The "Grand Old - Hypocritical - Party" on "Defense" Expenditures

By Ramesh Ponnuru...

(And moi...)

The Republican position on federal spending could not be clearer: It doesn’t create jobs.

(*DRUM ROLL*)

Except when it goes to defense contractors.

(*DOING A SHOT*)

(*SHRUG*)

Under the debt-ceiling deal reached last year, planned spending is going to be “sequestered” - that is, cut - starting next January.

* THAT'S WHAT WE WERE THREATENED WITH... THAT'S WHAT WE WERE PROMISED... THE "NUCLEAR OPTION" (RATHER THAN CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY DOING THEIR JOBS)... BUT AT LEAST IT WAS A SUPPOSELY GUARANTEED CUT... CUTS BEING WHAT WE SO DESPERATELY NEED...

The defense budget is going to take half the hit.

* REGRETABLE... BUT THERE YOU HAVE IT... THIS IS WHAT BOEHNER, PELOSI, REID, MCCONNELL, AND OBAMA GAVE US. A HEAVY PRICE TO PAY? YES. BUT PART OF "THE DEAL" - THE "GRAND COMPROMISE." (REMEMBER HOW WE WERE "SOLD" ON THE "GRAND COMPROMISE" BY THE MSM?)

On July 12, Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign issued a press release with a statement from Bill Bolling, the Republican lieutenant governor of Virginia, attacking President Barack Obama for cutting defense too much.

* AGAIN... ROMNEY IS A DOUCHE BAG. HE'S THE LESSER OF TWO DOUCHE BAGS... BUT STILL... HE'S A DOUCHE BAG.

“We are very concerned about the impact that sequestration could have on Virginia’s economy,” Bolling said in the statement. He added, “It could also deliver a devastating blow to the private-sector defense contractors who make up a big part of Virginia’s economy, especially in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. This is just another example of how the president’s approach to running the country is jeopardizing our economic viability.”

* AS YOU READ THIS YOU ARE AWARE, FOLKS - ARE YOU NOT - THAT THE WAR DRUMS ARE BEING SOUNDED BY BOTH PARTIES AND THAT THERE'S TALK OF INTERVENING IN THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR AS WELL AS GOING TO WAR AGAINST IRAN...?!?!

(*SHRUG*)

The same day, the state’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, made the same point in his own statement for the Romney campaign. (And the campaign hosted a conference call where Representative Randy Forbes, a Virginia Republican, said, “If you look at it from an economic point of view, this is something that is going to have an enormous, devastating blow on Virginia, especially in northern Virginia and in the Hampton Roads area.” There would be “a huge impact on beauty salons, restaurants, car dealers, the entire economy.”)

* STATE BY STATE PANDER... NOTHING UNUSUAL... BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE, IF NOW ISN'T THE TIME FOR REPUBLICANS TO BE HONEST... TO BE TRUTHFUL WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND LET THE CARDS FALL WHERE THEY MAY... WELL... THEN THAT TIME WILL NEVER COME!

The cuts probably will hurt Virginia, since it is, according to a 2011 Bloomberg Government study, the top recipient of federal defense dollars. Is that really a reason to keep the spending going, though?

* NO!

I’ve got nothing against northern Virginia -- along with Hampton Roads, it’s one of my favorite closely divided parts of a swing state. The federal government, though, does more than enough for the region already. You would expect Republicans, at least, to think so.

* YES! YOU WOULD!

It’s not just Virginia politicians and the Romney campaign who are making the economic argument for defense spending. It’s a case that has also been made by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, Senator John McCain and Senator John Cornyn - Republicans all - among others.

* THE AUTHOR USES THE TERM "REPUBLICANS ALL" QUITE LOOSELY.

(*SNICKER*)

Representative Barney Frank...calls his Republican colleagues’ insistence that defense spending be protected to safeguard jobs “weaponized Keynesianism.”

* AND AS MUCH AS IT PAINS ME TO SAY IT...  BARNEY FRANK IS CORRECT!

His accusation is unfair - to Keynesians.

(*SNORT*) (*CROOKED SMILE*)

The Keynesian argument for government spending applies only during economic slumps. The case Bolling and the others are making recognizes no such limitation: The federal government is supposed to keep the dollars flowing to particular communities for all time.

