In response to a previous post, my cyber-friend Rodak posted the following:
"While I agree with what you say, I don't see the fix embodied in anybody -- or any set of bodies -- out there. We are living in the final days of Atlas Shrugged. And anybody who thinks that's a good thing only needs to remember poor Eddie wondering what the heck happened while contemplating the abandoned railroad to which he gave his all. Eddie is Everyman, lost in the darkness falling over America."Well, pal... I wish I had an answer for you. Unfortunately... I don't.
I can fantasize about "my guys" taking over the GOP and restoring the Constitution, but it ain't gonna happen.
(Not that you'd want "my guys" in power...)
("My guys" being the likes of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin...)
We have not simply a corrupt two-party system, but two... corrupt... parties. Now obviously corruption and incompetence are evils in and of themselves, but with ever larger, more intrusive, and more powerful government, the evils of this corruption and incompetence are turbo-charged in the sense that with the ability to do greater harm increased... greater harm is done!
Anyway... all I can do is what I'm doing - posting "the dots" and leaving readers to decide for themselves whether or not I'm connecting them properly.
17 comments:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad-is-seen-by-nsa.html?_r=0
The National Security Agency is searching the contents of vast amounts of Americans’ e-mail and text communications into and out of the country, hunting for people who mention information about foreigners under surveillance, according to intelligence officials.
* SO WHEN I'M EMAILING (SKYPING? FACEBOOKING?) WITH THE DRUNK'N IRISH RELATIVES - BE THEY IN CANADA, THE IRISH REPUBLIC, OR ULSTER UK - THESE COMMUNICATIONS ARE BEING MONITORED. WELCOME TO AMERIKA FOLKS!
The N.S.A. is not just intercepting the communications of Americans who are in direct contact with foreigners targeted overseas, a practice that government officials have openly acknowledged. It is also casting a far wider net for people who cite information linked to those foreigners, like a little used e-mail address, according to a senior intelligence official.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
While it has long been known that the agency conducts extensive computer searches of data it vacuums up overseas, that it is systematically searching — without warrants — through the contents of Americans’ communications that cross the border reveals more about the scale of its secret operations.
* WARRANTS...? WHAT ARE THESE "WARRANTS" OF WHICH THE NYT WRITES...???
(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)
It also adds another element to the unfolding debate, provoked by the disclosures of Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, about whether the agency has infringed on Americans’ privacy...
* I PREFER "SHREDDED THE CONSTITUTION..."
(*SHRUG*)
Government officials say the cross-border surveillance was authorized by a 2008 law...
* ONE MORE TIME, FOLKS... "LAWS" DON'T TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION TRUMPS LAWS. AT LEAST... IT USED TO.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
* FOLKS... READ THE FULL ARTICLE FOR YOURSELVES.
We the People have no power remaining. We are a herd of fat, compliant, Netflix addicts, paying through the nose to finance wars that benefit only the super-rich and their petro-investments, and the thieves on Wall Street with their rigged manipulations of the markets. When rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it, right?
@ Rodak
Have you ever read the late, great Vince Flynn's "Term Limits"?
You should.
Indeed, if I were rich enough I'd make sure that every active duty military member and police officer (yeah, yeah... I recall... you're not a big fan of the police) and every vet and retired police officer get a copy.
(*WINK*)
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0808-santa-ana-phoenix-20130808,0,2055691.story
* FILE THIS ONE UNDER: "THE INSANITY CONTINUES"
Santa Ana, California has hired away Phoenix's city manager and has agreed to an annual salary and benefits package of more than half a million dollars, instantly making him one of the highest paid city employees in California.
* OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS... AND THIS ONLY MAKES HIM "ONE OF" THE HIGHEST PAID CITY EMPLOYEES IN CALIFORNIA.
Santa Ana has a population of about 330,000.
* FOLKS... CALIFORNIA OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T NEED FEDERAL AID... GRANTS... MATCHING FUNDS; I SAY WE STRIP CALIFORNIA OF ALL FEDERAL FUNDS GOING INTO STATE AND LOCAL COFFERS.
David Cavazos, a longtime Phoenix employee who rose through the ranks from intern to city manager during his 26-year tenure, would have a total compensation package of $558,625 in his first year in Santa Ana.
Only the city manager in tiny Indian Wells is listed as having a higher salary and benefits package at $677,172, according to the state controller's office, which most recently released data for 2011. (That paycheck included a severance payout to the city manager, who was stepping down.)
* DOES ANYONE WONDER THAT CALIFORNIA IS AN ECONOMIC BASKET CASE?
In Santa Ana, Cavazos will earn a base salary of $315,000...
