ALL THE ATTEMPTED TONE SETTING... IN THE END THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET TO THE MEAT OF THE SETTLEMENT. (AT LEAST I'M HOPING!)
[A] whistleblower accused Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast of improperly billing Texas for products and services which were never rendered, not medically necessary, or were not covered by Medicaid, the government health program for the poor.
* AND...?
Medicaid is mostly funded by the federal government but administered by the states.
* YES, YES... WE KNOW... GO ON...
Investigators determined that Planned Parenthood "falsified material information in patients' medical records" in order to support fraudulent reimbursement claims...
* OOPS! NOW THAT'S NOT GOOD!
Planned Parenthood said the allegations are without merit and the group was settling "as a practical matter."
* GIVE... ME... A... BREAK...!!! WE'RE TALKING $4.3 MILLION DOLLARS!
"Continuing this litigation in the hostile environment for women's health would have ensured a lengthy and costly process that would have distracted our energies and required us to share the private medical information of thousands of women," spokeswoman Rochelle Tafolla said in a statement.
* BUT IF THEY'RE INNOCENT...???
(*SMIRK*)
* AGAIN... FOLKS... $4,300 IS A NUISANCE SETTLEMENT... PERHAPS $14,300... BUT $4.3 MILLION...???
* JUST AS AN ASIDE... WHY ISN'T THIS ALLEGED FRAUD A CRIME - A CRIMINAL MATTER? IT SURE AS HELL SHOULD BE!
Post a Comment