(*NOD*) (*SIGH*)

There is, of course, no reason to think that defense spending is more helpful to the economy than other kinds of federal spending. Republicans have been dead-set against sending federal money to states to help them avoid laying off teachers. Yet teachers, too, spend money at beauty salons and car dealerships. They, too, have “good paying and reliable jobs,” as the National Association of Manufacturers said of defense workers in a letter opposing cuts in April.

* ALL... I... ASK... IS... MORAL... ETHICAL... AND INTELLECTUAL... HONESTY.

(*GNASHING MY TEETH*)

* WHAT DO I GET FROM REPUBLICAN "LEADERS?" NONE OF THE ABOVE!

* MY GOD... I'M GONNA HAVE TO BE SO FRIGGIN' DRUNK COME ELECTION DAY IN ORDER TO NUMB ME TO THE REALITY OF HAVING NO CHOICE BUT TO PULL THE LEVER FOR ROMNEY AND HAYWORTH...

(*BARELY HOLDING BACK TEARS*)

Needless to say, on the theory that the Republicans are advancing, the federal budget can never be cut.

* YEP! GOLD STAR!

The U.S. Conference of Mayors will be able to say that cuts in social spending will devastate the economy of our cities with at least as much justice as defense-heavy areas can complain about cuts to the military.

(*SHRUG*)

Rural areas can say the same thing about farm subsidies.

(*ANOTHER SHRUG*)

Reductions in federal spending, whether for defense or social programs, will, of course, be disruptive to the people, businesses and communities who have come to rely on it. The cuts should not, however, hurt the broader economy.

* THE CUTS WILL HELP THE ECONOMY! THE CUTS WILL HELP THE COUNTRY!

When federal spending falls and jobs tied to that spending disappear, private-sector spending should normally increase and create jobs tied to it.

So long as the Federal Reserve is targeting inflation or nominal spending, total economic activity should stay roughly the same, even if its composition changes. (If the Fed responds to government spending cuts by tightening money, jobs will be lost. But that would be the fault of the Fed, not the budget writers.)

* MONEY SHOULD BE TIGHTENED. SEE: RONALD REAGAN - FIRST TERM ECONOMIC POLICIES.

(*SMIRK*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The Bloomberg Government study listed the 10 states that depend the most on defense dollars. Seven of them voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, and an eighth, Virginia, has usually voted Republican in presidential races. So the party’s interest in keeping defense jobs makes political sense. Yet the purpose of the defense budget shouldn’t be to subsidize particular people or areas.

* I AGREE!

We don’t buy tanks and train soldiers to keep beauty salons in business.

The Republicans resisting big defense cuts generally think that they would jeopardize our national security. That’s a debatable proposition. So debate it. What Republicans should not do is make an economic argument for defense spending that is both untrue and inconsistent with everything else they say about spending and the economy. When they do that, they treat the nation’s defense as little more than a source of political pork.

(*NOD*) (*SIGH*)

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 17, 2012

It's a friggin' POOL DAY, my friends...

Heat... humidity... "Dr." Barker prescribes rest and relaxation! Throw on your bathing suits... grab a good book... and head over to your nearest pool!

Anyway... having absolutely NOTHING to do with either swimming or newsbites... here's today's Newsbites Theme Song!

Tim "The Tax Cheat" Geithner Strikes Again...

Yep... here's another "stand-alone" newsbite:

Tim Geithner had evidence of a financial crime of epic proportion — so he wrote a memo.

That’s about the only way you can sum up the then-New York Fed boss’ actions several years ago, when he was confronted with fairly compelling evidence that banks under his direct supervision were manipulating Libor — a key benchmark of global finance.

(*SHRUG*)

The Libor scandal has become pretty big news, with Barclays ousting its CEO and agreeing to pay a large fine even as it cooperates with civil and criminal law-enforcement authorities now investigating other big banks.

* IF ONLY THIS WERE SO! ASK A "REGULAR PERSON" ABOUT THIS "PRETTY BIG NEWS." THEY'LL LOOK AT YOU LIKE YOU HAVE TWO HEADS! I GUARANTEE IT!

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN SADNESS*)

There’s also evidence that top regulators, including Geithner, now Treasury secretary, knew about and largely ignored the mess.

* YEP. OL' TIM "THE TAX CHEAT" GEITHNER.

