Newslinks for Saturday October 8, 2011
Obama fundraiser actively worked to support the loan to Solyndra,
documents say
Perry supporter creates a stir by denouncing Romney’s Mormonism
as a “cult”
Herman Cain electrifies the audience at D.C.’s Values Voters
conference, Gingrich tries hitching to his wagon
Moral Values rank low on voters’ priorities for the 2012 presidential election and below economic issues
Herman Cain continues his surge to the top of the polls ahead of the
New Hampshire debate, Perry finds himself fifth
GOP, conservatives close ranks against the Occupy Wall Streeters,
say they are not a genuine movement
AG Eric Holder fires back against suggestions he lied to Congress
during his May testimony
Saturday, October 8, 2011
What a day. Eric Holder promoted to Field Marshal and ordered to hold Stalingrad at all costs.
Friday, October 7, 2011
As Paulus moved his troops toward Stalingrad, the difficulties set in as he had previously warned. In the following month, Russian forces launched a counterattack that eventually surrounded the German 6th Army in the city of Stalingrad. Adolf Hitler promoted Paulus to the rank of Field Marshal in Jan 1943, hoping that it would inspire him to fight to the death in Stalingrad (no Field Marshal hard ever surrendered to the enemy in German history). Very soon after the promotion, however, he surrendered his forces on 2 Feb 1943. He became a prisoner of war in Russia until 1953.
Well, its been quite a day. Just glance down through all the headlines today if you don't believe me. There is one strategic fact, however, that stands out above all the tactical stuff. Once again, Avatar at CleanUpATF.org has it right. In fact, this guy thinks like me.
Attorney General Holder is putting this out there now as a strategy to make Fast & Furious about him (it didn't work to try and make it stop at Acting Director Melson), and he's going to hold out --- ha! --- as long as possible. They gave up Melson's Ridge, because Melson prematurely surrendered like a friggin' French General. But now they're willing to give up Holder's Ridge to protect the White House and the Department of State. Yes, the Attorney General is expendable -- and they want it to stop with Holder. Unless President Obama refuses to admit Stalingrad is lost (think Obama cannot admit that he was wrong by appointing Holder, and he won't desert his Field Marshal).
The White House is willing to surrender Holder's Ridge to win, but I doubt that will be significant in the grand scheme of things. These guys think in very convoluted ways unlike the rest of us.
Any scandal defense is like a military defense in depth, with successive lines, hedgehogs and mutually supporting fires. Avatar is quite correct. The winter campaign fight for Holder's Ridge will be desperate and designed to distract from the strategic positions behind it: the Homeland Security Line, the FBI hedgehog, the State Department schwerpunkt and the White House command and control center.
Question: Do y'all understand who is turning over these documents that are so damning to Holder and his henchmen? The White House, of course. And why would they be doing that? To make you think that Holder's Ridge is the key position in the over-all battle. It is not.
So as you read the increasingly bad headlines for Holder, keep in mind that he is being kept in place for a reason -- to distract the investigation from the really culpable conspirators at the top.
As Paulus moved his troops toward Stalingrad, the difficulties set in as he had previously warned. In the following month, Russian forces launched a counterattack that eventually surrounded the German 6th Army in the city of Stalingrad. Adolf Hitler promoted Paulus to the rank of Field Marshal in Jan 1943, hoping that it would inspire him to fight to the death in Stalingrad (no Field Marshal hard ever surrendered to the enemy in German history). Very soon after the promotion, however, he surrendered his forces on 2 Feb 1943. He became a prisoner of war in Russia until 1953.
Well, its been quite a day. Just glance down through all the headlines today if you don't believe me. There is one strategic fact, however, that stands out above all the tactical stuff. Once again, Avatar at CleanUpATF.org has it right. In fact, this guy thinks like me.
Attorney General Holder is putting this out there now as a strategy to make Fast & Furious about him (it didn't work to try and make it stop at Acting Director Melson), and he's going to hold out --- ha! --- as long as possible. They gave up Melson's Ridge, because Melson prematurely surrendered like a friggin' French General. But now they're willing to give up Holder's Ridge to protect the White House and the Department of State. Yes, the Attorney General is expendable -- and they want it to stop with Holder. Unless President Obama refuses to admit Stalingrad is lost (think Obama cannot admit that he was wrong by appointing Holder, and he won't desert his Field Marshal).
The White House is willing to surrender Holder's Ridge to win, but I doubt that will be significant in the grand scheme of things. These guys think in very convoluted ways unlike the rest of us.
Any scandal defense is like a military defense in depth, with successive lines, hedgehogs and mutually supporting fires. Avatar is quite correct. The winter campaign fight for Holder's Ridge will be desperate and designed to distract from the strategic positions behind it: the Homeland Security Line, the FBI hedgehog, the State Department schwerpunkt and the White House command and control center.
Question: Do y'all understand who is turning over these documents that are so damning to Holder and his henchmen? The White House, of course. And why would they be doing that? To make you think that Holder's Ridge is the key position in the over-all battle. It is not.
So as you read the increasingly bad headlines for Holder, keep in mind that he is being kept in place for a reason -- to distract the investigation from the really culpable conspirators at the top.
Occupy Wall Street is A Fraud
Jeff Carter
This was a fantastic piece in the Wall Street Journal by Randy Noonan. Personally, I have a lot in common with the fictitious Moe. Even went to junior college.
Obama and the Democrats want to tax the crap out of Moe. But, they say they only want to get the rich fat cats. It’s total class warfare. Don’t fall for it.
Moe is what’s right about America. He worked, lived his life, took some risk and made some decent money. He could be any color and anyone under the sun that was fortunate to be born here.
That’s what Obama never gets. He is so out of touch with normal America. He doesn’t even know what it’s like to swim in the mainstream.
Yesterday I was walking down the street in Chicago. By chance, I saw a big 6’5? black guy that looked familiar. “Rodney”, I yelled. He stopped, looked at me and smiled. We haven’t seen each other since 1982. We played basketball together for a couple of years.
He was walking home from work. We embraced, and chatted for 10-15 minutes. Rodney still looks like he could play, but we laughed since both of our 49 year old bodies are so beat up we can only watch now!
It was fantastic catching up with him. Rodney’s married and has two kids. Both finished college. He has the American dream. House, yard, cars and a decent paying job.
Rodney and me are both Moe. So are you.
Contrast that with Occupy Wall Street.
In the beginning, there were a bunch of so called radicals protesting Wall Street bailouts.
I was cynical. Then I saw their demands. Then I called them out. Many on the left side of the business blogging community gave OWS the benefit of the doubt.
Once I saw Van Jones and the Unions involved, I knew it was straight Obama Astroturf designed to try and siphon off members from the Tea Party.
Now, the real evidence leaks form the Daily Caller. They are paying many of the protestors to protest.
A liberal organizer told the Daily Caller on Thursday afternoon that he paid some Hispanics to attend “Occupy DC” protests happening in the nation’s capital.
TheDC attended the protest event, an expansion of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that began in New York City. Some aspects of the protest, it turned out, are more Astroturf than grassroots.
One group of about ten Hispanic protesters marched behind a Caucasian individual from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C.
Asked why they were there, some Hispanic protesters holding up English protest signs could not articulate what their signs said.
Interviewed in Spanish, the protesters told conflicting stories about how their group was organized. Some said it was organized at their church, and that they were there as volunteers. Others, however, referred to the man from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition — the only Caucasian in the group — as their “boss.”
“Some of them are volunteers. Some of them aren’t,” he explained. “I can’t identify them. I’m not going to get into an identification game.”
This was a fantastic piece in the Wall Street Journal by Randy Noonan. Personally, I have a lot in common with the fictitious Moe. Even went to junior college.
Obama and the Democrats want to tax the crap out of Moe. But, they say they only want to get the rich fat cats. It’s total class warfare. Don’t fall for it.
Moe is what’s right about America. He worked, lived his life, took some risk and made some decent money. He could be any color and anyone under the sun that was fortunate to be born here.
That’s what Obama never gets. He is so out of touch with normal America. He doesn’t even know what it’s like to swim in the mainstream.
Yesterday I was walking down the street in Chicago. By chance, I saw a big 6’5? black guy that looked familiar. “Rodney”, I yelled. He stopped, looked at me and smiled. We haven’t seen each other since 1982. We played basketball together for a couple of years.
He was walking home from work. We embraced, and chatted for 10-15 minutes. Rodney still looks like he could play, but we laughed since both of our 49 year old bodies are so beat up we can only watch now!
It was fantastic catching up with him. Rodney’s married and has two kids. Both finished college. He has the American dream. House, yard, cars and a decent paying job.
Rodney and me are both Moe. So are you.
Contrast that with Occupy Wall Street.
In the beginning, there were a bunch of so called radicals protesting Wall Street bailouts.
I was cynical. Then I saw their demands. Then I called them out. Many on the left side of the business blogging community gave OWS the benefit of the doubt.
Once I saw Van Jones and the Unions involved, I knew it was straight Obama Astroturf designed to try and siphon off members from the Tea Party.
Now, the real evidence leaks form the Daily Caller. They are paying many of the protestors to protest.
A liberal organizer told the Daily Caller on Thursday afternoon that he paid some Hispanics to attend “Occupy DC” protests happening in the nation’s capital.
TheDC attended the protest event, an expansion of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that began in New York City. Some aspects of the protest, it turned out, are more Astroturf than grassroots.
One group of about ten Hispanic protesters marched behind a Caucasian individual from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C.
Asked why they were there, some Hispanic protesters holding up English protest signs could not articulate what their signs said.
Interviewed in Spanish, the protesters told conflicting stories about how their group was organized. Some said it was organized at their church, and that they were there as volunteers. Others, however, referred to the man from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition — the only Caucasian in the group — as their “boss.”
“Some of them are volunteers. Some of them aren’t,” he explained. “I can’t identify them. I’m not going to get into an identification game.”
Cain Proves Power of ideas in Republican Race
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Columnist, Townhall.com
America’s media is obsessed with every tick of every poll. The reason they cover polls is because they don’t want to cover ideas. Republicans should resist being sucked into this reality show mentality and focus instead on the candidate’s ideas.
Herman Cain used this to great effect in the Florida Straw Poll. His powerful speech concluded with a riff in which he talked about how the media had declared, “I can’t win.” He then empowered his audience by telling them, “You decide who wins, not the media.” Good advice from a candidate that is now watching this particular race from the frontlines.
The media uses polls to create self-fulfilling prophecies. Media organizations who are more interested in influencing the outcome of the race than they are providing unbiased coverage of the race use polls as an instrument of voter and donor manipulation. They manipulate the desire of us all to be with a winner. We have been carefully watching Republican party contests since the 1970’s and there are some more interesting markers than polls that can help you understand what is really happening. Remember ideas have consequences with Republican primary voters.
First, straw polls don’t matter. If they did matter Pat Robertson would have been elected president in 1988. He won the straw poll in Iowa and surged in the media horserace as a result. His victory lead the NY Times to report: “For the second time in a year, the Rev. Pat Robertson has shaken Vice President Bush and his other rivals for the Republican Presidential nomination by winning a test of organizational strength.”
Herman Cain likewise has surged after his astounding victory in the Florida straw poll. The Cain victory has conservatives chanting “9-9-9” after his bold economic plan. Cain is calling for a total tax reform which would eliminate payroll taxes, the estate tax, investment taxes and replace it all with a simple flat tax of 9 percent, coupled with a 9 percent consumption tax and a 9 percent corporate tax.
If Cain is going to win, it will be because of his bold ideas and vision. And with ideas Mr. Cain excels, and frankly leaves most of the other candidates wanting.
So our second point would be to watch the battle of ideas. One of the best ways to pull a campaign forward is with bold ideas. In addition to Cain, only Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson have any bold plans. Johnson wants to legalize drugs and balance the budget next year. These are both radical ideas. His problem is that Republican primary voters disagree with him on drugs. It is doubtful they will swallow legalization of drugs just to balance the budget quickly.
Ron Paul’s bold ideas are to abolish the Federal Reserve and restore integrity to the US dollar. Here Paul has the admiration of most Republican primary donors. It is his other idea which has them scared. Paul would slash military spending and disengage the Republican Party from the neoconservative foreign policy embraced by President George W. Bush.
So in 2012, the leaders in the race remain the more conventional candidates former Governor Mitt Romney and current Governor of Texas Rick Perry. The problems these two gentlemen have are a lack of bold ideas. Without the bold ideas, coverage is instead on past mistakes, which every leader has, and current gaffes, or in the case of Perry, lackluster debating skills.
Despite our fondness for Cain, in our opinion the nominee will likely be Perry or Romney. As conservatives, we prefer Perry to the liberal in hiding Romney. So here is our best advice to Perry, emulate Cain.
Governor Perry, it is time for you to step forward with bold plans. Give us some ideas we can sink our teeth into like a flat tax to replace the progressive income tax or even the replacement of corporate income taxes with an eight percent border adjusted business consumption tax. This idea which has been promoted by Chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission, Tom Pauken would be an immediate boon to manufacturing in America.
But without bold ideas, Romney will win this nomination race like a succession of losing moderate Republicans (John McCain, Bob Dole and George HW Bush) have before him.
Columnist, Townhall.com
America’s media is obsessed with every tick of every poll. The reason they cover polls is because they don’t want to cover ideas. Republicans should resist being sucked into this reality show mentality and focus instead on the candidate’s ideas.
Herman Cain used this to great effect in the Florida Straw Poll. His powerful speech concluded with a riff in which he talked about how the media had declared, “I can’t win.” He then empowered his audience by telling them, “You decide who wins, not the media.” Good advice from a candidate that is now watching this particular race from the frontlines.
The media uses polls to create self-fulfilling prophecies. Media organizations who are more interested in influencing the outcome of the race than they are providing unbiased coverage of the race use polls as an instrument of voter and donor manipulation. They manipulate the desire of us all to be with a winner. We have been carefully watching Republican party contests since the 1970’s and there are some more interesting markers than polls that can help you understand what is really happening. Remember ideas have consequences with Republican primary voters.
First, straw polls don’t matter. If they did matter Pat Robertson would have been elected president in 1988. He won the straw poll in Iowa and surged in the media horserace as a result. His victory lead the NY Times to report: “For the second time in a year, the Rev. Pat Robertson has shaken Vice President Bush and his other rivals for the Republican Presidential nomination by winning a test of organizational strength.”
Herman Cain likewise has surged after his astounding victory in the Florida straw poll. The Cain victory has conservatives chanting “9-9-9” after his bold economic plan. Cain is calling for a total tax reform which would eliminate payroll taxes, the estate tax, investment taxes and replace it all with a simple flat tax of 9 percent, coupled with a 9 percent consumption tax and a 9 percent corporate tax.
If Cain is going to win, it will be because of his bold ideas and vision. And with ideas Mr. Cain excels, and frankly leaves most of the other candidates wanting.
So our second point would be to watch the battle of ideas. One of the best ways to pull a campaign forward is with bold ideas. In addition to Cain, only Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson have any bold plans. Johnson wants to legalize drugs and balance the budget next year. These are both radical ideas. His problem is that Republican primary voters disagree with him on drugs. It is doubtful they will swallow legalization of drugs just to balance the budget quickly.
Ron Paul’s bold ideas are to abolish the Federal Reserve and restore integrity to the US dollar. Here Paul has the admiration of most Republican primary donors. It is his other idea which has them scared. Paul would slash military spending and disengage the Republican Party from the neoconservative foreign policy embraced by President George W. Bush.
So in 2012, the leaders in the race remain the more conventional candidates former Governor Mitt Romney and current Governor of Texas Rick Perry. The problems these two gentlemen have are a lack of bold ideas. Without the bold ideas, coverage is instead on past mistakes, which every leader has, and current gaffes, or in the case of Perry, lackluster debating skills.