* SO... LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT... HIS BENEFITS PACKAGE ALONE AMOUNT TO $243,625.00
* AGAIN... FOLKS... IF THIS DOESN'T QUALIFY AS INSANITY...
(*SHRUG*)
With benefits, the city expects to pay Cavazos $558,625 in the first year of his contract, with the figure dropping to $515,000 in his second and third year, according to a report prepared for the City Council.
* DROPPING... TO $515,000.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Among the benefits Cavazos will receive are $36,000 for housing in the first year and $24,000 per year after that.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
In addition, he will receive $7,500 in moving expenses, several sick and vacation days, and insurance benefits.
* FOLKS... SCROLL BACK UP... DO THE MATH... WHERE THE HELL IS THE OTHER $200,000.00 OR SO IN "BENEFITS" GOING...?!?!
Though much smaller than Phoenix, Santa Ana is the county seat in Orange County and a political power base. But the densely packed city has struggled with budget problems in recent years.
Cavazos noted that he helped Phoenix emerge from a $277-million budget deficit and that it now has "the highest contingency fund in city history."
* AND HOW EXACTLY DID HE DO THIS...??? (AND IF THE MODEL ALREADY EXISTS... WHY CAN'T IT JUST BE FOLLOWED... REPLICATED... BY SOMEONE NOT BEING PAID OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN SALARY AND "BENEFITS?!"
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Santa Ana leaders praised Cavazos for his experience and said they believe he will help bring in economic development and federal dollars.
* AND FEDERAL DOLLARS...
(*SIGH*)
* WHAT A PLAN, HUH?! THESE "LEADERS" ARE TALKING ABOUT A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH IS (JUST ON THE SURFACE... NOT FIGURING IN UNFUNDED FUTURE LIABILITIES) ALREADY ROUGHLY $17 TRILLION IN DEBT... WHICH HAS ADDED OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS IN NEW DEBT OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS... WHICH IS ON TRACK TO ADD ALMOST A TRILLION DOLLARS IN NEW DEBT THIS YEAR... WHICH MUST BORROW FORTY-SOMETHING-CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR ALREADY SQUANDERED...
* FOLKS... YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A CPA TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ISN'T SUSTAINABLE - LET ALONE RESPONSIBLE - ECONOMICS!
"You get what you pay for," Councilwoman Michele Martinez said. "We wanted the best and we didn't want to shortchange our city. He's very qualified; we didn't want to nickel and dime."
* NICKEL AND DIME...?!?! LET'S PAY FOR THE SALARY AND BENEFITS OF THE CITY MANAGER BY CUTTING THE SALARY AND BENEFITS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS!
Phoenix officials gave Cavazos a $78,000 pay raise late last year, boosting his base salary to $315,000. The raise sparked controversy there. Defenders argued it would help retain a talented manager and put his pay in line with cities similar in size to Phoenix.
* AND HOW'D THAT WORK OUT FOR THE PEOPLE OF PHOENIX? (OH... IT DIDN'T!)
Santa Ana was hard-hit by the recession and housing market crash and in recent years faced steep budget cuts. At one point, there was talk of possible bankruptcy. Last year, it passed its first balanced budget after years of fiscal turmoil. Earlier this year, the city pushed out Manager Paul Walters, who was earning a base salary of $265,000 and had previously been Santa Ana's longtime police chief.
* WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN... (*RUBBING MY EYES*)... (*TAKING A DEEP BREATH*)... SANTA ANA's LONGTIME POLICE CHIEF...?!?!
Walters was hired to help resolve the multimillion-dollar budget shortfall...
* WITH WHAT - A GUN?! WHAT WERE HIS FINANCIAL CREDENTIALS...?!?!
...and was seen as an ally of longtime Mayor Miguel Pulido, who has become a minority voice on the council.
* GEEZUS...
* AGAIN... HOW DOES ONE FIGHT THIS SORT OF ENDEMIC ABUSE?
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/02/last-hurrah-of-the-interventionists/
* PAT BUCHANAN'S AUGUST 2, 2013 COLUMN
In what a Washington Post columnist describes as a rout of Rand Paul isolationism, the Senate just voted overwhelmingly to send another $1.5 billion in foreign aid to Egypt.
* GEEZUS...
The House voted 400-20 to impose new sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, two days before Iran’s new president, elected on a pledge to re-engage the West on the nuclear issue, takes his oath.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Do these triumphs of AIPAC and the War Party of neocons and liberal internationalists tell us where we are going?
Or... are they the last hurrahs of the interventionists, as America’s long retreat proceeds apace.
If we take what Richard Nixon called “the long view” the trend line seems unmistakable.
Under President Obama, America has pulled all U.S. forces out of Iraq...