[T]he New York Fed has long enjoyed a cozy relationship with the banks under its regulatory umbrella — ignoring even the stuff that brought down the financial system in 2008. A close associate of former Clinton Treasury Secretary and top Citigroup exec Robert Rubin, Geithner has spent most of his professional life as a federal financial bureaucrat — a member of a community that keeps close ties with the heads of the major banks.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Yet even by that standard, his behavior in the Libor scandal is incredible.

(*NOD*)

[R]igging Libor is a pretty big deal. Yet Geithner treated it like a parking violation

In 2007 and 2008, as the banking crisis began to heat up and big investors started demanding higher interest rates when lending to the banks, evidence began to build that banks were submitting falsely low borrowing costs to mask their financial distress. Barclays was one such bank. Indeed, the New York Fed learned as early as December 2007 that Barclays may have been manipulating Libor — but Geithner’s crew waited until April 2008 to make its initial inquiry, documents show.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

That’s when a New York Fed official contacted a trading executive at Barclays — who admitted the dirty deed with very little pressure: “We know that we’re not posting, um, an honest Libor.”

The trader’s rationale: If the bank posted its real borrowing costs, then spiking in the runup to the banking crisis, “It draws, um, unwanted attention on ourselves.”

The trader indicated that other banks were submitting fake info, too.

(*TAPPING MY FOOT*) (*WAITING FOR THE OTHER SHOE TO DROP*)

The New York Fed regulator conducting the interview didn’t seem particularly outraged, answering with a simple “OK.”

* AND WHO EXACTLY WAS THIS "REGULATOR...???"

Maybe the Fed official didn’t want to show her cards, but you’d think that a competent regulator hearing a concession like would get the wheels of justice moving pretty quickly. But not at Tim Geithner’s New York Fed.

* NOPE! NOT AT GEITHNER'S FED!

Geithner was brought in right after the call — and his response was more of the same. He sent a single e-mail to his counterpart at the Bank of England recommending a handful of ways to address Libor rigging, including how UK regulators “should eliminate incentive to misreport.”

(*SNORT*)

So here you have it: In Geithner’s world, rate-rigging fraud is “misreporting.”

* FOLKS... AGAIN... IT'S BEYOND THE INMATES RUNNING THE ASYLUM... WE HAVE CRIMINAL CONSPIRATORS WHO HAVE LONG BEEN RUNNING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT! FOLLOW THE FUCKING MONEY, FOLKS! FOLLOW THE FUCKING MONEY! JON CORZINE...?!?! AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON - PARTICULARLY WHEN WE EXAMINE CONTRIBUTIONS TO VARIOUS OBAMA CAMPAIGNS AND BEFORE THAT CLINTON CAMPAIGNS. (AND, NO... I'M NOT "ABSOLVING" THE REPUBLICANS. IT'S JUST THAT THEY'RE NOT AS SUCCESSFUL IN SHAKING DOWN THE SYSTEM! THINK FREDDIE AND FANNIE... 9 OUT OF 10 "INSIDERS" WERE PROMINENT DEMOCRATS. THAT'S THE RECORD. THAT'S THE FACT.)

His UK counterpart, Bank of England Governor Mervyn King, didn’t do much better. He e-mailed Geithner that he’d ask the trade group “to include in their consultation document the ideas contained in your note.”

* YA GOTTA LAUGH OR YOU'RE GONNA CRY...

Other than a few follow-up calls from his staff to traders, that’s about the end of Geithner’s real interest in the matter — until it came to light that the practices were much worse and more pervasive than even the Barclays trader had suggested, and that other big banks directly under the New York Fed’s jurisdiction were manipulating one of the world’s most important financial barometers.

Or, as Geithner put it, “misreporting.”

* AT THE VERY LEAST... GEITHNER DESERVED TO BE PUSHED OUT OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE - FOREVER.

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, July 16, 2012

Discovered a great... I'm talking outstanding... new restaurant in in Ridgefield Park, NJ!

The name of the place? MK Valencia.

How'd we find it... what in the heck were we doing in Ridgefield Park, NJ...?

We've gotta thank Kim! 