Despite our fondness for Cain, in our opinion the nominee will likely be Perry or Romney. As conservatives, we prefer Perry to the liberal in hiding Romney. So here is our best advice to Perry, emulate Cain.
Governor Perry, it is time for you to step forward with bold plans. Give us some ideas we can sink our teeth into like a flat tax to replace the progressive income tax or even the replacement of corporate income taxes with an eight percent border adjusted business consumption tax. This idea which has been promoted by Chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission, Tom Pauken would be an immediate boon to manufacturing in America.
But without bold ideas, Romney will win this nomination race like a succession of losing moderate Republicans (John McCain, Bob Dole and George HW Bush) have before him.
#OccupyWallStreet - Frances Fox Piven and Russell Simmons Address the General Assembly - PFB
Frances Fox Piven and Russell Simmons Address the NYC General Assembly on Sep 29, 2011
http://www.politicalfailblog.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet-frances-fox-piven-and.html
http://www.politicalfailblog.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet-frances-fox-piven-and.html
The Senate’s ‘Nuclear Option’: Has the Upper House Reached a New Low?
The U.S. Senate is often referred to as the world’s greatest deliberative body. But to anyone who caught even a few minutes of Thursday night’s meltdown in the Senate, it would be easy to think otherwise.
The fight – in which Democrats invoked the ‘nuclear option’ and used a simple majority to curb the rights of the supermajority - on one level was about procedure. But years of division and partisanship contributed to emotions and rhetoric that ran high, highlighting that the Upper House in Congress might have, to some, turned into a fun house – more about games than getting things done – more about politics than policy.
“I think members on both sides of the aisle feel like this institution has degraded into a place that is no longer a place of any deliberation at all,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said.
Even Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, whose strategic move Thursday night was described by Republicans as “heavy-handed,” admitted the dysfunction. “This has to come to an end,” Reid said of both sides. “This is not a way to legislate.”
Arcane procedural squabbles aside, the fight was really about politics, both sides casting the other has holding up legislation for political gain, and the minority party in the Senate arguing to protect more of its rights in the chamber.
“Let’s get back to legislating as we did before the mantra around here was ‘defeat Obama,’” a frustrated Reid said on the Senate floor.
Democratic aides consistently point out that Republicans have made no secret that their goal is to prevent the president from winning the 2012 election. Democratic Senate aides today say that Thursday night’s episode highlighted the extremes to which Republicans are “making good on that promise at the expense of the economy.”
“McConnell isn’t happy unless the Senate is in a state of dysfunction,” a Senate aide said today of the GOP minority leader from Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell. “He got hot under the collar last night, and was grasping at procedural straws to try to tank a bipartisan bill at the 11th hour.”
Republicans argue that the majority party, the Democrats, are taking a my-way-or-the-highway approach on everything. And that is not the way the Senate is supposed to work.
“We are fundamentally turning the Senate into the House. No amendments before cloture. No motions to suspend after cloture. The minority’s out of business,” McConnell said. “In the United States Senate, the minority is entitled to be heard. Not entitled to win, but entitled to be heard. That is the core problem here.”
A Republican Senate aide today said, “This is a remarkably short-sighted thing for Democrats to do, given that they’ll be in the minority some day.”
Members were sent home for the holiday weekend and instructed to cool off and let the air out of their tires a bit. Reid announced that he’d like to have a full caucus meeting with Democrats and Republicans to have a more civil debate about all the issues that came up in heated way in the Senate Thursday night.
As the dust settles today on Capitol Hill, the question left is whether the dynamic has fundamentally changed in the Senate. Has this poisoned the well?
The proverbial well wasn’t all that good to start off with. An ABC News-Washington Post poll released this week found that 14 percent of people approve of the job Congress is doing. “I have a hard time recalling any real bipartisan achievements from this Congress to show that it was functioning in the first place,” a Senate Democratic aide admitted today.
Asked if this latest dust-up will have ramifications, beyond the new precedent set for procedure, in the Senate’s working relationships, many said it will.
A Republican Senate aide thinks the Republicans will be less inclined to work with Reid in the next session, less inclined to give Reid cloture the next time he “fills the tree,” or cuts off additonal amendments, which is one of the many points to which Republicans objected Thursday night. “I think they learned a real lesson here: Just because you cooperate with Reid, doesn’t mean he won’t screw you,” a Republican aide said.
But Sarah Binder, an expert on Congress and legislative politics for the Brookings Institution, said that while Thursday night’s tensions boiled over, this was hardly a “revolutionary move” because such a dynamic has been in the Senate for a long time, nearly 50 years as the two parties have grown more polarized.
“Leaders long before Reid have been really frustrated with their inability to kind of control and move the Senate along toward final decisions,” Binder said. “No one likes to see the sausage getting made, but that is the reality of legislating in the Senate. It’s bared for all to see on the floor.”
Regardless of the long-term consequences of Thursday night’s procedural and political fight, one thing is for sure: Thursday night was not a good night for the Senate.
The fight – in which Democrats invoked the ‘nuclear option’ and used a simple majority to curb the rights of the supermajority - on one level was about procedure. But years of division and partisanship contributed to emotions and rhetoric that ran high, highlighting that the Upper House in Congress might have, to some, turned into a fun house – more about games than getting things done – more about politics than policy.
“I think members on both sides of the aisle feel like this institution has degraded into a place that is no longer a place of any deliberation at all,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said.
Even Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, whose strategic move Thursday night was described by Republicans as “heavy-handed,” admitted the dysfunction. “This has to come to an end,” Reid said of both sides. “This is not a way to legislate.”
Arcane procedural squabbles aside, the fight was really about politics, both sides casting the other has holding up legislation for political gain, and the minority party in the Senate arguing to protect more of its rights in the chamber.
“Let’s get back to legislating as we did before the mantra around here was ‘defeat Obama,’” a frustrated Reid said on the Senate floor.
Democratic aides consistently point out that Republicans have made no secret that their goal is to prevent the president from winning the 2012 election. Democratic Senate aides today say that Thursday night’s episode highlighted the extremes to which Republicans are “making good on that promise at the expense of the economy.”
“McConnell isn’t happy unless the Senate is in a state of dysfunction,” a Senate aide said today of the GOP minority leader from Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell. “He got hot under the collar last night, and was grasping at procedural straws to try to tank a bipartisan bill at the 11th hour.”
Republicans argue that the majority party, the Democrats, are taking a my-way-or-the-highway approach on everything. And that is not the way the Senate is supposed to work.
“We are fundamentally turning the Senate into the House. No amendments before cloture. No motions to suspend after cloture. The minority’s out of business,” McConnell said. “In the United States Senate, the minority is entitled to be heard. Not entitled to win, but entitled to be heard. That is the core problem here.”
A Republican Senate aide today said, “This is a remarkably short-sighted thing for Democrats to do, given that they’ll be in the minority some day.”
Members were sent home for the holiday weekend and instructed to cool off and let the air out of their tires a bit. Reid announced that he’d like to have a full caucus meeting with Democrats and Republicans to have a more civil debate about all the issues that came up in heated way in the Senate Thursday night.
As the dust settles today on Capitol Hill, the question left is whether the dynamic has fundamentally changed in the Senate. Has this poisoned the well?
The proverbial well wasn’t all that good to start off with. An ABC News-Washington Post poll released this week found that 14 percent of people approve of the job Congress is doing. “I have a hard time recalling any real bipartisan achievements from this Congress to show that it was functioning in the first place,” a Senate Democratic aide admitted today.
Asked if this latest dust-up will have ramifications, beyond the new precedent set for procedure, in the Senate’s working relationships, many said it will.
A Republican Senate aide thinks the Republicans will be less inclined to work with Reid in the next session, less inclined to give Reid cloture the next time he “fills the tree,” or cuts off additonal amendments, which is one of the many points to which Republicans objected Thursday night. “I think they learned a real lesson here: Just because you cooperate with Reid, doesn’t mean he won’t screw you,” a Republican aide said.
But Sarah Binder, an expert on Congress and legislative politics for the Brookings Institution, said that while Thursday night’s tensions boiled over, this was hardly a “revolutionary move” because such a dynamic has been in the Senate for a long time, nearly 50 years as the two parties have grown more polarized.
“Leaders long before Reid have been really frustrated with their inability to kind of control and move the Senate along toward final decisions,” Binder said. “No one likes to see the sausage getting made, but that is the reality of legislating in the Senate. It’s bared for all to see on the floor.”
Regardless of the long-term consequences of Thursday night’s procedural and political fight, one thing is for sure: Thursday night was not a good night for the Senate.
Broken Record: Pass This Bill or the Sky Will Fall
Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall
Before the $800 billion stimulus bill was passed in 2009, Americans were told Congress must pass the bill immediately, without it, unemployment would surely rise above 8 percent. Today, after spending $800 billion, America's unemployment rate sits at 9.1 percent and 14 million people are out of work.
Despite history showing the rapid passing of bills results in unforseen and damaging consequences, the White House is claiming if Congress doesn't pass Obama's latest "jobs" bill immediatly, we risk falling into recession.
A top White House economic adviser says failure to pass President Barack Obama's jobs bill would raise the risk of a recession
Gene Sperling says that without the measures outlined in the president's nearly $450 billion bill, the economy faces the possibility of stalling or having a downturn. In an interview with The Associated Press, Sperling questioned why anyone would want to take that risk.
Reality check: Most Americans never felt like we got out of the first recession that started in late 2008. Big government policies have failed and President Obama increasing the publically held debt by 23 percent in just three years isn't helping either.
News Editor, Townhall
Before the $800 billion stimulus bill was passed in 2009, Americans were told Congress must pass the bill immediately, without it, unemployment would surely rise above 8 percent. Today, after spending $800 billion, America's unemployment rate sits at 9.1 percent and 14 million people are out of work.
Despite history showing the rapid passing of bills results in unforseen and damaging consequences, the White House is claiming if Congress doesn't pass Obama's latest "jobs" bill immediatly, we risk falling into recession.
A top White House economic adviser says failure to pass President Barack Obama's jobs bill would raise the risk of a recession
Gene Sperling says that without the measures outlined in the president's nearly $450 billion bill, the economy faces the possibility of stalling or having a downturn. In an interview with The Associated Press, Sperling questioned why anyone would want to take that risk.
Reality check: Most Americans never felt like we got out of the first recession that started in late 2008. Big government policies have failed and President Obama increasing the publically held debt by 23 percent in just three years isn't helping either.
DOE Warned Solyndra Loan Could be Illegal
A new batch of Solyndra emails shows that the Energy Department was warned that their plan to aid the failing solar company could be illegal and should be cleared with the Justice Department. The Treasury Department warned DOE that it could be illegal to allow private investors to be paid back ahead of taxpayers. The correspondence also reveals that Steve Spinner, a senior adviser on the loan program, lobbied officials at the Office of Management and Budget to speed up their review—despite saying he would recuse himself from the case because his wife worked for a law firm representing Solyndra. “How [expletive] hard is this?” Spinner wrote to a staffer, asking about OMB's approval of the application: “What is he waiting for? Will we have it by the end of the day?” Asked by a White House aide whether Solyndra had any financial problems, Spinner replied, “I haven’t heard anything negative on my side.”
Read it at The Washington Post
October 8, 2011 8:40 AM
Read it at The Washington Post
October 8, 2011 8:40 AM
Dueling Rallies Highlight Labor-Green Split Over Pipeline
By Sean Higgins
Fri., Oct. 07, 2011 5:46 PM ET
Greens held a rally in D.C. Friday to protest a proposed U.S.-Canada oil pipeline. Earlier that day, unions rallied half a block away in favor of the Keystone XL project, which would create 20,000 jobs. AP
As liberal protesters watched forlornly from across the street, a loud, rowdy crowd of about 300 in downtown Washington, D.C., demonstrated in favor of a major oil industry pipeline project.
“There are those who oppose the pipeline. They say the oil is dirty,” said one of the speakers. “Let me be as kind and as gentle as I can be: F**k them!”
Hoots and cheers followed.
Was this the Tea Party counter-protesting against the Occupy Wall Street crowd? Nope. The rally was held by the Laborers International Union of North America. The union was there to back TransCanada’s (TRP) Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion project that would bring oil from Alberta to Texas.
The speaker was identified to Capital Hill by union members as Mano Frey, vice president of LIUNA West, which represents Alaska, western Canada and the Northwestern U.S. For him and his members the issue was obvious: The pipeline will mean jobs for them.
The liberal protesters — in town to mark the 10th anniversary of the Afghanistan war — were mostly silent, but one shirtless dreadlocked fellow crashed the union rally. “These (oil business) people will poison you and steal your money!” he shouted.
He was quickly surrounded by union members who shouted “Jobs! Jobs!” drowning him out.
“These people — with the best of intentions — are being misled,” the anti-pipeline protestor, who identified himself as Carlos Reyes, later told Capital Hill.
Just two hours later, about the same number of green protesters organized just half a block away to oppose the pipeline project. This time it was LIUNA members’ turn to watch and hold their tongues.
“I just don’t think the pipeline is the way to go,” said Sarah Souder, a D.C. activist.
Such scenes were exactly what unions and green groups had tried to avoid. Nevertheless the U.S.-Canada pipeline project is re-opening a split in the liberal movement that both thought they had earlier buried.
Green groups have staunchly opposed the pipeline, arguing it isn’t safe and will only further U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. Fighting for the project alongside Big Business is LIUNA, which argues the project is safe and will be a boon to its members.
Liberals had hoped that such internal spats had been put aside when green groups and Big Labor formed the BlueGreen Alliance in 2006 to hash out disagreements and build a common agenda.
A prime example was President Obama’s call for 5 million green jobs during his 2008 campaign. Green energy loan guarantees were a part of the 2009 stimulus. But the collapse of Solyndra has underscored the reality that the program has created only handfuls of permanent green jobs.
Unions Torn Between Greens, Jobs
At the Take Back the American Dream conference on Monday, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard, a co-founder of the alliance, declared that there was no conflict between supporting the environment and jobs. Carl Pope, another co-founder and president of the Sierra Club, nodded along.
But Friday morning, LIUNA President Terry O’Sullivan appeared at a press conference hosted by the National Association of Manufacturers to tout the pipeline project. O’Sullivan stood alongside Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, and Russ Girling, president of TransCanada.
Business groups claim that the project will pump $20 billion into the economy, create 20,000 direct jobs and provide the government with $5 billion in tax revenue.
O’Sullivan declared: “This isn’t a pipeline. It’s a lifeline.”
He said the BlueGreen Alliance, which LIUNA is a member of, had taken no position on the project.
“We had numerous discussions,” he said. “At the end of the day, we couldn’t find common ground.”
Girling conceded at the press conference that he never expected the pipeline project to become the “lightning rod” for green protests that it has become. He blamed the BP (BP) Gulf of Mexico oil spill and other recent industry accidents.
The press conference and rallies were timed to coincide with a public hearing by the State Department on the project. The Obama administration must approve the project and it’s been heavily lobbied by both sides. A decision is months down the road.
O’Sullivan went directly from NAM’s headquarters to the labor rally, where he introduced TransCanada’s Girly and API’s Gerard to the crowd. They in turn thanked the union members for rallying. Gerard even addressed the crowd as “brothers and sisters.”
At both events, O’Sullivan made a point of saying that while his union disagrees with the greens, they still respect them. He even said the scrutiny they brought to the project was good. But he made clear that his people would go to the mat over the pipeline.
“Working people have had enough of this s**t. The time for good jobs is now!” he shouted.