* NOT QUITE. THE STATE DEPARTMENT BASICALLY HAS ITS OWN SMALL "ARMY" STATIONED THROUGHOUT IRAQ. SOME ARE ACTUALLY ON THE GOVERNMENT PAYROLL DIRECTLY AS EMPLOYEES, OTHERS ARE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES. IN EITHER CASE, WE'RE TALKING THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WITH GUNS AND "LIGHT" SUPPORT.
...and has scheduled a full withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014.
* I'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT.
(*SHRUG*)
Despite his “red line” in Syria having allegedly been crossed, and the cawing of Hill hawks like Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, Obama seems the very portrait of a reluctant warrior in Syria.
* WE'RE ARMING POTENTIAL LATER-DAY ANTI-AMERICAN REBEL FORCES IN SYRIA AND ELSEWHERE. TRAINING TOO, NO DOUBT.
On Iran the Pentagon seems to concur with Obama in opposition to a new Mideast war. And as Congress votes new sanctions on Iran and new billions for an Egyptian army that just arrested its elected government, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is laying out scenarios for reducing the size, reach and power of the U.S. military.
* YEP... THE REALITY OF AMERIKA 2013!
* AND NOW... REAL REALITY! (READ ON!)
“Without the controlling principle that the nation must maintain its objectives and its power in equilibrium, its purposes within its means, and its means equal to its purposes, its commitments related to its resources, and its resources adequate to its commitments, it is impossible to think at all about foreign affairs.” So wrote Walter Lippmann in 1943.
That is our situation today.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
During World War II, we were united in defeating Germany and Japan. After the war, we became united on a new foreign policy — containment of communism and a Soviet Empire that had spread from the Elbe River to the Bering Sea. Through great sacrifices we ensured that our resources were adequate to our commitments.
Vietnam shattered the Cold War consensus, yet enough of it survived for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to lead the nation and the West to victory.
Bush I then set out to build his “New World Order.” He invaded Panama, drove Iraq out of Kuwait and put U.S. troops into Somalia. The country sent him packing.
After 9/11, Bush II invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and undertook to nation-build in both. The country removed his party from power in both houses of Congress in 2006 and from the presidency in 2008.
George W. was going to “end tyranny in our world.” Enough said.
Obama began the long retreat of American power that proceeds today despite a bellicosity on Capitol Hill redolent of the Cold War.
Today, as government at all levels consumes nearly 40% of gross domestic product, as the deficit is growing three times as fast as the GDP, as China continues to grow at four times the U.S. rate, we need to ask ourselves:
What should we fight for?
Whom shall we defend?
What can we afford in the way of national defense? What must we afford?
Consider America’s alliances, almost all of which date to a Cold War no American under 25 can even remember.
NATO was formed in 1949 to protect Western Europe from a Soviet Bloc and a Soviet Union that disappeared a generation ago.
U.S. treaties with Japan and the Philippines date to the 1950s, when Chairman Mao was exporting communist revolution. Should these treaties now require us to go to war with China to defend disputed islets and rocks in the East and South China Sea?
Our treaty with South Korea dates to a war against the North that ended in a truce 60 years ago. South Korea today has twice the population of the North and 40 times the GDP. Must we still deploy a U.S. army on the Korean DMZ?
* NO!
In 1977 we undertook to give $5 billion in annual foreign aid to Israel and Egypt. After 35 years, how long should the United States, whose middle class has not seen a rise in real income since 1977, borrow from China to pay Egyptians and Israelis $5 billion a year not to fight each other?
* NO LONGER!
Through a mindless adherence to policies that date to a long-dead past, America is forfeiting her future. Through our abandonment of economic patriotism and embrace of globalism, we have run up $10 trillion in trade deficits since Reagan. We have fought two trillion-dollar wars in 12 years.
Every year we go into world financial markets to borrow tens of billions for the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and foreign aid to send to regimes that routinely vote against the us in the United Nations.
Is Rand Paul really the one living in yesterday?
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fort-hood-attack-was-terrorism-the-army-should-call-it-that/2013/08/07/cfe62210-feb1-11e2-bd97-676ec24f1f3f_story.html
In November 2009, my Army Reserve Medical Detachment reported to Fort Hood, Tex., in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan.
As we waited in line at the base’s processing center, Maj. Nidal Hasan entered the building and fired rounds that would kill 13 people and an unborn child and wound 32 others, including me.
After many setbacks, Hasan’s trial finally began this week, only to be delayed yet again on Wednesday.