Ya know those Groupon deals...? Well... Kimmy loves 'em! So far this year she sent Mary a mixed case of wine (not a clunker in the bunch!) for her birthday and Mothers' Day combined and as for my Big 5-0... I received four Groupon certificates over the course of my past birthday month - one of which was for dinner for two at MK Valencia!

(Prior to dinner last night, Mary and I attended a wonderful outdoor presentation of "A Comedy of Errors" as performed by The Shakespeare Theatre of New Jersey - also courtesy of a Groupon provided by Kim... taking along a bottle of wine provided by Kim...)

Yeah... if you're thinking we've got one great kid... YOU"RE RIGHT!

Anyway... thanks, Kim... and as for the rest of you...

WELCOME TO NEWSBITES!

As always... the actual newsbites are found within the comments section...

"Friggin' Mitt Romney..." (Attn: John Hicks and Chip Murray)

Another Stand-Alone Newsbite:

In a Colorado town in 1996, Verle Mangum bludgeoned Janet and Jennifer Davis to death.

Janet, a 42-year-old nurse’s aide, had come home from work and discovered Mangum, then 17, having sex with her 11-year-old daughter, Jennifer.

Eleven year old daughter...

When Janet reached for the phone to call the police, Mangum picked up a baseball bat and fatally bashed her with it.

He then used the bat to murder Jennifer as she cowered in the bedroom.

A jury eventually convicted Mangum of both murders. Under Colorado law he was given a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole.

In a sane world he'd be executed...

In 2007, when the convictions were upheld on appeal, the prosecutor expressed relief. “This was one of the most heinous crimes in the history of our community,” District Attorney Pete Hautzinger told the Grand Junction Free Press. “It is very gratifying to know for sure that he will be staying in prison for the rest of his life.”

But that’s no longer a sure thing — not after the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 ruling in Miller v. Alabama last month that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” does not allow states to mandate life without parole for murderers who were minors when they committed their crime.

Yet another absurd, anti-constitutional ruling by out of control Justices who view themselves as above the Constitution... unencumbered by the Rule of Law...

Folks... such sentencing - and even beyond... a sentence of death - was not uncommon in the era the Constitution became our Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore, ipso facto, such punishment is not unconstitutional. If "evolving standards" lead a minority - or even a majority - of Americans to believe such punishment should be outlawed, then the proper remedy is to seek a new constitutional amendment.

The decision of the Court in Miller v. Alabama is wholly illegitimate.

Mangum, like some 2,000 other juvenile killers serving mandatory life terms, including 60 in Massachusetts, will now have to be resentenced.

The families of murder victims nationwide have now lost the reassurance that their loved ones’ killers would never be turned loose.

But worse... the Constitution... the Rule of Law... has suffered yet another body blow imparted by those who are sworn to uphold rather than tear down the Constitution!

District Attorney Hautzinger, outraged by the decision, said its impact would be “inhuman.”

Keep reading, folks... and prepare to be disgusted...

[W]hen Mitt Romney held a town-hall meeting in Grand Junction last week the Hautzinger showed up and asked him to comment on what the Supreme Court had done. Romney sidestepped.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Romney said only that he would “look at the particular case,” and that he favors “swift and severe punishment” for serious crimes.

Yep. That's Romney. That's the GOP presidential nominee. That's the man I'll vote for in November... though I'll have to be drunk as a skunk... disgusted by my own actions in pulling the lever for this piece of garbage based upon my belief that I have no choice.

What Romney should have said was that the court’s ruling was illogical and indefensible — a textbook case of justices turning personal preferences into constitutional commands.

Yes...

There is nothing uncommon about laws requiring life without parole for juvenile murderers, so such punishment can hardly be barred by the Eighth Amendment.

Exactly so!

But, folks... again... even were it otherwise, the only legitimate constitutional grounds for the Court to declare government action unconstitutional is a finding that said action was unconstitutional from the moment the Constitution or one of its various Amendments became the Law of the Land!

As Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion concedes, legislators in 28 states plus the federal government have enacted laws mandating that penalty. Liberals may disapprove of mandatory “true life,” but it plainly isn’t unusual. By definition, therefore, it isn’t “cruel and unusual.”