At the later green rally, several speakers offered sympathy for their “union brothers” but claimed they would “fight like mad” against the project.
Signs at the green rally included: “We don’t want dirty oil jobs,” “President Obama, yes, you can stop the Keystone XL Pipeline” and “Fund mass transit, not oil.”
LIUNA member Pete Bardison, a pipeline worker, watched the rally with his arms folded.
“If they stop that pipeline, then the government better get ready to dig deep with the unemployment insurance,” he said.
Fri., Oct. 07, 2011 5:46 PM ET
Greens held a rally in D.C. Friday to protest a proposed U.S.-Canada oil pipeline. Earlier that day, unions rallied half a block away in favor of the Keystone XL project, which would create 20,000 jobs. AP
As liberal protesters watched forlornly from across the street, a loud, rowdy crowd of about 300 in downtown Washington, D.C., demonstrated in favor of a major oil industry pipeline project.
“There are those who oppose the pipeline. They say the oil is dirty,” said one of the speakers. “Let me be as kind and as gentle as I can be: F**k them!”
Hoots and cheers followed.
Was this the Tea Party counter-protesting against the Occupy Wall Street crowd? Nope. The rally was held by the Laborers International Union of North America. The union was there to back TransCanada’s (TRP) Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion project that would bring oil from Alberta to Texas.
The speaker was identified to Capital Hill by union members as Mano Frey, vice president of LIUNA West, which represents Alaska, western Canada and the Northwestern U.S. For him and his members the issue was obvious: The pipeline will mean jobs for them.
The liberal protesters — in town to mark the 10th anniversary of the Afghanistan war — were mostly silent, but one shirtless dreadlocked fellow crashed the union rally. “These (oil business) people will poison you and steal your money!” he shouted.
He was quickly surrounded by union members who shouted “Jobs! Jobs!” drowning him out.
“These people — with the best of intentions — are being misled,” the anti-pipeline protestor, who identified himself as Carlos Reyes, later told Capital Hill.
Just two hours later, about the same number of green protesters organized just half a block away to oppose the pipeline project. This time it was LIUNA members’ turn to watch and hold their tongues.
“I just don’t think the pipeline is the way to go,” said Sarah Souder, a D.C. activist.
Such scenes were exactly what unions and green groups had tried to avoid. Nevertheless the U.S.-Canada pipeline project is re-opening a split in the liberal movement that both thought they had earlier buried.
Green groups have staunchly opposed the pipeline, arguing it isn’t safe and will only further U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. Fighting for the project alongside Big Business is LIUNA, which argues the project is safe and will be a boon to its members.
Liberals had hoped that such internal spats had been put aside when green groups and Big Labor formed the BlueGreen Alliance in 2006 to hash out disagreements and build a common agenda.
A prime example was President Obama’s call for 5 million green jobs during his 2008 campaign. Green energy loan guarantees were a part of the 2009 stimulus. But the collapse of Solyndra has underscored the reality that the program has created only handfuls of permanent green jobs.
Unions Torn Between Greens, Jobs
At the Take Back the American Dream conference on Monday, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard, a co-founder of the alliance, declared that there was no conflict between supporting the environment and jobs. Carl Pope, another co-founder and president of the Sierra Club, nodded along.
But Friday morning, LIUNA President Terry O’Sullivan appeared at a press conference hosted by the National Association of Manufacturers to tout the pipeline project. O’Sullivan stood alongside Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, and Russ Girling, president of TransCanada.
Business groups claim that the project will pump $20 billion into the economy, create 20,000 direct jobs and provide the government with $5 billion in tax revenue.
O’Sullivan declared: “This isn’t a pipeline. It’s a lifeline.”
He said the BlueGreen Alliance, which LIUNA is a member of, had taken no position on the project.
“We had numerous discussions,” he said. “At the end of the day, we couldn’t find common ground.”
Girling conceded at the press conference that he never expected the pipeline project to become the “lightning rod” for green protests that it has become. He blamed the BP (BP) Gulf of Mexico oil spill and other recent industry accidents.
The press conference and rallies were timed to coincide with a public hearing by the State Department on the project. The Obama administration must approve the project and it’s been heavily lobbied by both sides. A decision is months down the road.
O’Sullivan went directly from NAM’s headquarters to the labor rally, where he introduced TransCanada’s Girly and API’s Gerard to the crowd. They in turn thanked the union members for rallying. Gerard even addressed the crowd as “brothers and sisters.”
At both events, O’Sullivan made a point of saying that while his union disagrees with the greens, they still respect them. He even said the scrutiny they brought to the project was good. But he made clear that his people would go to the mat over the pipeline.
“Working people have had enough of this s**t. The time for good jobs is now!” he shouted.
At the later green rally, several speakers offered sympathy for their “union brothers” but claimed they would “fight like mad” against the project.
Signs at the green rally included: “We don’t want dirty oil jobs,” “President Obama, yes, you can stop the Keystone XL Pipeline” and “Fund mass transit, not oil.”
LIUNA member Pete Bardison, a pipeline worker, watched the rally with his arms folded.
“If they stop that pipeline, then the government better get ready to dig deep with the unemployment insurance,” he said.
Obama Campaign Pressures Potential Donors by Comparing Them With Neighbors
Published October 08, 2011
FoxNews.com
The Obama campaign is testing a new approach to fundraising, blasting out emails that ever-so-gently shame supporters into donating.
Before the end of the third-quarter fundraising deadline last month, the campaign sent around specially tailored messages to those on their email list who hadn't yet contributed to President Obama's 2012 reelection fund. Campaign Manager Jim Messina urged them to chip in, by pointing out how many of their neighbors had already done so.
An email sent to a New York recipient read as follows: "Here's something you don't have in common with 15,049 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in New York, NY."
Messina went on to say that all those donors "had their own personal reason for giving," and reiterated that "our records show that you aren't one of the 15,049 people where you're from who have stepped up for 2012.
"Now's your chance to change that," Messina wrote. The email then asked for a minimum donation of $3 to help the campaign reach its goal of attracting 1 million donors.
The emails took on a personal and local tone, giving stats in each community for how many Obama supporters had already donated. One email sent to Grayslake, Ill., noted that 160 people had "stepped up" for the president.
The Obama campaign did not return a request for comment on the messages.
Brad Blakeman, who worked on the 2000 Bush campaign and in the Bush White House, said he's never seen a fundraising pitch quite like it -- and there's a reason for that.
"It's a scare tactic," he said, claiming the message suggests to recipients that "your neighbors are going to know if you didn't donate."
He said the approach will probably work on some people but is "more detrimental than it is beneficial."
As in 2008, the Obama campaign is using the Internet and email and social media in new ways to reach voters. The campaign has incorporated the president's push for his $447 billion jobs bill into its 2012 operation, sending out an email earlier this week directing supporters to use their online tool to pressure GOP members of Congress on Twitter to back the bill.
The campaign also set up Attackwatch.com for supporters to report "smears" about the president, presumably so they can be shot down. And the campaign has used fundraising emails to raffle off tickets to dinner with the president.
The Obama campaign has not yet announced its third-quarter fundraising totals. The campaign raked in close to $50 million for the second quarter -- a combined $86 million with the Democratic National Committee, setting a record. That was more than the GOP field.
FoxNews.com
The Obama campaign is testing a new approach to fundraising, blasting out emails that ever-so-gently shame supporters into donating.
Before the end of the third-quarter fundraising deadline last month, the campaign sent around specially tailored messages to those on their email list who hadn't yet contributed to President Obama's 2012 reelection fund. Campaign Manager Jim Messina urged them to chip in, by pointing out how many of their neighbors had already done so.
An email sent to a New York recipient read as follows: "Here's something you don't have in common with 15,049 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in New York, NY."
Messina went on to say that all those donors "had their own personal reason for giving," and reiterated that "our records show that you aren't one of the 15,049 people where you're from who have stepped up for 2012.
"Now's your chance to change that," Messina wrote. The email then asked for a minimum donation of $3 to help the campaign reach its goal of attracting 1 million donors.
The emails took on a personal and local tone, giving stats in each community for how many Obama supporters had already donated. One email sent to Grayslake, Ill., noted that 160 people had "stepped up" for the president.
The Obama campaign did not return a request for comment on the messages.
Brad Blakeman, who worked on the 2000 Bush campaign and in the Bush White House, said he's never seen a fundraising pitch quite like it -- and there's a reason for that.
"It's a scare tactic," he said, claiming the message suggests to recipients that "your neighbors are going to know if you didn't donate."
He said the approach will probably work on some people but is "more detrimental than it is beneficial."
As in 2008, the Obama campaign is using the Internet and email and social media in new ways to reach voters. The campaign has incorporated the president's push for his $447 billion jobs bill into its 2012 operation, sending out an email earlier this week directing supporters to use their online tool to pressure GOP members of Congress on Twitter to back the bill.
The campaign also set up Attackwatch.com for supporters to report "smears" about the president, presumably so they can be shot down. And the campaign has used fundraising emails to raffle off tickets to dinner with the president.
The Obama campaign has not yet announced its third-quarter fundraising totals. The campaign raked in close to $50 million for the second quarter -- a combined $86 million with the Democratic National Committee, setting a record. That was more than the GOP field.
Creative Destructionism
Posted on Saturday October 08, 10:24:37
GMT-0400 2011 by Vintage Freeper
Capitalism has been described as "creative destructionism". Market Based Management (MBM) is a management system built on the logical framework of Austrian economic theory. The path of evolution of a politically effective plan built around the ideas of liberty more closely resembled the creative destructionism of capitalism than a well-organized management plan, but the finished product can readily be described in the terms used to describe MBM. As part of the Great Debate that defines the advantages of capitalism over the liabilities of socialism, one of the primary goals of our politically effective plan is to help people recognize that "politically correct" is not only not hip, but also largely irrational.
Vision: An American Renaissance based on political reforms built around Austrian economic theory and the restoration of the United States Constitution as part of establishing a laissez-faire capitalistic free market.
Virtues and Talents: Freedom, both political and economic are the principles that made America great. Our Reagan Wing candidates and our methods of electing them embrace the best of American Ingenuity.
Knowledge Processes: Explains the contrasts between Austrian economic theory based on Capitalism versus Keynesian economic theory built on socialism and central planning.
Decision Rights: Defines how to successfully leverage the voting power of We the people versus the top down Congressional central planning that has prevailed since 1912.
Incentives: Our method of financing the campaigns of our Reagan Wing candidates tilts the balance of political power toward challengers instead of incumbents in order to overturn Gresham's Political Law.
GMT-0400 2011 by Vintage Freeper
Capitalism has been described as "creative destructionism". Market Based Management (MBM) is a management system built on the logical framework of Austrian economic theory. The path of evolution of a politically effective plan built around the ideas of liberty more closely resembled the creative destructionism of capitalism than a well-organized management plan, but the finished product can readily be described in the terms used to describe MBM. As part of the Great Debate that defines the advantages of capitalism over the liabilities of socialism, one of the primary goals of our politically effective plan is to help people recognize that "politically correct" is not only not hip, but also largely irrational.
Vision: An American Renaissance based on political reforms built around Austrian economic theory and the restoration of the United States Constitution as part of establishing a laissez-faire capitalistic free market.
Virtues and Talents: Freedom, both political and economic are the principles that made America great. Our Reagan Wing candidates and our methods of electing them embrace the best of American Ingenuity.
Knowledge Processes: Explains the contrasts between Austrian economic theory based on Capitalism versus Keynesian economic theory built on socialism and central planning.
Decision Rights: Defines how to successfully leverage the voting power of We the people versus the top down Congressional central planning that has prevailed since 1912.
Incentives: Our method of financing the campaigns of our Reagan Wing candidates tilts the balance of political power toward challengers instead of incumbents in order to overturn Gresham's Political Law.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Hank Williams tells ESPN: Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE.
Hank Williams Jr. and his iconic theme song will not return to ESPN's "Monday Night Football," the network announced Thursday.
In the wake of Williams using an analogy involving Adolf Hitler and President Barack Obama to make a political point on the Fox News Channel, Williams' "All My Rowdy Friends" will no longer be part of the MNF opening.
"We have decided to part ways with Hank Williams, Jr," ESPN said in a statement. "We appreciate his contributions over the past years. The success of Monday Night Football has always been about the games and that will continue."
On his own website, Williams said he was the one who made the decision.
"After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision," he wrote. "By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It's been a great run."
In an interview Monday on Fox News' "Fox & Friends," Williams, unprompted, said of Obama's outing on the links with House Speaker John Boehner: "It'd be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu."
Asked to clarify, Williams said, "They're the enemy," adding that by "they" he meant Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
ESPN pulled Williams' opening to Monday night's Indianapolis-Tampa Bay game and issued a statement saying: "While Hank Williams, Jr. is not an ESPN employee, we recognize that he is closely linked to our company through the open to Monday Night Football. We are extremely disappointed with his comments, and as a result we have decided to pull the open from tonight's telecast."
Williams, through his publicist, said on Monday: "Some of us have strong opinions and are often misunderstood. My analogy was extreme -- but it was to make a point. I was simply trying to explain how stupid it seemed to me -- how ludicrous that pairing was. They're polar opposites and it made no sense. They don't see eye-to-eye and never will. I have always respected the office of the president."
Tuesday, he issued another statement."The thought of the leaders of both parties jukin and high fiven on a golf course, while so many families are struggling to get by simply made me boil over and make a dumb statement," Williams wrote on Facebook and his website. "I am very sorry if it offended anyone."
Williams' song has been part of "Monday Night Football" since 1991 on both ESPN and ABC. He is a Grammy award winner who also was a three-time entertainer of the year from the Academy of Country Music in the 1980s.
Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.
In the wake of Williams using an analogy involving Adolf Hitler and President Barack Obama to make a political point on the Fox News Channel, Williams' "All My Rowdy Friends" will no longer be part of the MNF opening.
"We have decided to part ways with Hank Williams, Jr," ESPN said in a statement. "We appreciate his contributions over the past years. The success of Monday Night Football has always been about the games and that will continue."
On his own website, Williams said he was the one who made the decision.
"After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision," he wrote. "By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It's been a great run."
In an interview Monday on Fox News' "Fox & Friends," Williams, unprompted, said of Obama's outing on the links with House Speaker John Boehner: "It'd be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu."
Asked to clarify, Williams said, "They're the enemy," adding that by "they" he meant Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
ESPN pulled Williams' opening to Monday night's Indianapolis-Tampa Bay game and issued a statement saying: "While Hank Williams, Jr. is not an ESPN employee, we recognize that he is closely linked to our company through the open to Monday Night Football. We are extremely disappointed with his comments, and as a result we have decided to pull the open from tonight's telecast."
Williams, through his publicist, said on Monday: "Some of us have strong opinions and are often misunderstood. My analogy was extreme -- but it was to make a point. I was simply trying to explain how stupid it seemed to me -- how ludicrous that pairing was. They're polar opposites and it made no sense. They don't see eye-to-eye and never will. I have always respected the office of the president."
Tuesday, he issued another statement."The thought of the leaders of both parties jukin and high fiven on a golf course, while so many families are struggling to get by simply made me boil over and make a dumb statement," Williams wrote on Facebook and his website. "I am very sorry if it offended anyone."
Williams' song has been part of "Monday Night Football" since 1991 on both ESPN and ABC. He is a Grammy award winner who also was a three-time entertainer of the year from the Academy of Country Music in the 1980s.
Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.
TAXPAYERS ON HOOK FOR MONUMENT TO DEM LEADER
You might be surprised to hear there is a Harry Reid Research and Technology Park. You won't be surprised to learn that U.S. taxpayers are funding part of it.