* A DISGRACE. THE GOVERNMENT IS BROKEN; AND SO IS THE MILITARY WHETHER WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
My recovery has been long and agonizing. But the pain that has taken me by surprise has come in the nearly four years since the attack, as my fellow victims and I have been given the runaround by a government more eager to protect itself than the dead and wounded.
* BY AN ADMINISTRATION. BY ONE ADMINISTRATION. BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
On the day of the attack, I was waiting for a medical exam before what would have been my third deployment overseas. I was texting my wife when I heard the shout of “Allahu Akbar!” I looked up to see a man in Army fatigues firing a pistol. His fourth or fifth shot went into my chest. As screams broke out around me, I collapsed to the ground. The bullet had punctured my lung and I was gasping for breath. As I lay there, he shot me five more times in my back and legs. Eventually soldiers helped me get medical attention.
The bullets had narrowly missed my heart, but one had lodged in my liver. I still have two bullets in my body and deal with near-constant pain in my legs and back.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
During my recovery, I learned that the Army had classified the shooting as non-political workplace violence instead of a terrorist attack.
* OBAMA's ARMY. THE ARMY OF WHOM OBAMA IS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
The language used to describe the attack may seem meaningless, but it is very meaningful to the victims and their families.
Because the Army decided that our wounds were not “combat-related,” a number of benefits are being denied to the victims and their families, including certain health and disability ones.
(*NOD*)
In some instances, the designation even resulted in victims receiving smaller salaries than we would have received during our deployment.
(*NOD*)
As a reservist, I was making roughly $2,000 per month less than I would have in my private-sector job. The Army would have made up that difference had I been on deployment orders or had my injuries classified as combat-related.
* FRANKLY I'D NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THIS POLICY - AND THE LIMITATIONS - BEFORE I'D FEEL COMFORTABLE COMMENTING. THAT SAID... POINT MADE.
Unfortunately, I am not alone in my experience. I have watched other victims and their families be denied disability benefits and treated indifferently by the Army. This has left many families suffering not just physical and emotional wounds, but financial ones as well. Though the Army claims that the survivors of the Fort Hood attack are eligible for the same medical benefits as any service member, we are not getting the same treatment as soldiers wounded in combat.
* AND THAT IS WRONG!
That is part of the reason we have brought a lawsuit against the government. But it would be a mistake to think that the terrorism designation is just about benefits. It is also about the government acknowledging its complicity in the attack.
* YES... HE WROTE "COMPLICITY." AND I BELIEVE HE MAKES HIS CASE! READ ON!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
Before the shooting, the Army knew that the gunman was an Islamic religious extremist.
* KNEW IT!
After the attack, a bipartisan Senate report concluded that the Defense Department had evidence that “Hasan embraced views so extreme that it should have disciplined him or discharged him from the military, but DOD failed to take action against him.”
The FBI knew that Hasan was e-mailing with known terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki, asking questions about religious martyrdom and expressing support for Awlaki’s terrorist tactics. It did nothing.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The Army also knew that Hasan was an incompetent psychiatrist who repeatedly neglected his duties. Yet instead of investigating, disciplining or discharging him, they transferred him to my medical detachment for deployment to Afghanistan.
* GEEZUS...
Congress has labeled the Fort Hood attack an act of terrorism.
* THIS "LABELING" HAS NO TEETH. SPECIFIC LEGISLATION IS REQUIRED.
In the wake of the attack, an independent report commissioned by the FBI looked at ways to improve counterterrorism measures. Even the president said the attack was inspired by “larger notions of violent jihad.” The only entities that have stubbornly refused to call it an act of terrorism are the Army and the Pentagon.
* FORGET WHAT OBAMA "SAID." PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HE DOES. HE'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF - HE CAN OVERRULE THE ARMY/PENTAGON ON THIS.
* REMEMBER, FOLKS... OBAMA HAD TO BE DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING (FIGURATIVELY, NOT LITERALLY) TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BENGHAZI WAS TERRORISM!
Hasan’s conviction would represent one step on the path toward justice.
* CONVICTION OF RUN OF THE MILL MURDER... "WORKPLACE VIOLENCE" WHICH RESULTED IN DEATHS... NOT TREASON... NOT TERRORISM.
* FOLKS... AMERIKA 2013 IS IN MANY WAYS A COUNTRY I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504578654193173779414.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Illegal dispensations for the ruling class, different rules for the hoi polloi.
* YEP... THAT'S OBAMACARE! THAT'S AMERIKA 2013!
* HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN THUS...? TO A DEGREE - SURE. BUT NEVER SO BLATANTLY AND NEVER AT SUCH COST! NEW SLOGAN: "NEVER HAVE SO MANY STOLEN SO MUCH!"