(*NOD*)

The Miller case marks the third time in recent years that the Supreme Court has invoked “evolving standards of decency” to rationalize a new constitutional barrier to punishing minors convicted of terrible crimes. In Roper v. Simmons(2005), the court outlawed the death penalty for any criminal who was under 18 at the time of his offense. At the time, the majority observed that “life imprisonment without the possibility of parole” would remain an option. Yet now the court tells states they may not insist on that option.

In Graham v. Florida (2010), the court prohibited sentencing juvenile offenders to a lifetime behind bars for any crime but homicide, no matter how violent. But now five justices declare that mandatory life sentences are unconstitutional for youthful killers too. And it’s only a matter of time, they hint broadly, until even discretionary life-without-parole is struck down.

What's so sad... so pathetic... so disheartening... is that while the author of this piece - Mr. Jacoby - clearly understands basic constitutional law, and while I - your humble bloghost - rant, rave, and rail against judicial overreach constantly... Mitt Romney has nothing of substance to say. The GOP as a party largely refuses - outright refuses - to condemn the anti-constitutionists and via their cowardice they enable the Left to falsely implant the notion that wrong is right into the public mind.

My friends... we have met the enemy and he is... us.

"Friggin' George W. Bush..." (Attn: John Hicks & Chip Murray)

Stand Alone Newsbite:

Asked what labor wanted, the great 20th-century union leader Samuel Gompers answered, “More.”

The modern welfare state lives by the same credo.

Tom Vilsack is one of the most important welfare administrators in the nation. Oh, yeah — he’s also secretary of agriculture.

Two-thirds of the Agriculture Department’s budget is devoted to welfare programs. The biggest is food stamps, which is now the nation’s second-largest welfare program after Medicaid. Its inexorable growth during the past decade, through good times and bad, is a testament to government’s self-generating expansion.

About 17 million people received food stamps back in 2000. Some 30 million received them in 2008. Roughly 46 million people receive them today.

From 1 in 50 Americans on food stamps at the program’s national inception in the 1970s, 1 in 7 Americans are on them now.

Spending on food stamps doubled between 2001 and 2006, even though unemployment was low in those years. Even when the economy is projected to improve in the future, usage of food stamps will remain elevated above historic norms. Food Stamp Nation is here to stay.

* IF LOWRY IS CORRECT... THEN DOESN'T THAT JUST SAY IT ALL ABOUT AMERICA'S FUTURE?

One of its pillars is so-called categorical eligibility, which means that if someone is eligible for another welfare program, he is presumptively eligible for food stamps.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)

In 2000, the Clinton administration issued regulations saying that merely getting a non-cash welfare benefit could make someone eligible.

* JEEZUS... (AND CLINTON THE DEGENERATE WAS CREDITED BY THE MSM WITH "WELFARE REFORM?" YEAH... RIGHT.)

Getting a welfare brochure or being referred to an 800 number for services is enough to qualify in almost all the states. (In Vermont, receiving a bookmark with a telephone number and website for services is enough.)

(*JUST CRYING*)

Categorical eligibility effectively wiped out the program’s old asset test [and] in the Obama stimulus, the work requirement was suspended, too, and hasn’t been restored. (The requirement had discouraged young, able-bodied non-parents from utilizing the program; there are millions of them on food stamps.)

The bottom line is that government at all levels actively wants people on the program.

(*PURSED LIPS*) 

* FOLKS... THERE'S SIMPLY NO DOUBT... OBAMA AND HIS GANG ARE SOCIALISTS AND THEY'RE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO DESTROY THE AMERICA YOU AND I LOVE.

* NOW... KEEP READING... BUT TAKE YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICATION FIRST!

Newt Gingrich famously calls Barack Obama “the food-stamp president.” But the first president worthy of the moniker was George W. Bush. His administration brought a Madison Avenue element to the otherwise unreconstructed Great Society program.

* GOOD OL' DUBYA! (*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

Not everyone who is eligible for food stamps knows it or wants to sign up. Bush began a recruitment campaign.

* SCUMBAG.

In the same vein, the Obama administration is running radio ads hailing food stamps as a way to lose weight.

At the local level, county governments spread the word and work to overcome residual cultural resistance to taking government benefits.

The federal government pays $50 million in bonuses to states for signing people up.

That the food-stamps program is part of the farm bill — now up for debate in Congress — is itself a scam, an exercise in rural-urban logrolling that gives everyone an interest in seeing the bill pass.

* VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY ANSWER.