This monument to the Senate majority leader was not subsidized through some earmark Reid stuck in an appropriations bill. The $2 million grant came through a little-known part of the Commerce Department known as the Economic Development Administration. As Republicans assert that this time they are serious about cutting spending, killing a corporate welfare agency and pork machine like the EDA would be a great start.
Freshman Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., has introduced the EDA Elimination Act of 2011. In the upper chamber, conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposed a similar measure. While EDA is relatively small and nearly unknown, Pompeo sees this as a crucial fight. He calls the EDA "pure redistribution" and the prime example of how federal involvement in the economy allocates wealth "by political processes rather than market processes."
If you've read about absurd congressional earmarks, the list of EDA grants will be dispiritingly familiar. Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is building a $52 million convention center, with the EDA covering most of the cost. EDA paid $2 million to subsidize a "culinary amphitheater" and wine tasting room in Richland, Wash. Essar Steel Minnesota is building a new plant, and the EDA is footing $1.4 million of the $1.6 billion tab.
The EDA is not a "social" agency. It's not about subsidizing the arts, feeding the hungry, promoting diversity or caring for the poor. It is purportedly about increasing economic prosperity. While other aspects of the Great Society agenda (under which Lyndon Johnson created the EDA) are openly about sacrificing wealth for helping the less fortunate, this agency claims to do the same thing that the free market does: increase society's wealth.
Pompeo is right: Abolishing the EDA is an excellent test of whether Republicans actually believe what they say they believe.
Nearly every Republican voted against President Obama's stimulus in 2009, arguing that the deficit was too high, that government shouldn't be in the game of picking winners and losers, and that Washington doesn't create jobs. But the EDA adds to the deficit, picks winners and losers, and purports to create jobs. If Republicans vote to continue the EDA, they flaunt their hyprocrisy to critics, who charged in 2009 that GOP opposition to the stimulus was pure politics.
Is the Republican outrage over the subsidization and bankruptcy of solar company Solyndra anything more than political theater? If the Solyndra sound and fury signify any actual principle, the GOP would also kill the EDA.
An EDA vote will also illuminate the House GOP's earmark ban. Was that simply a sop to the Tea Party base that had powered the GOP's rise to the majority? Or did it reflect a belief that the federal government should hew to its enumerated powers and quit funding local projects?
Looking back on the GOP's recent history, however, there's little reason to be hopeful. After Republicans started to roll back farm subsidies in the 1990s, they saved them and ramped them back up last decade. Federal discretionary spending increased every year when Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. The federal government has more than 80 economic development agencies, and Republicans haven't passed legislation to abolish even one.
Why would Pompeo think he has a shot of killing the EDA? "The times are different," the freshman told me on Wednesday, pointing to the Tea Party's effect on the GOP. But a look at the GOP's presidential front-runners ought to make Pompeo less optimistic. Rick Perry created two new economic development agencies as governor, and Mitt Romney generously handed out economic development grants. Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans are supporting a bill to expand the Export-Import Bank, an international subsidy agency. It seems Republican officials don't have as much faith as they claim to have in low taxes and low regulation to stimulate the economy.
Even Pompeo won't deny Uncle Sam a role in economic development. Ex-Im's largest beneficiary, Boeing, has a plant in Pompeo's district. I asked the congressman how he would vote on that agency's reauthorization this Congress. "That's a tough one for me." He said he would "love to see the Ex-Im Bank go away," but he can't commit to voting against it because of competing foreign subsidies, such as Europe's handouts to Boeing competitor Airbus.
For Democrats, a heavy government hand in the economy is part of their philosophy. For Republicans, it may just be part of their politics.
----
CORRECTION: This column originally misstated the amount of the UNLV grant and the total cost of the Minnesota steel plant.
This monument to the Senate majority leader was not subsidized through some earmark Reid stuck in an appropriations bill. The $2 million grant came through a little-known part of the Commerce Department known as the Economic Development Administration. As Republicans assert that this time they are serious about cutting spending, killing a corporate welfare agency and pork machine like the EDA would be a great start.
Freshman Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., has introduced the EDA Elimination Act of 2011. In the upper chamber, conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposed a similar measure. While EDA is relatively small and nearly unknown, Pompeo sees this as a crucial fight. He calls the EDA "pure redistribution" and the prime example of how federal involvement in the economy allocates wealth "by political processes rather than market processes."
If you've read about absurd congressional earmarks, the list of EDA grants will be dispiritingly familiar. Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is building a $52 million convention center, with the EDA covering most of the cost. EDA paid $2 million to subsidize a "culinary amphitheater" and wine tasting room in Richland, Wash. Essar Steel Minnesota is building a new plant, and the EDA is footing $1.4 million of the $1.6 billion tab.
The EDA is not a "social" agency. It's not about subsidizing the arts, feeding the hungry, promoting diversity or caring for the poor. It is purportedly about increasing economic prosperity. While other aspects of the Great Society agenda (under which Lyndon Johnson created the EDA) are openly about sacrificing wealth for helping the less fortunate, this agency claims to do the same thing that the free market does: increase society's wealth.
Pompeo is right: Abolishing the EDA is an excellent test of whether Republicans actually believe what they say they believe.
Nearly every Republican voted against President Obama's stimulus in 2009, arguing that the deficit was too high, that government shouldn't be in the game of picking winners and losers, and that Washington doesn't create jobs. But the EDA adds to the deficit, picks winners and losers, and purports to create jobs. If Republicans vote to continue the EDA, they flaunt their hyprocrisy to critics, who charged in 2009 that GOP opposition to the stimulus was pure politics.
Is the Republican outrage over the subsidization and bankruptcy of solar company Solyndra anything more than political theater? If the Solyndra sound and fury signify any actual principle, the GOP would also kill the EDA.
An EDA vote will also illuminate the House GOP's earmark ban. Was that simply a sop to the Tea Party base that had powered the GOP's rise to the majority? Or did it reflect a belief that the federal government should hew to its enumerated powers and quit funding local projects?
Looking back on the GOP's recent history, however, there's little reason to be hopeful. After Republicans started to roll back farm subsidies in the 1990s, they saved them and ramped them back up last decade. Federal discretionary spending increased every year when Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. The federal government has more than 80 economic development agencies, and Republicans haven't passed legislation to abolish even one.
Why would Pompeo think he has a shot of killing the EDA? "The times are different," the freshman told me on Wednesday, pointing to the Tea Party's effect on the GOP. But a look at the GOP's presidential front-runners ought to make Pompeo less optimistic. Rick Perry created two new economic development agencies as governor, and Mitt Romney generously handed out economic development grants. Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans are supporting a bill to expand the Export-Import Bank, an international subsidy agency. It seems Republican officials don't have as much faith as they claim to have in low taxes and low regulation to stimulate the economy.
Even Pompeo won't deny Uncle Sam a role in economic development. Ex-Im's largest beneficiary, Boeing, has a plant in Pompeo's district. I asked the congressman how he would vote on that agency's reauthorization this Congress. "That's a tough one for me." He said he would "love to see the Ex-Im Bank go away," but he can't commit to voting against it because of competing foreign subsidies, such as Europe's handouts to Boeing competitor Airbus.
For Democrats, a heavy government hand in the economy is part of their philosophy. For Republicans, it may just be part of their politics.
----
CORRECTION: This column originally misstated the amount of the UNLV grant and the total cost of the Minnesota steel plant.
Soros fails to quash insider trading conviction
By Sam Jones in London and Stanley Pignal in Brussels
October 6, 2011 9:34 pm
George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund manager, has lost a case at the European Court of Human Rights to have his criminal conviction for insider dealing quashed.
The failed appeal in a 4-3 decision by the Strasbourg-based court is the latest twist in a nine-year battle by the 81-year-old Mr Soros to clear his name following his conviction in France in 2002.
The French criminal case hinged on trades that the Hungary-born investor had executed 14 years earlier in the stock of Société Générale that reaped his hedge fund, the Quantum Fund, $2.9m in profits.
Mr Soros was found by the court in 2002 to have had inside knowledge about the intentions of a group of super-wealthy French investors – the “golden granddads” – to bid for the bank.
Although the bid failed, Mr Soros’s fund profited by buying shares before – and selling after – the group’s intentions became public and resulted in a spike in SocGen’s share price.
Mr Soros was fined €2.2m (£1.9m), later reduced to €940,507 on appeal.
At the time, Mr Soros described the guilty verdict as a “gift to my enemies”.
He is now left with one final, unlikely, chance to rid himself of his conviction: an appeal to the grand chamber of the ECHR. Such appeals are only heard on an “exceptional basis”, according to the court’s rules.
Mr Soros had based his initial appeal to Strasbourg on an argument that French insider-trading laws in the late 1980s were too vague for him to know that he was in breach of them.
In its decision, the ECHR conceded that “the wording of the statutes was not always precise” but said that Mr Soros, as a “famous institutional investor, well-known to the business community . . . could not have been unaware that his decision to invest . . . entailed the risk that he might be committing the offence of insider trading”.
Mr Soros’s lawyers lamented the ECHR’s close decision, pointing out that even the former French market regulator, the Commission des Operations de Bourse, had found France’s insider trading laws too ill-defined to warrant a civil case.
“It is inconceivable to expect that the citizen has a better understanding of the law than the authority in charge,” Ron Soffer, Mr Soros’s lawyer, said on Thursday, referring to the billionaire’s criminal conviction by jury.
“The opinion of the regulatory authority is an irrebuttable presumption as to the lack of clarity of the law,” Mr Soffer said.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011
October 6, 2011 9:34 pm
George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund manager, has lost a case at the European Court of Human Rights to have his criminal conviction for insider dealing quashed.
The failed appeal in a 4-3 decision by the Strasbourg-based court is the latest twist in a nine-year battle by the 81-year-old Mr Soros to clear his name following his conviction in France in 2002.
The French criminal case hinged on trades that the Hungary-born investor had executed 14 years earlier in the stock of Société Générale that reaped his hedge fund, the Quantum Fund, $2.9m in profits.
Mr Soros was found by the court in 2002 to have had inside knowledge about the intentions of a group of super-wealthy French investors – the “golden granddads” – to bid for the bank.
Although the bid failed, Mr Soros’s fund profited by buying shares before – and selling after – the group’s intentions became public and resulted in a spike in SocGen’s share price.
Mr Soros was fined €2.2m (£1.9m), later reduced to €940,507 on appeal.
At the time, Mr Soros described the guilty verdict as a “gift to my enemies”.
He is now left with one final, unlikely, chance to rid himself of his conviction: an appeal to the grand chamber of the ECHR. Such appeals are only heard on an “exceptional basis”, according to the court’s rules.
Mr Soros had based his initial appeal to Strasbourg on an argument that French insider-trading laws in the late 1980s were too vague for him to know that he was in breach of them.
In its decision, the ECHR conceded that “the wording of the statutes was not always precise” but said that Mr Soros, as a “famous institutional investor, well-known to the business community . . . could not have been unaware that his decision to invest . . . entailed the risk that he might be committing the offence of insider trading”.
Mr Soros’s lawyers lamented the ECHR’s close decision, pointing out that even the former French market regulator, the Commission des Operations de Bourse, had found France’s insider trading laws too ill-defined to warrant a civil case.
“It is inconceivable to expect that the citizen has a better understanding of the law than the authority in charge,” Ron Soffer, Mr Soros’s lawyer, said on Thursday, referring to the billionaire’s criminal conviction by jury.
“The opinion of the regulatory authority is an irrebuttable presumption as to the lack of clarity of the law,” Mr Soffer said.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011
Feds to design health insurance for the masses
Oct 7, 12:02 AM EDT
Feds to design health insurance for the masses
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government is taking on a crucial new role in the nation's health care, designing a basic benefits package for millions of privately insured Americans. A framework for the Obama administration was released Friday.
The report by independent experts from the Institute of Medicine lays out guidelines for deciding what to include in the new "essential benefits package," and how to keep it affordable for small businesses and taxpayers, as well as scientifically up to date.
The advisers recommended that the package be built on mid-tier health plans currently offered by small employers, expanded to include certain services such as mental health, and squeezed into a budget. They did not spell out a list of services to cover, but they did say that treatments should be cost-effective.
Until now, designing benefits has been the job of insurers, employers and states. But the new health care law requires insurance companies to provide at least the federally approved package if they want to sell to small businesses, families and individuals through new state markets set to open in 2014.
Existing workplace plans won't be required to adopt the federal model, but employers and consumer advocates alike predict it will become the nation's benchmark for health insurance over time.
"The federal government has never before attempted to define what constitutes essential medical benefits for Americans with private insurance," said Stephen Finan, a top policy expert for the American Cancer Society.
With the nation divided over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, and Republicans branding it as a government takeover, the administration reacted cautiously to the recommendations.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement that officials would hold "listening sessions" around the country before any final decisions are made, a process that could take months.
"Before we put forward a proposal, it is critical that we hear from the American people," Sebelius said. The law would expand coverage to about 30 million uninsured people.
Actually, work on the benefits package is already well under way within the HHS department. And on the outside, a huge lobbying campaign to shape the final package is about to take off.
Employer groups - particularly those representing low-wage industries - want to keep benefits fairly basic. Since the government is going to be subsidizing coverage for millions of people, a generous plan will drive up costs for taxpayers, they argue. But consumer and patient advocacy groups that helped pass the overhaul law want to make sure their priorities are included.
The health care law requires that essential benefits include outpatient, hospital, emergency, maternal, newborn and children's care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, labs, prevention and wellness. But Congress gave the administration lots of leeway to determine the specifics.
In its 300-page report, the Institute of Medicine panel stressed that the package has to be affordable if Obama's overhaul is going to stand the test of time.
The panel used the analogy of a shopper at the supermarket. One option is to fill up your cart with all the groceries you want, and find out the cost at the register.
"The other option is to walk into the store with a firm idea of what you can spend and to fill the cart carefully, with only enough food to fit within your budget," the advisers said. "The committee recommends that (the administration) take the latter approach."
The first option compares to what the government now does with Medicare and Medicaid - it pays all the bills. But the advisers said Obama's plan should be on a budget.
The panel proposed a tough financial test. Few small employer plans currently offer comprehensive mental health coverage, for example. As such services are added, the total cost of the package should stay within a budget target to be set by the administration. That would help keep premiums affordable.
"Committee members believe that absent a premium target, there would be no capacity to acknowledge the realities of limited resources and the ongoing need for the affordability of the package," the report said.
Interest groups will be poring over the panel's recommendations.
"Moving forward, this is truly a lynchpin issue," said Neil Trautwein, vice president for benefits policy at the National Retail Federation. "I think there will be a tug-of-war on this proposal."
The Institute of Medicine is an independent organization advising the government on technical issues.
© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Feds to design health insurance for the masses
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government is taking on a crucial new role in the nation's health care, designing a basic benefits package for millions of privately insured Americans. A framework for the Obama administration was released Friday.
The report by independent experts from the Institute of Medicine lays out guidelines for deciding what to include in the new "essential benefits package," and how to keep it affordable for small businesses and taxpayers, as well as scientifically up to date.
The advisers recommended that the package be built on mid-tier health plans currently offered by small employers, expanded to include certain services such as mental health, and squeezed into a budget. They did not spell out a list of services to cover, but they did say that treatments should be cost-effective.
Until now, designing benefits has been the job of insurers, employers and states. But the new health care law requires insurance companies to provide at least the federally approved package if they want to sell to small businesses, families and individuals through new state markets set to open in 2014.
Existing workplace plans won't be required to adopt the federal model, but employers and consumer advocates alike predict it will become the nation's benchmark for health insurance over time.
"The federal government has never before attempted to define what constitutes essential medical benefits for Americans with private insurance," said Stephen Finan, a top policy expert for the American Cancer Society.