* CHARLIE RANGEL... JON CORZINE... MARC RICH... MARC RICH'S EX-WIFE... BILL CLINTON... ROBERT MENENDEZ... AL GORE... THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. (AND FAR TOO OFTEN THE THIEVES ARE ALSO DEGENERATES IN TODAY'S AMERIKA! WEINER... SPITZER... BILL CLINTON AGAIN... ROBERT MENENDEZ AGAIN...)
Thanks to an amendment from Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley that Democrats enacted in 2010, the Affordable Care Act says that "the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available" to Congress are the ones offered on the ObamaCare insurance exchanges. But Members and many aides have been flipping out because they won't qualify for ObamaCare subsidies...
* SUBSIDIES ARE SUPPOSEDLY MEANT FOR THE POOR. MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE MAKE NEARLY $200,000 IN SALARY ALONE! WHY SHOULD THEY BE SUBSIDIZED...???
* IF THE ECONOMIES OF SCALE WORK OUT AS WE WERE PROMISED... DOESN'T EVERYONE "GET A SUBSIDY" IN ANY CASE...???
(*SMIRK*)
* FOLKS... LIES FOLLOWED BY BAIT AND SWITCH... THAT'S OBAMACARE.
...and they'll lose employer contributions they now receive under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP, which picks up about three-quarters of the average premium.
* STRICTLY SPEAKING, MEMBERS AND SENATORS AREN'T "EMPLOYEES." THEY'RE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO CHOOSE TO RUN FOR AND ACCEPT "PUBLIC SERVICE" - PLUS FAT PAYCHECKS AND PLATINUM BENEFITS AND PERKS! LET 'EM PAY THEIR OWN DAMN INSURANCE PREMIUMS!
At President Obama's personal request, the Office of Personnel Management decreed that the Members don't have to get off the gravy train after all.
* AGAIN... AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED... NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE PRESIDENT - LET ALONE SOME BUROCRAT AT OPM - THE POWER TO "DECREE" ANY SUCH THING! FOLKS... THIS IS BLATANT DISREGARD FOR - DISOBEDIANCE TO - THE LAW AS WRITTEN, PASSED, SIGNED, AND THUS ENACTED!
The eat-your-own-cooking provision begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law." The feds now interpret that clause as a loophole to mean that the Affordable Care Act did not change the 1959 law that created the FEHBP.
* RIDICULOUS!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Since Members and staff still technically meet the definition of federal employees qualified for the FEHBP, the Administration says they're still entitled to enroll in the FEHBP concurrently with the exchanges. The feds then "clarify" — their euphemism — that the regulatory meaning of health benefits in the FEHBP can be ObamaCare plans.
Voila, taxpayers will continue to chip in $4,900 for individual and $10,000 for family coverage.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The charitable term for such legal gymnastics is "creative."
(*SMIRK*)
When statutes conflict, the bedrock administrative law obligation is to enforce the most recent statute. "Notwithstanding" clauses are routine catchalls that are supposed to emphasize Congress's intent that a new bill is controlling and pre-empts other laws on the books.
* AS ANY PRE-LAW STUDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL YOU!
The White House is claiming the clause means the opposite, as if the 2010 law and the 1959 law have nothing to do with each other. That is not how it is supposed to work. When Congress kicked itself out of the traditional FEHBP, it kicked itself out of the FEHBP.
* ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW... YES; ACCORDING TO THE SCUM WHO RUN OUR GOVERNMENT... "UH... NOT SO FAST..."
At least the Members will still have to sign up for exchange coverage as the law requires.
* FOLKS... FOR A FEW THOUSAND BUCKS A YEAR EACH MEMBER AND SENATOR "BUYS" THE SERVICES OF A FULL-TIME DEDICATED CONGRESSIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE. WE'RE TALKING OFFICE CALLS... HOUSE CALLS... FACILITIES WITHIN THE CAPITAL DISTRICT... THE BEST OF THE BEST OF EVERYTHING! (NOT SURE IF FAMILY CARE IS INCLUDED...)
Given the lawless White House record, it probably considered finding some excuse to exempt Congress entirely and decided that option was too explosive politically. But creating a special financing stream for the political class is almost as much of an abuse.
ObamaCare's complex subsidy system, with varying levels based on income, is not incidental to the exchanges. It's the beating heart of this exercise in wealth redistribution and social and economic central planning.
* THUS MY EARLIER COMMENTARY REGARDING WHY ARE WE SUBSIDIZING WEALTHY HOUSE MEMBERS AND SENATORS...
The entitlement's architects never envisioned that well-to-do movers and shakers — Mr. Obama might even call some of them "the rich" — would get (or deserve) taxpayer benefits merely because they happen to run for or work for Congress.