With the nation divided over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, and Republicans branding it as a government takeover, the administration reacted cautiously to the recommendations.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement that officials would hold "listening sessions" around the country before any final decisions are made, a process that could take months.
"Before we put forward a proposal, it is critical that we hear from the American people," Sebelius said. The law would expand coverage to about 30 million uninsured people.
Actually, work on the benefits package is already well under way within the HHS department. And on the outside, a huge lobbying campaign to shape the final package is about to take off.
Employer groups - particularly those representing low-wage industries - want to keep benefits fairly basic. Since the government is going to be subsidizing coverage for millions of people, a generous plan will drive up costs for taxpayers, they argue. But consumer and patient advocacy groups that helped pass the overhaul law want to make sure their priorities are included.
The health care law requires that essential benefits include outpatient, hospital, emergency, maternal, newborn and children's care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, labs, prevention and wellness. But Congress gave the administration lots of leeway to determine the specifics.
In its 300-page report, the Institute of Medicine panel stressed that the package has to be affordable if Obama's overhaul is going to stand the test of time.
The panel used the analogy of a shopper at the supermarket. One option is to fill up your cart with all the groceries you want, and find out the cost at the register.
"The other option is to walk into the store with a firm idea of what you can spend and to fill the cart carefully, with only enough food to fit within your budget," the advisers said. "The committee recommends that (the administration) take the latter approach."
The first option compares to what the government now does with Medicare and Medicaid - it pays all the bills. But the advisers said Obama's plan should be on a budget.
The panel proposed a tough financial test. Few small employer plans currently offer comprehensive mental health coverage, for example. As such services are added, the total cost of the package should stay within a budget target to be set by the administration. That would help keep premiums affordable.
"Committee members believe that absent a premium target, there would be no capacity to acknowledge the realities of limited resources and the ongoing need for the affordability of the package," the report said.
Interest groups will be poring over the panel's recommendations.
"Moving forward, this is truly a lynchpin issue," said Neil Trautwein, vice president for benefits policy at the National Retail Federation. "I think there will be a tug-of-war on this proposal."
The Institute of Medicine is an independent organization advising the government on technical issues.
© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Obama establishes a 'Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office' under executive order
He will certainly need it in the up and coming election cycle...
By Marc Ambinder
Updated: October 7, 2011 | 1:41 a.m.
October 7, 2011 | 12:14 a.m.
By executive order, President Obama will instruct federal agencies today to better safeguard their classified secrets, to set up internal audit systems, and to make sure that reluctance to share critical intelligence in the aftermath of the WikiLeaks exposure does not hamper collaboration across agencies.
The so-called "WikiLeaks" executive order has been long awaited by the national security establishment and by the privacy and civil liberties communities. It was provided by the White House to National Journal. The order creates a government-wide steering committee to create and assess information sharing policies across the government, as well as a mechanism to determine whether internal auditing procedures work properly.
PFC. Bradley Manning, who the government believes provided WikiLeaks with most of the classified cables and reports it released, was able to access State Department cables that were not germane to his work as a forward-deployed intelligence analyst in Iraq without being detected.
A new Insider Threat Task Force led by the Attorney General will develop a government-wide strategy to see whether agencies that handle classified information can weed out the malcontents and people whose behavior suggests they cannot handle sensitive information appropriately.
The result will be a beefing up of federal counter-intelligence programs.
The intelligence community has worried about an over-reaction, reasoning that analysts who want more access to classified information to solve a problem will second-guess their own efforts because they don't want to trigger an investigation. The order does not specify how agencies ought to strike this balance, but suggests that each agency should establish policies that incorporate their own internal cultures, bearing in mind that the larger goal is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Obama's executive order makes agencies primarily responsible for the information they obtain and share.
It also creates a Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office to develop institutional knowledge about best practices across the government. This office will provide staff for the inter-agency steering committee, according to a White House fact sheet.
The executive order is the result of several months worth of a deliberation by a high-level task force formed after of the WikiLeaks disclosure. The government has taken several steps to prevent WikiLeaks-like incidents from happening again, including limiting the number of people with access to removable flash drives in classified environments and commencing a government-wide survey of existing internal auditing procedures.
By Marc Ambinder
Updated: October 7, 2011 | 1:41 a.m.
October 7, 2011 | 12:14 a.m.
By executive order, President Obama will instruct federal agencies today to better safeguard their classified secrets, to set up internal audit systems, and to make sure that reluctance to share critical intelligence in the aftermath of the WikiLeaks exposure does not hamper collaboration across agencies.
The so-called "WikiLeaks" executive order has been long awaited by the national security establishment and by the privacy and civil liberties communities. It was provided by the White House to National Journal. The order creates a government-wide steering committee to create and assess information sharing policies across the government, as well as a mechanism to determine whether internal auditing procedures work properly.
PFC. Bradley Manning, who the government believes provided WikiLeaks with most of the classified cables and reports it released, was able to access State Department cables that were not germane to his work as a forward-deployed intelligence analyst in Iraq without being detected.
A new Insider Threat Task Force led by the Attorney General will develop a government-wide strategy to see whether agencies that handle classified information can weed out the malcontents and people whose behavior suggests they cannot handle sensitive information appropriately.
The result will be a beefing up of federal counter-intelligence programs.
The intelligence community has worried about an over-reaction, reasoning that analysts who want more access to classified information to solve a problem will second-guess their own efforts because they don't want to trigger an investigation. The order does not specify how agencies ought to strike this balance, but suggests that each agency should establish policies that incorporate their own internal cultures, bearing in mind that the larger goal is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Obama's executive order makes agencies primarily responsible for the information they obtain and share.
It also creates a Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office to develop institutional knowledge about best practices across the government. This office will provide staff for the inter-agency steering committee, according to a White House fact sheet.
The executive order is the result of several months worth of a deliberation by a high-level task force formed after of the WikiLeaks disclosure. The government has taken several steps to prevent WikiLeaks-like incidents from happening again, including limiting the number of people with access to removable flash drives in classified environments and commencing a government-wide survey of existing internal auditing procedures.
Obama's Behavior Is Getting Worse
David Limbaugh
Obama's Thursday news conference was a sober reminder of the nature of the man in the Oval Office. I infer that even many of his supporters in the liberal media are finally catching on to the magnitude of his personality disorders.
How could a man in his important position continue to act so childishly, accepting no responsibility for his policies and behavior and demonizing everyone who dares to disagree with or oppose him? It's worse than embarrassing; it's unsettling.
From the conference we are reminded that Obama believes that:
--Only "big and bold" intervention by the government can get an economy moving; so long as he cites a few "expert economists" who agree with him, there can be no other legitimate opinion.
--Anyone who disagrees with or opposes him is engaging in partisan politics rather than acting in good faith, on principle and in the best interests of the country. Republicans have blocked him for partisan reasons for not just the past six months, but the past 2 1/2 years. He has "gone out of (his) way in every instance to find common ground" with Republicans. You know, as with "I won, John" and "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talkin'" and "stay in the back seat."
--If Republicans continue to oppose his jobs bill, it will be because they don't want laid-off policemen, firefighters and teachers working again.
--The failure, waste and corruption in his $868 billion stimulus package are irrelevant when considering whether to embark on another such reckless venture. He doesn't need to explain away the damning empirical data on his stimulus bill, because economists told him it would work and therefore it did work. If he hadn't spent all that borrowed money, we would have experienced another great depression. Anyone who disputes this is either a rube or improperly motivated.
--It doesn't matter that he famously breached his promise that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent if Congress passed his stimulus bill or that studies show that only 7 percent of the stimulus money went toward infrastructure despite his commitments to the contrary. Nor does it matter that he cavalierly joked about having lied about the existence of a plethora of "shovel-ready jobs." He is a well-meaning liberal, after all.
--His good intentions also exempt him from accountability on the Solyndra scandal, because his ideology inclines him toward a blind faith in the existence of cataclysmic man-made global warming, which in turn requires him to mandate government subsidization of "green technologies." Those allegedly noble intentions further entitle him to a pass for ignoring those who warned the government not to proceed with the project. His intentions relieve him from responsibility for Solyndra's abject failure to meet the projections of the same kind of geniuses he is berating us for not following on his jobs bill.
--He still isn't the slightest bit concerned about our national path toward bankruptcy, addressing it only with a few throwaway lines about how this bill would pay for itself, even though no bill of his has paid for itself.
--He is going to stick to his lies that a) his bill is a "jobs bill," b) it would implement the "Buffett Rule" when Warren Buffett himself said he is only for raising taxes on the super-rich, c) the "rich" aren't paying their fair share of taxes, and d) Republicans have not put forward an economic plan.
--He is going to continue to pretend or fool himself into believing that the American people still back his socialist approach to economic problems, his class warfare approach to influencing public opinion, his demagogic approach to entitlement reform and his hyper-partisan approach to problem-solving.
--He has complete confidence in Eric Holder, so he doesn't need to worry about the facts on "Fast and Furious," either; Holder's dubious testimony is of no concern to Obama, and he doesn't have to answer for it, because he trusts Holder, and therefore, so should we. Besides, even if it should turn out that Holder did something wrong, Holder is the attorney general and Obama's not responsible for him.
--He is never going to stop blaming everyone and everything but himself for the problems he has caused. Thursday, he told us yet again that our economic mess was created by George W. Bush, the Japanese tsunami, the two wars, the Republicans' gamesmanship over the debt ceiling, and Europe's financial instability. Oh, yes, and many of our problems even "predate the financial crisis."
Our chief executive either is a mastermind at Machiavellian manipulation or has deep psychological and emotional problems. I've never seen an adult in an important leadership position -- especially not the president of the United States -- show such frightening immaturity and self-absorption.
Obama's Thursday news conference was a sober reminder of the nature of the man in the Oval Office. I infer that even many of his supporters in the liberal media are finally catching on to the magnitude of his personality disorders.
How could a man in his important position continue to act so childishly, accepting no responsibility for his policies and behavior and demonizing everyone who dares to disagree with or oppose him? It's worse than embarrassing; it's unsettling.
From the conference we are reminded that Obama believes that:
--Only "big and bold" intervention by the government can get an economy moving; so long as he cites a few "expert economists" who agree with him, there can be no other legitimate opinion.
--Anyone who disagrees with or opposes him is engaging in partisan politics rather than acting in good faith, on principle and in the best interests of the country. Republicans have blocked him for partisan reasons for not just the past six months, but the past 2 1/2 years. He has "gone out of (his) way in every instance to find common ground" with Republicans. You know, as with "I won, John" and "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talkin'" and "stay in the back seat."
--If Republicans continue to oppose his jobs bill, it will be because they don't want laid-off policemen, firefighters and teachers working again.
--The failure, waste and corruption in his $868 billion stimulus package are irrelevant when considering whether to embark on another such reckless venture. He doesn't need to explain away the damning empirical data on his stimulus bill, because economists told him it would work and therefore it did work. If he hadn't spent all that borrowed money, we would have experienced another great depression. Anyone who disputes this is either a rube or improperly motivated.
--It doesn't matter that he famously breached his promise that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent if Congress passed his stimulus bill or that studies show that only 7 percent of the stimulus money went toward infrastructure despite his commitments to the contrary. Nor does it matter that he cavalierly joked about having lied about the existence of a plethora of "shovel-ready jobs." He is a well-meaning liberal, after all.
--His good intentions also exempt him from accountability on the Solyndra scandal, because his ideology inclines him toward a blind faith in the existence of cataclysmic man-made global warming, which in turn requires him to mandate government subsidization of "green technologies." Those allegedly noble intentions further entitle him to a pass for ignoring those who warned the government not to proceed with the project. His intentions relieve him from responsibility for Solyndra's abject failure to meet the projections of the same kind of geniuses he is berating us for not following on his jobs bill.
--He still isn't the slightest bit concerned about our national path toward bankruptcy, addressing it only with a few throwaway lines about how this bill would pay for itself, even though no bill of his has paid for itself.
--He is going to stick to his lies that a) his bill is a "jobs bill," b) it would implement the "Buffett Rule" when Warren Buffett himself said he is only for raising taxes on the super-rich, c) the "rich" aren't paying their fair share of taxes, and d) Republicans have not put forward an economic plan.
--He is going to continue to pretend or fool himself into believing that the American people still back his socialist approach to economic problems, his class warfare approach to influencing public opinion, his demagogic approach to entitlement reform and his hyper-partisan approach to problem-solving.
--He has complete confidence in Eric Holder, so he doesn't need to worry about the facts on "Fast and Furious," either; Holder's dubious testimony is of no concern to Obama, and he doesn't have to answer for it, because he trusts Holder, and therefore, so should we. Besides, even if it should turn out that Holder did something wrong, Holder is the attorney general and Obama's not responsible for him.
--He is never going to stop blaming everyone and everything but himself for the problems he has caused. Thursday, he told us yet again that our economic mess was created by George W. Bush, the Japanese tsunami, the two wars, the Republicans' gamesmanship over the debt ceiling, and Europe's financial instability. Oh, yes, and many of our problems even "predate the financial crisis."
Our chief executive either is a mastermind at Machiavellian manipulation or has deep psychological and emotional problems. I've never seen an adult in an important leadership position -- especially not the president of the United States -- show such frightening immaturity and self-absorption.
Senate Repatriation Bill Good First Step to Economic Growth
Looks like a trap boys. Run like HELL!
by Bruce Josten
Today, we are encouraged to see a bipartisan cross-section of lawmakers introducing legislation to increase the competitiveness of American business. Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ)’s bill, the “Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act,” would encourage companies to bring overseas earnings back to the United States and creates incentives for those firms to put the money to good use here at home.
Unfortunately, America suffers from an uncompetitive tax and regulatory climate that deters investment within our borders. As Tom Donohue pointed out in his jobs letter to the president and Congress last month, a repatriation holiday is one step policymakers can take right now to spur growth without adding to the deficit.
This money could be deployed in various ways into the economy – to pay dividends to consumers who spend, to shore up balance sheets or buy back stock, or to create jobs. All these are better options than leaving capital overseas that could be infused into the U.S. economy. Further, this would have a positive revenue effect that the government would otherwise not get.
It’s time for Washington to address extraordinary fiscal and competitive challenges that are smothering growth and driving away jobs. The Hagen McCain bill is a good step in the right direction.
by Bruce Josten
Today, we are encouraged to see a bipartisan cross-section of lawmakers introducing legislation to increase the competitiveness of American business. Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ)’s bill, the “Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act,” would encourage companies to bring overseas earnings back to the United States and creates incentives for those firms to put the money to good use here at home.
Unfortunately, America suffers from an uncompetitive tax and regulatory climate that deters investment within our borders. As Tom Donohue pointed out in his jobs letter to the president and Congress last month, a repatriation holiday is one step policymakers can take right now to spur growth without adding to the deficit.
This money could be deployed in various ways into the economy – to pay dividends to consumers who spend, to shore up balance sheets or buy back stock, or to create jobs. All these are better options than leaving capital overseas that could be infused into the U.S. economy. Further, this would have a positive revenue effect that the government would otherwise not get.
It’s time for Washington to address extraordinary fiscal and competitive challenges that are smothering growth and driving away jobs. The Hagen McCain bill is a good step in the right direction.
White House Keeps Hope Alive For A 50-State Mortgage Settlement For Banks
Gus Lubin | Oct. 7, 2011, 6:23 AM
Someone leaked a story about progress in the 50-state mortgage settlement to Ruth Simon at the Wall Street Journal.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris remains open to a deal if it involves "a stronger proposal" from banks, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Harris walked away from the settlement last week, calling it "inadequate" and complaining of a "troubling surge in foreclosures" in California.
A soft settlement would serve as a backdoor bailout for banks, which seems to be why the White House is pushing so hard. And why you're reading about progress today.
Someone leaked a story about progress in the 50-state mortgage settlement to Ruth Simon at the Wall Street Journal.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris remains open to a deal if it involves "a stronger proposal" from banks, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Harris walked away from the settlement last week, calling it "inadequate" and complaining of a "troubling surge in foreclosures" in California.
A soft settlement would serve as a backdoor bailout for banks, which seems to be why the White House is pushing so hard. And why you're reading about progress today.
Steve Jobs: America's Greatest Failure
Glory is sometimes born of catastrophe
By Nick Schulz
National Review Online
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Steve Jobs's announcement that he is stepping down as CEO of Apple is not surprising. He's a very sick man; and running the world's largest market-cap technology firm can't be easy for someone with pancreatic cancer and who-knows-what other ailments.
Lots of digital ink will be spilled about Jobs in the coming days, most of it focusing on his truly marvelous successes.
It's better to focus on his failures.
Jobs failed better than anyone else in Silicon Valley, maybe better than anyone in corporate America. By that I mean Jobs did what only the greatest entrepreneurs can do: learn from their failures. I don't mean learn from their mistakes. I mean learn from their abject, humiliating, bonehead, epic fails.
Everyone today thinks of Jobs as the genius who gave us the iPod, MacBooks, the iTunes store, the iPhone, the iPad, and so on. Yes, he transformed personal computing and multimedia. But let's not forget what else Jobs did.
Jobs (along with Steve Wozniak) brought us the Apple I and Apple II computers, early iterations of which sold in the mere hundreds and were complete failures. Not until the floppy disk was introduced and sufficient RAM added did the Apple II take off as a successful product.
Jobs was the architect of Lisa, introduced in the early 1980s. You remember Lisa, don't you? Of course you don't. But this computer — which cost tens of millions of dollars to develop — was another epic fail. Shortly after Lisa, Apple had a success with its Macintosh computer. But Jobs was out of a job by then, having been tossed aside thanks to the Lisa fiasco.
Jobs went on to found NeXT Computer, which was a big nothing-burger of a company. Its greatest success was that it was purchased by Apple — paving the way for the serial failure Jobs to return to his natural home. Jobs's greatest successes were to come later — iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, and more.
Jobs is a great entrepreneur for another reason. Lots of ninnies can give customers products they want. Jobs gave people products they didn't know they wanted, and then made those products indispensable to their lives.
I didn't know I needed the ability to read the Wall Street Journal and The Corner on a handsome handheld device at my breakfast table, on the Metro, on the Acela, or in any Starbucks I entered. But Steve Jobs did. I didn't know I wanted to mix and match my music collection on a computer and take it with me wherever I went, but Steve Jobs did. I didn't know I wanted a portable multimedia platform that would permit me and my kids to hurl angry birds out of a slingshot at thieving pigs. But Steve Jobs did.
All those successes were made possible by failure after failure after failure and the lessons learned from those failures.
There's a moral here for a Washington culture that fears failure too much. In today's Washington, large banks aren't permitted to fail; nor are large auto firms. Next up will be too-big-to-fail hospital systems. Steve Jobs is a reminder that failure is a good and necessary thing. And that sometimes the greatest glories are born of catastrophe.
Nick Schulz is a fellow resident at AEI.
By Nick Schulz
National Review Online
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Steve Jobs's announcement that he is stepping down as CEO of Apple is not surprising. He's a very sick man; and running the world's largest market-cap technology firm can't be easy for someone with pancreatic cancer and who-knows-what other ailments.
Lots of digital ink will be spilled about Jobs in the coming days, most of it focusing on his truly marvelous successes.
It's better to focus on his failures.
Jobs failed better than anyone else in Silicon Valley, maybe better than anyone in corporate America. By that I mean Jobs did what only the greatest entrepreneurs can do: learn from their failures. I don't mean learn from their mistakes. I mean learn from their abject, humiliating, bonehead, epic fails.
Everyone today thinks of Jobs as the genius who gave us the iPod, MacBooks, the iTunes store, the iPhone, the iPad, and so on. Yes, he transformed personal computing and multimedia. But let's not forget what else Jobs did.
Jobs (along with Steve Wozniak) brought us the Apple I and Apple II computers, early iterations of which sold in the mere hundreds and were complete failures. Not until the floppy disk was introduced and sufficient RAM added did the Apple II take off as a successful product.
Jobs was the architect of Lisa, introduced in the early 1980s. You remember Lisa, don't you? Of course you don't. But this computer — which cost tens of millions of dollars to develop — was another epic fail. Shortly after Lisa, Apple had a success with its Macintosh computer. But Jobs was out of a job by then, having been tossed aside thanks to the Lisa fiasco.
Jobs went on to found NeXT Computer, which was a big nothing-burger of a company. Its greatest success was that it was purchased by Apple — paving the way for the serial failure Jobs to return to his natural home. Jobs's greatest successes were to come later — iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, and more.
Jobs is a great entrepreneur for another reason. Lots of ninnies can give customers products they want. Jobs gave people products they didn't know they wanted, and then made those products indispensable to their lives.
I didn't know I needed the ability to read the Wall Street Journal and The Corner on a handsome handheld device at my breakfast table, on the Metro, on the Acela, or in any Starbucks I entered. But Steve Jobs did. I didn't know I wanted to mix and match my music collection on a computer and take it with me wherever I went, but Steve Jobs did. I didn't know I wanted a portable multimedia platform that would permit me and my kids to hurl angry birds out of a slingshot at thieving pigs. But Steve Jobs did.
All those successes were made possible by failure after failure after failure and the lessons learned from those failures.
There's a moral here for a Washington culture that fears failure too much. In today's Washington, large banks aren't permitted to fail; nor are large auto firms. Next up will be too-big-to-fail hospital systems. Steve Jobs is a reminder that failure is a good and necessary thing. And that sometimes the greatest glories are born of catastrophe.
Nick Schulz is a fellow resident at AEI.
Obama To Issue Executive Order On Classified Info, After WikiLeaks
By Marc Ambinder
Updated: October 7, 2011 | 1:41 a.m.
October 7, 2011 | 12:14 a.m.
By executive order, President Obama will instruct federal agencies today to better safeguard their classified secrets, to set up internal audit systems, and to make sure that reluctance to share critical intelligence in the aftermath of the WikiLeaks exposure does not hamper collaboration across agencies.
The so-called "WikiLeaks" executive order has been long awaited by the national security establishment and by the privacy and civil liberties communities. It was provided by the White House to National Journal. The order creates a government-wide steering committee to create and assess information sharing policies across the government, as well as a mechanism to determine whether internal auditing procedures work properly.
PFC. Bradley Manning, who the government believes provided WikiLeaks with most of the classified cables and reports it released, was able to access State Department cables that were not germane to his work as a forward-deployed intelligence analyst in Iraq without being detected.
A new Insider Threat Task Force led by the Attorney General will develop a government-wide strategy to see whether agencies that handle classified information can weed out the malcontents and people whose behavior suggests they cannot handle sensitive information appropriately.
The result will be a beefing up of federal counter-intelligence programs.
The intelligence community has worried about an over-reaction, reasoning that analysts who want more access to classified information to solve a problem will second-guess their own efforts because they don't want to trigger an investigation. The order does not specify how agencies ought to strike this balance, but suggests that each agency should establish policies that incorporate their own internal cultures, bearing in mind that the larger goal is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Obama's executive order makes agencies primarily responsible for the information they obtain and share.
It also creates a Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office to develop institutional knowledge about best practices across the government. This office will provide staff for the inter-agency steering committee, according to a White House fact sheet.
The executive order is the result of several months worth of a deliberation by a high-level task force formed after of the WikiLeaks disclosure. The government has taken several steps to prevent WikiLeaks-like incidents from happening again, including limiting the number of people with access to removable flash drives in classified environments and commencing a government-wide survey of existing internal auditing procedures.
Updated: October 7, 2011 | 1:41 a.m.
October 7, 2011 | 12:14 a.m.
By executive order, President Obama will instruct federal agencies today to better safeguard their classified secrets, to set up internal audit systems, and to make sure that reluctance to share critical intelligence in the aftermath of the WikiLeaks exposure does not hamper collaboration across agencies.
The so-called "WikiLeaks" executive order has been long awaited by the national security establishment and by the privacy and civil liberties communities. It was provided by the White House to National Journal. The order creates a government-wide steering committee to create and assess information sharing policies across the government, as well as a mechanism to determine whether internal auditing procedures work properly.
PFC. Bradley Manning, who the government believes provided WikiLeaks with most of the classified cables and reports it released, was able to access State Department cables that were not germane to his work as a forward-deployed intelligence analyst in Iraq without being detected.
A new Insider Threat Task Force led by the Attorney General will develop a government-wide strategy to see whether agencies that handle classified information can weed out the malcontents and people whose behavior suggests they cannot handle sensitive information appropriately.
The result will be a beefing up of federal counter-intelligence programs.
The intelligence community has worried about an over-reaction, reasoning that analysts who want more access to classified information to solve a problem will second-guess their own efforts because they don't want to trigger an investigation. The order does not specify how agencies ought to strike this balance, but suggests that each agency should establish policies that incorporate their own internal cultures, bearing in mind that the larger goal is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Obama's executive order makes agencies primarily responsible for the information they obtain and share.
It also creates a Classified Information Sharing and Safeguarding Office to develop institutional knowledge about best practices across the government. This office will provide staff for the inter-agency steering committee, according to a White House fact sheet.
The executive order is the result of several months worth of a deliberation by a high-level task force formed after of the WikiLeaks disclosure. The government has taken several steps to prevent WikiLeaks-like incidents from happening again, including limiting the number of people with access to removable flash drives in classified environments and commencing a government-wide survey of existing internal auditing procedures.
Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin: Unions, Van Jones Not Behind ‘Occupy Wall Street’
by MRC TV
On October 6, 2011, Medea Benjamin, head of radical anti-war group Code Pink, told MRCTV’s Joe Schoffstall at ‘Occupy DC’ in Freedom Plaza that unions are not behind the formation of the recent demonstrations, despite the SEIU’s Stephen Lerner being one of the people behind the initial ‘Day of Rage’.
On August 19, The Blaze reported the following on Lerner:
“Now, the US Day of Rage protests, staged by a collective of activist groups allegedly in conjunction with Lerner and Rathke, are planning the actual “occupation” of Wall Street September 17, complete with a tent city set smack-dab in the middle of Manhattan’s financial district. Similar protests are purportedly set to take place across the nation — and even world — at the same time. Some Day of Rage organizers are even calling on activists to squat in Manhattan’s financial district for months at a time.”
When asked about the SEIU organizer, Benjamin- whose organization is supporting the demonstrations- said he was not part of it and the likes of Van Jones and Stephen Lerner did not want to even touch it, despite Van Jones promising an ‘October Offensive’ and progressive uprising. Jones held a rally outside of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. on October 5, 2011.
She also didn’t see a problem with unions being involved in the ‘Occupy’ protests which ask for Wall Street money to be taken out of politics. Barack Obama was the single biggest recipient of Wall Street cash ever, and unions are very,very generous donors to Obama – those same unions now involved in the demonstrations in New York City.
On October 6, 2011, Medea Benjamin, head of radical anti-war group Code Pink, told MRCTV’s Joe Schoffstall at ‘Occupy DC’ in Freedom Plaza that unions are not behind the formation of the recent demonstrations, despite the SEIU’s Stephen Lerner being one of the people behind the initial ‘Day of Rage’.
On August 19, The Blaze reported the following on Lerner:
“Now, the US Day of Rage protests, staged by a collective of activist groups allegedly in conjunction with Lerner and Rathke, are planning the actual “occupation” of Wall Street September 17, complete with a tent city set smack-dab in the middle of Manhattan’s financial district. Similar protests are purportedly set to take place across the nation — and even world — at the same time. Some Day of Rage organizers are even calling on activists to squat in Manhattan’s financial district for months at a time.”
When asked about the SEIU organizer, Benjamin- whose organization is supporting the demonstrations- said he was not part of it and the likes of Van Jones and Stephen Lerner did not want to even touch it, despite Van Jones promising an ‘October Offensive’ and progressive uprising. Jones held a rally outside of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. on October 5, 2011.
She also didn’t see a problem with unions being involved in the ‘Occupy’ protests which ask for Wall Street money to be taken out of politics. Barack Obama was the single biggest recipient of Wall Street cash ever, and unions are very,very generous donors to Obama – those same unions now involved in the demonstrations in New York City.
Race Hustler Jesse Jackson Uses Death Of Steve Jobs To Push Occupy Wall Street Agenda
Jobs passes away yesterday and Jackson is already using his legacy for political gain. What a Dirtbag.
Via Daily Caller:
Steve Jobs was a capitalist by any measure, having retaken control in 1997 of the company he co-founded in 1976, and remaking it into the technology giant it is today. According to CNBC’s Darren Rovell, if you had bought 100 shares of Apple stock (NASDAQ: APPL) on July 9, 1997 it would have cost you $342. Today, it’s worth roughly $37,900.
And though one day after may seem too soon to use his death to promote any sort of political agenda — particularly one that could be anti-capitalist, like the “Occupy Wall Street” protests currently going on around the country — Rainbow PUSH coalition founder and president Jesse Jackson did not think so.
In an appearance on MSNBC’s “Jansing & Co.” on Thursday, Jackson took time to offer his condolences to the Jobs family and added there are other things to remember him for beyond his personal computing legacy.
“Chris [Jansing], may I take a liberty and say our hearts go out for the Jobs family,” Jackson said. “I knew Steve over a period of time — not as a technical computer genius, but also he had an acute sense of social justice and a peace warrior. So, he was a well-rounded guy, not just a computer genius we talk about today.”
Keep reading…
Via Daily Caller:
Steve Jobs was a capitalist by any measure, having retaken control in 1997 of the company he co-founded in 1976, and remaking it into the technology giant it is today. According to CNBC’s Darren Rovell, if you had bought 100 shares of Apple stock (NASDAQ: APPL) on July 9, 1997 it would have cost you $342. Today, it’s worth roughly $37,900.
And though one day after may seem too soon to use his death to promote any sort of political agenda — particularly one that could be anti-capitalist, like the “Occupy Wall Street” protests currently going on around the country — Rainbow PUSH coalition founder and president Jesse Jackson did not think so.
In an appearance on MSNBC’s “Jansing & Co.” on Thursday, Jackson took time to offer his condolences to the Jobs family and added there are other things to remember him for beyond his personal computing legacy.
“Chris [Jansing], may I take a liberty and say our hearts go out for the Jobs family,” Jackson said. “I knew Steve over a period of time — not as a technical computer genius, but also he had an acute sense of social justice and a peace warrior. So, he was a well-rounded guy, not just a computer genius we talk about today.”
Keep reading…
Organizer admits to paying ‘Occupy DC’ protesters [VIDEO]
By Michelle Fields - The Daily Caller
Published: 6:37 PM 10/06/2011
Updated: 7:07 PM 10/06/2011
A liberal organizer told the Daily Caller on Thursday afternoon that he paid some Hispanics to attend “Occupy DC” protests happening in the nation’s capital.
TheDC attended the protest event, an expansion of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that began in New York City. Some aspects of the protest, it turned out, are more Astroturf than grassroots.
One group of about ten Hispanic protesters marched behind a Caucasian individual from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C.
Asked why they were there, some Hispanic protesters holding up English protest signs could not articulate what their signs said.
Interviewed in Spanish, the protesters told conflicting stories about how their group was organized. Some said it was organized at their church, and that they were there as volunteers. Others, however, referred to the man from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition — the only Caucasian in the group — as their “boss.”