* OH... LET'S NOT BE NAÏVE! YOU DON'T SEE REID, MCCONNELL, PELOSI, AND BOEHNER PUTTING THE CABASH ON THIS SCAM, DO YOU?
Millionaire Senators and the affluent professionals who are chiefs of staff, legislative directors and the like were supposed to go on the exchange and abide by its rules. There are only three insurers offering public utility-type plans on the Washington, D.C. ObamaCare exchange. The FEHBP sponsors 21 plans in metro D.C. and 24 in Virginia. Perhaps as a new perquisite the White House will entice a plan to the exchange that only Members can choose.
* AGAIN... THEY ALREADY HAVE IT - IT'S CALLED "THE OFFICE OF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN." (MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE CAN ALSO UTILIZE THE HEALTH FACILITIES OF U.S. MILITARY BASES.)
It would have been fairer and less corrosive to the rule of law had Congress simply passed a bill giving their workers a raise to make up for the lost compensation of dropping out of the FEHBP. But that would mean an ugly political fight that voters might notice. It's so much easier to slip through this political fix in August when Congress is out of session and the press corps can't wait to hit the beach.
* SCUMBAGS. ALL OF THEM.
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/08/08/Is-Obama-Playing-a-Shell-Game-with-Housing.aspx#page1
Barack Obama has finally started talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac again, years after insisting that reforming the two mortgage giants would be a top priority.
But is the President serious about finally resolving the risk facing taxpayers, or is he just suggesting that Congress play a shell game with it?
(*SIGH*)
It has been nearly five years since the collapse of the housing bubble in the U.S. nearly caused financial systems across the globe to collapse, setting up fears of a run on the banks and the vaporization of trillions of dollars in capital. A panicked Congress passed the first of two sweeping appropriations that Treasury used as a blank check to stopgap the American banking and financial sectors in October 2008.
Much of the funds went to bail out the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which between the two held over $5 trillion in mortgage securities that suddenly looked nearly worthless. The two GSEs were supposed to be financially independent of the federal government, but the bailout saddled taxpayers with huge losses from both.
* AND NO ONE WENT TO JAIL...
* AS FAR AS I KNOW NO ONE AT FREDDIE/FANNIE WAS EVEN INDICTED...
Taxpayers poured $154 billion into the two GSEs, and have only started to see a trickle of cash return recently.
* WHAT "RETURN?" (IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE EVER GONNA FACTOR IN REALISTIC OPPORTUNITY COSTS...)
Ever since the decision to conduct a taxpayer-funded rescue of Fannie and Freddie, politicians of both parties have demanded reforms that would either restrict their ability to rely on government subsidies or go entirely private to eliminate future risk to both the financial markets and to taxpayers. Yet as we near the five-year mark of their rescue, the Obama administration and three successive sessions of Congress have done nothing whatsoever to deal with the risk posed by Fannie and Freddie.
* AGAIN, FOLKS, THE CORRUPTION, INCOMPETENCE, AND IRRESPONSIBILITY ARE ENDEMIC.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
The rational time for that effort would have come three years ago, when President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd proposed sweeping legislative "reform" of the financial sector.
The bill known as Dodd-Frank passed in the summer of 2010 and purported to put an end to “too big to fail” policies, but mostly imposed new fees and regulations on trading while doing nothing about either the two GSEs or the size of the financial institutions that required bailing out two years earlier.
(*NOD*)
* NOR DID IT PUT AN END TO "TOO BIG TO FAIL." JUST THE OPPOSITE! IT LAID THE SEEDS FOR EVEN BIGGER BAILOUTS IN THE FUTURE!
In fact, the bill created a mechanism whereby taxpayers would front the cash to unwind large-scale failures through the FDIC and wait up to five years to get repaid, legitimizing the 2008 actions ex post facto. When asked why their bill failed to address either the GSEs or “too big to fail,” then Senator Chris Dodd admitted, “What we did … was fairly anemic in light of what we need to be doing.”
* AND WITH THAT HE RETIRED, TOOK HIS PENSION, AND TRADED HIS GOVERNMENT "EXPERIENCE" (CONTACTS) FOR A LUCRATIVE "PRIVATE SECTOR" LOBBYING GIG.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
At the time, the White House claimed that overhauling the crippled GSEs would be a priority for 2011. Instead, they have remained silent on the failed entities, even while both Republicans and Democrats have repeatedly called for a resolution to the risk facing taxpayers – and a conclusion to the kind of government intervention that touched off the crisis in the first place.
* NOTICE HOW THE ARTICLE DOESN'T IDENTIFY THESE SUPPOSEDLY RESPONSIBLE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS...