TheDC asked that organizer whether he was paying the group to attend the protest, and he conceded that some protesters “aren’t” volunteers.
“Some of them are volunteers. Some of them aren’t,” he explained. “I can’t identify them. I’m not going to get into an identification game.”
Published: 6:37 PM 10/06/2011
Updated: 7:07 PM 10/06/2011
A liberal organizer told the Daily Caller on Thursday afternoon that he paid some Hispanics to attend “Occupy DC” protests happening in the nation’s capital.
TheDC attended the protest event, an expansion of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that began in New York City. Some aspects of the protest, it turned out, are more Astroturf than grassroots.
One group of about ten Hispanic protesters marched behind a Caucasian individual from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C.
Asked why they were there, some Hispanic protesters holding up English protest signs could not articulate what their signs said.
Interviewed in Spanish, the protesters told conflicting stories about how their group was organized. Some said it was organized at their church, and that they were there as volunteers. Others, however, referred to the man from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition — the only Caucasian in the group — as their “boss.”
TheDC asked that organizer whether he was paying the group to attend the protest, and he conceded that some protesters “aren’t” volunteers.
“Some of them are volunteers. Some of them aren’t,” he explained. “I can’t identify them. I’m not going to get into an identification game.”
Check out this fun fact.....
In 2009 Democrats Fought AGAINST "Millionaires Tax"
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Sometimes it is really amazing how quickly politicians flip-flop. Anybody who hasn't been on Mars or one of the outer planets during the past few weeks knows how the Congressional Democrats have been playing class warfare, setting up successful people as being selfish and not wanting to pay their "fair share" of Taxes.
But back in 2009 it was a very different story. During the Obamacare debate Nancy Pelosi was trying to legislate that Obamacare would be partially funded via a surtax on the "rich" ($250,000+ income). Democrats in both houses fought that suggestion "tooth and nail," and Pelosi's attempt was defeated.
Back then Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) told USA Today
“Still, the idea has been criticized by some Democrats. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Tuesday that he has ‘not heard much support’ from his colleagues.” (“House Dems' Health Bill Would Tax Rich,” USA Today, 7/15/09)
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told the Washington Post:
‘Tax is a four-letter word’ with voters, even families not ranking in the top 1 percent of earners ‘hope they're going to be there someday,’ he said. ‘So they don't necessarily think it's fair.’” (“Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy,” The Washington Post,7/15/09)
He told Bloomberg something similar, that "he’s ‘not hearing a lot’ of support for a surtax on wealthy Americans. People in his state don’t like the so-called millionaire’s tax ‘because they are looking someday to get there themselves,’ Nelson said. ‘It’s the American way.’” (“House Health Plan Seeks 5.4 Percent Millionaire Tax,” Bloomberg, 7/14/09)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), was fighting against the Millionaire's Tax, instead he advocated the Cadillac Tax, a tax on the most generous 1 percent of private plans. Conrad told the Washington Post that the Millionaires tax is ‘a very tough sell.’” (“Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy,” The Washington Post, 7/15/09)
Perhaps the most surprising repudiation of the Millionaire's Tax was a letter sent by Congressman Polis, Former Congressman Tickle-me-Massa and twenty other Representatives sent to Strong-Armed (and fake big-lipped) Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Embedded below, the letter made some of the same anti-tax points that the Democrats are ridiculing today because they are coming from conservatives and Republicans.
“Especially in a recession, we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our recovery. By concentrating the cost of health care reform in one area, and in one that will negatively affect small businesses, we are concerned that this will discourage entrepreneurial activity and job growth.”
“This proposed surcharge will also have a direct negative impact on manufacturers, another industry essential for our recovery. As manufacturers are capital intensive businesses, their taxable income is often higher… Manufacturing machinery can cost over $1 million and many owners have to save for years to expand and buy new equipment. Yet those profits saved each year would be hit by this proposed surcharge, which could lead to reduced investment.”
And my personal favorite:
“… a surcharge would tax income above $1 million at a new rate of 45 percent. Combined with state taxes, many successful small businesses -- the very kind of business that should lead in creating new jobs and help us emerge from this recession -- will be taxed at over 50 percent.”
Only two years ago, Congressional Democrats made a pretty compelling argument that a Millionaire's Tax would be a lousy idea and the proposal was pulled from Obamacare. Two years later many Democrats still think that the tax is wrong. Heck that's why Harry Reid did not allow Obama's plan to be voted on yesterday, it didn't have the votes.
Despite his party's objections in 2009 and today, the President continues to place the blame at the feet of conservative Republicans, proving that the only reason for his Class Warfare charge is to demonize his political opposition and divide the country to help him in his fight for re-election.
The full 2009 letter to Pelosi is here.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Sometimes it is really amazing how quickly politicians flip-flop. Anybody who hasn't been on Mars or one of the outer planets during the past few weeks knows how the Congressional Democrats have been playing class warfare, setting up successful people as being selfish and not wanting to pay their "fair share" of Taxes.
But back in 2009 it was a very different story. During the Obamacare debate Nancy Pelosi was trying to legislate that Obamacare would be partially funded via a surtax on the "rich" ($250,000+ income). Democrats in both houses fought that suggestion "tooth and nail," and Pelosi's attempt was defeated.
Back then Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) told USA Today
“Still, the idea has been criticized by some Democrats. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Tuesday that he has ‘not heard much support’ from his colleagues.” (“House Dems' Health Bill Would Tax Rich,” USA Today, 7/15/09)
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told the Washington Post:
‘Tax is a four-letter word’ with voters, even families not ranking in the top 1 percent of earners ‘hope they're going to be there someday,’ he said. ‘So they don't necessarily think it's fair.’” (“Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy,” The Washington Post,7/15/09)
He told Bloomberg something similar, that "he’s ‘not hearing a lot’ of support for a surtax on wealthy Americans. People in his state don’t like the so-called millionaire’s tax ‘because they are looking someday to get there themselves,’ Nelson said. ‘It’s the American way.’” (“House Health Plan Seeks 5.4 Percent Millionaire Tax,” Bloomberg, 7/14/09)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), was fighting against the Millionaire's Tax, instead he advocated the Cadillac Tax, a tax on the most generous 1 percent of private plans. Conrad told the Washington Post that the Millionaires tax is ‘a very tough sell.’” (“Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy,” The Washington Post, 7/15/09)
Perhaps the most surprising repudiation of the Millionaire's Tax was a letter sent by Congressman Polis, Former Congressman Tickle-me-Massa and twenty other Representatives sent to Strong-Armed (and fake big-lipped) Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Embedded below, the letter made some of the same anti-tax points that the Democrats are ridiculing today because they are coming from conservatives and Republicans.
“Especially in a recession, we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our recovery. By concentrating the cost of health care reform in one area, and in one that will negatively affect small businesses, we are concerned that this will discourage entrepreneurial activity and job growth.”
“This proposed surcharge will also have a direct negative impact on manufacturers, another industry essential for our recovery. As manufacturers are capital intensive businesses, their taxable income is often higher… Manufacturing machinery can cost over $1 million and many owners have to save for years to expand and buy new equipment. Yet those profits saved each year would be hit by this proposed surcharge, which could lead to reduced investment.”
And my personal favorite:
“… a surcharge would tax income above $1 million at a new rate of 45 percent. Combined with state taxes, many successful small businesses -- the very kind of business that should lead in creating new jobs and help us emerge from this recession -- will be taxed at over 50 percent.”
Only two years ago, Congressional Democrats made a pretty compelling argument that a Millionaire's Tax would be a lousy idea and the proposal was pulled from Obamacare. Two years later many Democrats still think that the tax is wrong. Heck that's why Harry Reid did not allow Obama's plan to be voted on yesterday, it didn't have the votes.
Despite his party's objections in 2009 and today, the President continues to place the blame at the feet of conservative Republicans, proving that the only reason for his Class Warfare charge is to demonize his political opposition and divide the country to help him in his fight for re-election.
The full 2009 letter to Pelosi is here.
The Miracle of iCapitalism
Michelle Malkin
October 7, 2011 12:00 A.M.
The Miracle of iCapitalism
The pursuit of profits empowers people beyond the bounds of imagination.
Here is your high-resolution teachable moment of the week: anti-capitalist, anti-corporate extremists of “Occupy Wall Street” mourning Apple Inc. founder Steve Jobs without a trace of irony.
While the Kamp Alinsky Kids ditch school to moan about their massive student debt, parade around in zombie costumes, and whine about evil corporations over poached Wi-Fi connections, it’s the doers and producers and wealth creators like Jobs who change the world. They are the gifted 1 percent whom the “99 percenters” mob seeks to demonize, marginalize, and tax out of existence.
Inherent in the American success story of the iMac/iPhone/iPad is a powerful lesson about the fundamentals of capitalism. The “occupiers” chant “people over profit.” They call for “caring” over “corporations.”
But the pursuit of profits empowers people beyond the bounds of imagination.
I blog on an iMac. When I travel, I bring my MacBook Pro. I Tweet news links from my iPhone. My kids are learning Photoshop and GarageBand on our Macs; they use metronome, dictation, video, and camera apps daily. I use the technology for business, pleasure, social networking, raising awareness of the missing, finding recipes, and even tuning a ukulele.
None of the countless people involved in conceiving these products and bringing them to market “care” about me. They pursued their own self-interests. Through the spontaneous order of capitalism, they enriched themselves — and the world.
One of my favorite economics essays from which I’ve drawn bottomless inspiration is Leonard Read’s “I, Pencil.” He turned a mundane writing instrument into an elementary study of free-market capitalism. What goes for the pencil goes for any of the products Jobs introduced.
“I have a profound lesson to teach,” Read wrote in the voice of a metaphorical lead pencil. “I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because — well, because I am seemingly so simple. Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me.”
Read traces the family tree of the pencil from the Oregon loggers who harvest its cedar wood, to the California millworkers who cut the wood into thin slats, to Mississippi refinery workers, to the Dutch East Indies farmers who produce an oil used to make erasers. All of these people, and many more at the periphery of the process, have special knowledge about their life’s work in their separate corners of the earth. But none by himself has the singular knowledge or ability to give birth to a pencil. Few will ever come in contact with the others who make the production of that pencil possible.
It’s not because they “care about each other” that they cooperate to deliver any one good. It’s the result of self-interest, multiplied millions of times over.
Read illuminates: “There is a fact still more astounding: The absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work.” This spontaneous “configuration of human energies” is repeated endlessly in our daily lives. Think of the countless and diverse people involved in producing a Slinky, jump rope, or baseball, a diaper, refrigerator, or Boeing 747.
And, of course, an iMac, iPhone, or iPad.
Appreciating this voluntary configuration of human energies, Read argued, is key to possessing “an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith.” Indeed. Without that faith, we are susceptible to the force of class-warfare mobs and the arrogance of command-and-control bureaucrats in Washington who believe the role of private American entrepreneurs, producers, and wealth generators is to “grow the economy” and who “think at some point you have made enough money.”
The progressives who want to bring down “Wall Street” will snipe that Jobs was one of “theirs,” not “ours.”
He belonged to no one. He was transcendently committed to excellence and beauty and innovation. And yes, he made gobs of money pursuing it all while benefiting hundreds of millions of people around the world whom he never met, but who shed a deep river of tears upon learning of his death this week.
From “I, Pencil” to iPhone, such is the profound, everlasting miracle of iCapitalism — a triumph of individualism over collectivism, freedom over force, and markets over master planning. To borrow an old Apple slogan: It just works.
October 7, 2011 12:00 A.M.
The Miracle of iCapitalism
The pursuit of profits empowers people beyond the bounds of imagination.
Here is your high-resolution teachable moment of the week: anti-capitalist, anti-corporate extremists of “Occupy Wall Street” mourning Apple Inc. founder Steve Jobs without a trace of irony.
While the Kamp Alinsky Kids ditch school to moan about their massive student debt, parade around in zombie costumes, and whine about evil corporations over poached Wi-Fi connections, it’s the doers and producers and wealth creators like Jobs who change the world. They are the gifted 1 percent whom the “99 percenters” mob seeks to demonize, marginalize, and tax out of existence.
Inherent in the American success story of the iMac/iPhone/iPad is a powerful lesson about the fundamentals of capitalism. The “occupiers” chant “people over profit.” They call for “caring” over “corporations.”
But the pursuit of profits empowers people beyond the bounds of imagination.
I blog on an iMac. When I travel, I bring my MacBook Pro. I Tweet news links from my iPhone. My kids are learning Photoshop and GarageBand on our Macs; they use metronome, dictation, video, and camera apps daily. I use the technology for business, pleasure, social networking, raising awareness of the missing, finding recipes, and even tuning a ukulele.
None of the countless people involved in conceiving these products and bringing them to market “care” about me. They pursued their own self-interests. Through the spontaneous order of capitalism, they enriched themselves — and the world.
One of my favorite economics essays from which I’ve drawn bottomless inspiration is Leonard Read’s “I, Pencil.” He turned a mundane writing instrument into an elementary study of free-market capitalism. What goes for the pencil goes for any of the products Jobs introduced.
“I have a profound lesson to teach,” Read wrote in the voice of a metaphorical lead pencil. “I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because — well, because I am seemingly so simple. Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me.”
Read traces the family tree of the pencil from the Oregon loggers who harvest its cedar wood, to the California millworkers who cut the wood into thin slats, to Mississippi refinery workers, to the Dutch East Indies farmers who produce an oil used to make erasers. All of these people, and many more at the periphery of the process, have special knowledge about their life’s work in their separate corners of the earth. But none by himself has the singular knowledge or ability to give birth to a pencil. Few will ever come in contact with the others who make the production of that pencil possible.
It’s not because they “care about each other” that they cooperate to deliver any one good. It’s the result of self-interest, multiplied millions of times over.
Read illuminates: “There is a fact still more astounding: The absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work.” This spontaneous “configuration of human energies” is repeated endlessly in our daily lives. Think of the countless and diverse people involved in producing a Slinky, jump rope, or baseball, a diaper, refrigerator, or Boeing 747.
And, of course, an iMac, iPhone, or iPad.
Appreciating this voluntary configuration of human energies, Read argued, is key to possessing “an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith.” Indeed. Without that faith, we are susceptible to the force of class-warfare mobs and the arrogance of command-and-control bureaucrats in Washington who believe the role of private American entrepreneurs, producers, and wealth generators is to “grow the economy” and who “think at some point you have made enough money.”
The progressives who want to bring down “Wall Street” will snipe that Jobs was one of “theirs,” not “ours.”
He belonged to no one. He was transcendently committed to excellence and beauty and innovation. And yes, he made gobs of money pursuing it all while benefiting hundreds of millions of people around the world whom he never met, but who shed a deep river of tears upon learning of his death this week.
From “I, Pencil” to iPhone, such is the profound, everlasting miracle of iCapitalism — a triumph of individualism over collectivism, freedom over force, and markets over master planning. To borrow an old Apple slogan: It just works.
Steve Jobs and the Beautification of Capitalism
3:35 PM, Oct 6, 2011 • By ADAM J. WHITE
The passing of Steve Jobs has sparked an immense amount of reflection and appreciation—just as his retirement did months ago, and the publication of Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs will do later this month. But for all the talk of Steve Jobs and the world that he created, attention must be paid to the world that created him: Silicon Valley.