(*SNORT*)
After waiting years, President Obama returned to the Fannie and Freddie issue this week. Appearing in Phoenix as part of his tour on economic policy, Obama called for the privatization of mortgage lending by winding down the crippled GSEs once and for all.
“First, private capital should take a bigger role in the mortgage market… I actually believe in the free market,” Obama told the press. “Private lending should be the backbone of the housing market." He declared his support in concept for a bipartisan bill already moving in the Senate to unwind Fannie and Freddie, and urged Congress to find ways to strengthen the private markets to ensure broader but safer lending.
That the White House has finally taken some notice of the lingering wrecks of the 2008 collapse is encouraging. However, Obama proposes to get rid of Fannie and Freddie while transferring the government’s ability to distort the mortgage markets to the FHA. “We’ve got to keep housing affordable for first-time homebuyers,” Obama said, “[a]nd that means we've got to strengthen the FHA so it gives today’s families the same kind of chance it gave my grandparents to buy a home.”
* SO... HE "BELIEVES IN THE FREE MARKET" AND YET "WE'VE GOT TO KEEP HOUSING AFFORDABLE." NOTHING'S CHANGED. PURE DOUBLE-TALK.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
The FHA began that process in 2009 as borrowers flocked to its doors after the GSEs went into government receivership, and the results are less than encouraging. FHA’s former chief credit officer Edward Pinto wrote last November that the FHA’s capital position turned negative nearly overnight, and that the FHA itself might need its own taxpayer bailout. The FY2012 actuarial study showed that the single-family program’s valuation dropped $23 billion in a year when the housing markets improved significantly, a serious red flag about the stability of its operation.
“If it were a private company,” Pinto warned, “it would be shut down.” Strengthening the FHA sounds suspiciously like a bailout to keep the path of intervention open in order to keep pursuing the kind of home-ownership political goals that shipwrecked Fannie and Freddie.
* Y*E*P!
The Heritage Foundation raises another red flag on another part of the President’s proposal. Obama wants government to insure mortgage-backed securities (MBS) from home loans, funded by levying fees on investors. The implication from this is that the guarantees would be self-funded, involving no taxpayer risk. “But if a reinsurance guarantee is self-funding,” Heritage’s John Ligon and James Gattuso ask, “then why is the government needed?”
(*SHRUG*)
* AND BTW... WHAT'S THIS NONSENSE ABOUT LEVYING FEES ON INVESTORS...??? WHY SHOULD INVESTORS PAY NEW FEES? AFTER ALL, IF THEIR INVESTMENT CREATES A GAIN THE GAIN IS TAXED! FOLKS... FEES ARE JUST ANOTHER SCAM... ANOTHER TAX.
Surely that role should be filled by private-sector insurers who can compete on price and assess risk separately from political policies and agendas that have little to do with solvency - if the cost of the guarantees truly covers the costs of failures. A government guarantee would ensure only that Washington retains its ability to distort the lending markets – and put taxpayers on the hook for failures in the MBS market just as it did with Fannie and Freddie.
Anyone who believes that the revenue from the sale of guarantees would sit around in a lockbox to avoid taxpayer bailouts isn’t paying much attention to the Social Security fund.
* Y*E*P!
Rather than simply swap Fannie and Freddie for the FHA and continue to have the government guarantee loans, we need to unwind the government’s ability to intervene in mortgage lending altogether.
* HEAR! HEAR!
Private lenders should assume the risks of their own investments, which should incentivize them to be more careful than they were in the last decade, when they assumed – correctly – that the federal government would take ownership of GSEs in a crisis.
* BRAVO...!!!
Government should regulate to prevent fraud, theft, and ensure proper levels of capitalization, a task that they haven’t been able to fulfill in their own operation at FHA.
(*NOD*)
The President has taken a good first step by putting Fannie and Freddie reform back on the table, but let’s produce real reform rather than a repeat of the same mistakes that created the crisis in the first place.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/08/exclusive_us_will_now_let_in_thousands_of_syrian_refugees
With conditions continuing to deteriorate in Syria, the Obama administration is making a major policy shift by agreeing for the first time to allow thousands of new Syrian refugees into the United States, The Cable has learned.
* UNFRIGGIN'BELIEVABLE!
The numbers are relatively small: just 2,000 refugees, compared to an estimated two million people who have fled Syria during the civil war. But it's a significant increase from the 90 or so permanent Syrian refugees who have been admitted to the U.S. in the last two years. And it's not entirely uncontroversial. The refugees, mostly women and children, will be screened for terrorist ties - a process that could take a year or more to complete.
* AT A COST OF...???
* AND THEN WHAT OF THE WELFARE COSTS OF SUPPORTING THOUSANDS OF "MOSTLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN?"
* MY GOD PEOPLE... LET OBAMA ADOPT A SYRIAN CHILD IF HE SO CHOOSES! ENOUGH OF THIS! LET THE SAUDIS TAKE THE REFUGEES! OR THE TURKS!
Unlike previous efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to give temporary protected status to Syrians already in the United States, the State Department effort will bring in Syrians from overseas for permanent resettlement in America.
* NOTHING LIKE CUTTING THE LINE!
* WILL THEY AT LEAST HAVE TO SPEAK ENGLISH?
"Referrals will come within the next four months. We will need to interview people and perform security and medical checks," Kelly Clements, the State Department's deputy assistant secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration, tells The Cable.
* WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO PROTECT OUR EMBASSIES AND CONSULATES AND YET WE HAVE MANPOWER FOR THIS...???
While aid workers welcome the decision to let in more refugees, concerns remain about the time it will take to process the applications and move them into the U.S. "It's 90 degrees now, but in a few months it's going to snow and people are going to be freezing," Noah Gottschalk, Oxfam America's senior humanitarian policy advisor, told The Cable. "They don't have many options and many are living in unfinished buildings, abandoned shopping malls, schools, mosques and parking garages."
* HAVE... YOU... BEEN... TO... DETROIT... LATELY...?!?!
* GEEZUS, PEOPLE, ON A SERIOUS NOTE, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE NATURAL DISASTERS (AND GAS EXPLOSIONS) WHICH HAVE DEVASTATED PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES? WE STILL HAVEN'T CLEANED UP NEW JERSEY... OR OKLAHOMA... OR TEXAS... OR...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Qualifying refugees include only the most vulnerable individuals - likely women and children - who were "exposed to everything from torture to gender-based violence to serious medical conditions" and have no intention of returning to Syria, Clements added.
* LET THE SYRIANS FIGHT FOR SYRIA! NO! DON'T COME AND HIDE HERE! FIGHT FOR YOUR COUNTRY! REBUILD YOUR COUNTRY! THE WORLD IS FULL OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED WAR AND TRAGEDY - THE U.S.A. CAN'T BE THE SAFE HAVEN FOR THE WORLD - WE'VE GOT OUR OWN PROBLEMS... OUR OWN PEOPLE TO LOOK AFTER!
Despite their vulnerable condition, even the youngest of children will be thoroughly vetted to ensure they do not pose a national security threat.
* YA MEAN LIKE THEY VETTED THE BOSTON BOMBING BROTHERS...???
It's not that they're worried about infants enlisting in al Qaeda. The worry is that terrorist relatives can more easily enter the United States, once they have relatives in America.
* AND WHY IS THAT? IT'S BECAUSE STATE DEPARTMENT POLICIES ARE INSANE! WHY SHOULD THEIR RELATIVES BE ALLOWED IN JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE ALLOWED IN?!
"Refugees are subject to an intensive security screening process involving federal intelligence, law enforcement, defense, and homeland security agencies," a State Department official said.
* TELL IT TO AMBASSADOR STEVENS AND THE MEN KILLED IN BENGHAZI. TELL IT TO THOSE KILLED AND WOUNDED IN BOSTON. TELL IT TO THOSE KILLED AND WOUNDED IN FORT HOOD TEXAS IN 2009 FOR GOD'S SAKE!
* FOLKS... WASN'T SNOWDEN VETTED...?!?!
In cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress and the White House have been wary about opening the floodgates to refugees too wide, citing concerns about terrorism. As a result, tens of thousands of refugees have been left waiting at the doors of American embassies there. Humanitarian groups are encouraging Washington to do more in Syria.
* WHY... IS... SYRIA... OUR... PROBLEM...???
"It's a welcome move by the U.S. but they also need to do more to help the countries supporting refugees and support their infrastructure," said Gottschalk, who has recently visited the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. Other major resettlement countries, such as Germany, have pledged to bring in up to 13,000 refugees since the fighting began. However, unlike in the U.S., refugees to Germany are required to return after the fighting subsides.
* BECAUSE THE GERMANS ARE SANE...!!!
It's yet to be seen if Congress will push back against the Obama administration's acceptance of the Syrian refugees. (Ordinarily, the U.S. only admits refugees after a conflict has gone on for five years or longer.) Though the State Department's refugee admission program is authorized by a presidential determination, it does involve consultation with Congress.
* AGAIN, FOLKS... WHERE DOES THE SUPPOSED AUTHORITY FOR A "PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION" COME FROM? WHAT ARTICLE... WHAT SECTION... WHAT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION...?
Post a Comment