Born in San Francisco, Jobs came of age in Silicon Valley, where he and Apple's co-founder, Steve Wozniak, were members of the Homebrew Computer Club, a band of scruffy techies who experimented with computers in the industry's prehistoric era, the 1970s. As "Woz" reflected in 1984, "without computer clubs, there probably would have been no Apple computers. Our club in the Silicon Valley, the Homebrew Computer Club, was among the first of its kind." Homebrew was an incubator, where, as Woz put it:
The theme of the club was "Give to help others." Each session began with a "mapping period," when people would get up one by one and speak about some item of interest, a rumor, and have a discussion. Somebody would say, "I've got a new part," or somebody else would say he had some new data or ask if anybody had a certain kind of teletype.
Apple emerged from these origins, but it never left them. Apple relied upon the Valley's tech community—the people, the money, the intellectual capital—as it grew. Its engineers and designers interacted, as in any small town, with those of its competitors. Hewlett-Packard, Apple, Cisco, Intel, Oracle, Google, Facebook, and others, they all were born (or, in the case of Facebook, raised) in the Valley—Cupertino, Santa Clara, Mountain View, or Palo Alto. At the time of Jobs's passing, one of his primary projects was (as James Gardner recently wrote in THE WEEKLY STANDARD) the creation of a new Apple headquarters in Cupertino—retrenching Apple's commitment to its hometown.
Of course, Silicon Valley did not have to happen. When Tom Perkins, the now-legendary "godfather" of venture capitalism, arrived from the East Coast to begin work at Hewlett-Packard, "Silicon Valley wasn't even called Silicon Valley." But from the Valley's "gritty and quite physical origins" (to borrow Roger Lowenstein's description) grew the community that changed the world.
Nor did Silicon Valley go unchanged in the process. In a remarkable essay published just days before Jobs's retirement, Jaron Lanier described the Valley's evolution from a land of hackers and hippies to, today, a destination for "perfect specimens [that] seem to have grown up in manicured childhoods, nothing scrappy about them."
It’s symbolic of the nation’s greatest advances (for better or worse), which tend to grow out of communities, from Wall Street's finance to Detroit's automobiles to Hollywood's cinema to Washington's big government. As with Silicon Valley's tech revolution, great achievement requires the concentration of practical expertise, intellectual capital, and finance all in one small place, concentrating the forces of collaboration and competition on a personal level. Steve Jobs and Google's Eric Schmidt could compete on the world stage, and then go meet for coffee.
This trend cuts in two directions: We rely on community to foster greatness, such as in Silicon Valley or Wall Street. But the success of those communities undermines the cohesiveness of so many others, as young people from across the country leave their own families and hometowns behind to pursue success in high tech or finance.
The passing of Steve Jobs has sparked an immense amount of reflection and appreciation—just as his retirement did months ago, and the publication of Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs will do later this month. But for all the talk of Steve Jobs and the world that he created, attention must be paid to the world that created him: Silicon Valley.
Born in San Francisco, Jobs came of age in Silicon Valley, where he and Apple's co-founder, Steve Wozniak, were members of the Homebrew Computer Club, a band of scruffy techies who experimented with computers in the industry's prehistoric era, the 1970s. As "Woz" reflected in 1984, "without computer clubs, there probably would have been no Apple computers. Our club in the Silicon Valley, the Homebrew Computer Club, was among the first of its kind." Homebrew was an incubator, where, as Woz put it:
The theme of the club was "Give to help others." Each session began with a "mapping period," when people would get up one by one and speak about some item of interest, a rumor, and have a discussion. Somebody would say, "I've got a new part," or somebody else would say he had some new data or ask if anybody had a certain kind of teletype.
Apple emerged from these origins, but it never left them. Apple relied upon the Valley's tech community—the people, the money, the intellectual capital—as it grew. Its engineers and designers interacted, as in any small town, with those of its competitors. Hewlett-Packard, Apple, Cisco, Intel, Oracle, Google, Facebook, and others, they all were born (or, in the case of Facebook, raised) in the Valley—Cupertino, Santa Clara, Mountain View, or Palo Alto. At the time of Jobs's passing, one of his primary projects was (as James Gardner recently wrote in THE WEEKLY STANDARD) the creation of a new Apple headquarters in Cupertino—retrenching Apple's commitment to its hometown.
Of course, Silicon Valley did not have to happen. When Tom Perkins, the now-legendary "godfather" of venture capitalism, arrived from the East Coast to begin work at Hewlett-Packard, "Silicon Valley wasn't even called Silicon Valley." But from the Valley's "gritty and quite physical origins" (to borrow Roger Lowenstein's description) grew the community that changed the world.
Nor did Silicon Valley go unchanged in the process. In a remarkable essay published just days before Jobs's retirement, Jaron Lanier described the Valley's evolution from a land of hackers and hippies to, today, a destination for "perfect specimens [that] seem to have grown up in manicured childhoods, nothing scrappy about them."
It’s symbolic of the nation’s greatest advances (for better or worse), which tend to grow out of communities, from Wall Street's finance to Detroit's automobiles to Hollywood's cinema to Washington's big government. As with Silicon Valley's tech revolution, great achievement requires the concentration of practical expertise, intellectual capital, and finance all in one small place, concentrating the forces of collaboration and competition on a personal level. Steve Jobs and Google's Eric Schmidt could compete on the world stage, and then go meet for coffee.
This trend cuts in two directions: We rely on community to foster greatness, such as in Silicon Valley or Wall Street. But the success of those communities undermines the cohesiveness of so many others, as young people from across the country leave their own families and hometowns behind to pursue success in high tech or finance.
Obama's Texas School Visit: Hi Kids, Let's Read a Story About Me
Written By : Warner Todd Huston
Can anyone be this arrogant? President Obama visited with some school children in Texas on Wednesday and read a nice little story book to the kiddies. Guess who the star of the book was? You guessed it, himself.
Obama was visiting an early education program Eastfield College in Mesquite, Texas and chose to read a book about presidential first dog Bo to a small group of three to five-year-old children. Naturally, the book features a double page spread drawing of the president himself.
Yep, once again it’s all about me, me, me with this president.
As Jim Hoft notes, this isn’t the only time Obama has read a book about himself to school children. Last December Obama read the children’s book published under his name titled, “Of Thee I Sing.”
What self-absorption. What arrogance. What narcissism. And how creepy.
Can anyone be this arrogant? President Obama visited with some school children in Texas on Wednesday and read a nice little story book to the kiddies. Guess who the star of the book was? You guessed it, himself.
Yep, once again it’s all about me, me, me with this president.
As Jim Hoft notes, this isn’t the only time Obama has read a book about himself to school children. Last December Obama read the children’s book published under his name titled, “Of Thee I Sing.”
What self-absorption. What arrogance. What narcissism. And how creepy.
UNPRECEDENTED! Harry Reid Invents New Senate Rule To Prevent Vote on Obama Jobs Bill
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Harry Reid invented a new Senate rule tonight, its called "Because I said so!"
Minority leader Mitch McConnell only wanted to do what the President asked, force a speedy vote on Obama's Jobs bill. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a member of the President's party would not allow it to happen and he created a new Senate rule to make it happen. Because he didn't have enough votes for its passage, Reid delayed Senate action on Obama's bill, Instead he scheduled debate and vote on a bill focusing on China's currency manipulation.
The President however, has been ostracizing the Republicans for not passing his class warfare jobs bill even though he cannot get it through the branch of Congress his own party controls. In answer to the President's demands for a vote, Minority McConnell made a "motion to suspend the rules," to allow a vote on the amendments to the China currency bill,one of which was the Jobs bill. These motions require a two-thirds vote so they are almost always defeated. But the vote would have established for the the Country what was really going on, Obama's charges about a GOP delay were nothing but a cynical political move made by a president who cares much more about his failing re-election effort than our failing economy.
Here's where it gets interesting, the Senate has always allowed motions to suspend to be offered (and voted down). In this case however, trying to protect his president, rather than provide transparency to voters Reid broke with precedent and ruled McConnell's motion out of order.
The Senate parliamentarian admitted the move was unprecedented, but of course the the Democratic chair, ruled in favor of Reid. McConnell appealed the ruling, but by a vote of 51 to 48 the majority Democratic party decided, rather than to allow the vote, which would indicate to the public that they too rejected Obama's bill, to hide from the voters what was actually going on behind the scenes and to allow the President to continue to unfairly single out the GOP.
In one stroke Harry Reid was able to rewrite Senate rules making it even harder than it already is for the minority party to force votes on any amendments, or even discuss them. This is the Senate, Constitutionally designed to be a deliberative body, but in one fell swoop Harry Reid said no, because he said so. Should Republicans retake the Senate next year, it's something that could come back to haunt Democrats in a major way.
Senator McConnell took the Senate floor to express his outrage about this unprecedented move:
The Majority Leader in effect has overruled the chair--with a simple majority vote--and established the precedent that even one single motion to suspend, even one, is dilatory. Changing the rules of the Senate...And if you look back at this bill, what we've had in effect is no amendments before cloture, no motions to suspend after cloture, no expression on the part of the minority at all...Now, the fundamental problem here is the majority never likes to take votes. That's the core problem.”
Not quite Senator McConnell, you are being too polite, the core problem is the Majority wants to legislate behind closed doors, just as they did with the original stimulus, just like they did with Obamacare. In their minds it is a great sin if the people who elected them got an honest accounting of what was really happening in the Senate.
Harry Reid invented a new Senate rule tonight, its called "Because I said so!"
Minority leader Mitch McConnell only wanted to do what the President asked, force a speedy vote on Obama's Jobs bill. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a member of the President's party would not allow it to happen and he created a new Senate rule to make it happen. Because he didn't have enough votes for its passage, Reid delayed Senate action on Obama's bill, Instead he scheduled debate and vote on a bill focusing on China's currency manipulation.
The President however, has been ostracizing the Republicans for not passing his class warfare jobs bill even though he cannot get it through the branch of Congress his own party controls. In answer to the President's demands for a vote, Minority McConnell made a "motion to suspend the rules," to allow a vote on the amendments to the China currency bill,one of which was the Jobs bill. These motions require a two-thirds vote so they are almost always defeated. But the vote would have established for the the Country what was really going on, Obama's charges about a GOP delay were nothing but a cynical political move made by a president who cares much more about his failing re-election effort than our failing economy.
Here's where it gets interesting, the Senate has always allowed motions to suspend to be offered (and voted down). In this case however, trying to protect his president, rather than provide transparency to voters Reid broke with precedent and ruled McConnell's motion out of order.
The Senate parliamentarian admitted the move was unprecedented, but of course the the Democratic chair, ruled in favor of Reid. McConnell appealed the ruling, but by a vote of 51 to 48 the majority Democratic party decided, rather than to allow the vote, which would indicate to the public that they too rejected Obama's bill, to hide from the voters what was actually going on behind the scenes and to allow the President to continue to unfairly single out the GOP.
In one stroke Harry Reid was able to rewrite Senate rules making it even harder than it already is for the minority party to force votes on any amendments, or even discuss them. This is the Senate, Constitutionally designed to be a deliberative body, but in one fell swoop Harry Reid said no, because he said so. Should Republicans retake the Senate next year, it's something that could come back to haunt Democrats in a major way.
Senator McConnell took the Senate floor to express his outrage about this unprecedented move:
The Majority Leader in effect has overruled the chair--with a simple majority vote--and established the precedent that even one single motion to suspend, even one, is dilatory. Changing the rules of the Senate...And if you look back at this bill, what we've had in effect is no amendments before cloture, no motions to suspend after cloture, no expression on the part of the minority at all...Now, the fundamental problem here is the majority never likes to take votes. That's the core problem.”
Not quite Senator McConnell, you are being too polite, the core problem is the Majority wants to legislate behind closed doors, just as they did with the original stimulus, just like they did with Obamacare. In their minds it is a great sin if the people who elected them got an honest accounting of what was really happening in the Senate.
#OccupyWhiteHouse2012 – The hashtag for the rest of us
Posted by William A. Jacobson Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 12:47pm
The silent majority.
The ones who pay the bills, and the taxes, and the tuitions, and the pensions, and the benefits, for the people who falsely claim to be the 99%.
The ones who did not graduate from the school of perpetual expectations and handouts.
The ones who falsely have been called terrorists and extremists and racists because they dared to object to trying the same socialist policies here that have failed everywhere they have been tried before.
The ones who showed up at the polls in 2010.
The ones who will show up at the polls in 2012:
#OccupyWhiteHouse2012
Via The Right Scoop:
The silent majority.
The ones who pay the bills, and the taxes, and the tuitions, and the pensions, and the benefits, for the people who falsely claim to be the 99%.
The ones who did not graduate from the school of perpetual expectations and handouts.
The ones who falsely have been called terrorists and extremists and racists because they dared to object to trying the same socialist policies here that have failed everywhere they have been tried before.
The ones who showed up at the polls in 2010.
The ones who will show up at the polls in 2012:
#OccupyWhiteHouse2012
Via The Right Scoop:
Reid Blocks Vote on Obama’s Jobs Plan
Brian Darling
October 6, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked a vote on President Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act tonight.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had pledged to offer an unchanged version of the President’s American Jobs Act as an amendment to the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Bill (S. 1619). Reid stopped a vote on the President’s so called jobs bill by filling the amendment tree. Last year I wrote about Reid’s obstructionism and argued that Reid’s strong arm tactics by constantly filling the amendment tree as a means to block out all amendments were against the spirit and letter of the Senate’s rules.
Reid will fill up all of the possible amendments to the bill with technical corrections as a means to prevent Senators from offering substantive amendments. This will block out amendments from the other 99 Senators. A Senator will then have to get the consent of Reid to offer an amendment. This is not a good faith application of the Senate’s rules
This tactic is when the Majority Leader uses the tradition of being recognized first to offer amendment after amendment to block out all other amendments. It is a way to get a bill passed unchanged and a means to stop Senators from offering amendments.
Reid had filled the tree then he filed cloture on the bill to end debate.
After Reid blocked consideration of the McConnell amendment, Senator McConnell filed something called a motion to suspend the rules.
Some Republicans have used the tactic of filing motions to suspend the rules in order to get a vote on amendments after debate is complete. Seven amendments were pending as motions to suspend the rules. Motions to suspend the rules can only be done after a filibuster and after the Senate invokes a motion to shut off debate.
Reid raised a point of order against motions to suspend the rules after cloture is invoked. He argued that the pending amendments, including the McConnell Amendment, amounted to a second filibuster and were dilatory. A dilatory action is a delaying action. There are existing precedents in the long history of the Senate where the Senate has disallowed stalling tactics what were deemed “dillatory.”
Here is what Reid said on the Senate floor:
Now since the Senate amended rule 22 in 1979, cloture has been a process to bring the Senate consideration to a close. The fundamental nature of cloture is to make consideration of the pending measure finite. The terms of rule 22 provide that the question is this: and I quote, “it is the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close.” Indeed, late this morning the Republican Leader stated, and I also quote what my friend, the Republican Leader, said. “if 60 senators are in favor bringing a matter to a conclusion, it will be brought it a conclusion.” That’s just what happened a few minutes ago.” So I repeat, that’s what the Republican Leader said. Now, notwithstanding the clear nature of the cloture rule to provide for finite consideration of a measure, a practice has begun in this Congress that has undermined the cloture rule. The practice has arisen with senators filing multiple motions to suspend the rules for the consideration of further amendments.
Reid concluded that he was going to move to obliterate the precedent.
Unless the Senate votes to change its precedents today, we will be faced with a potentially serious series of motions to suspend the rules and that is a result that a functioning democracy cannot tolerate.
Reid then called up motion to suspend the rules to consider an amendment by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and made a point of order that the amendment was dilatory. It seems illogical to call up and offer an amendment, then to argue that the amendment is dilatory.
Senator McConnell responded that Reid had agreed earlier to allow votes on these amendments, yet he backed away from the agreement.
So what is about to happen is that the Majority is trying to set a new precedent on how the Senate operates. For the record, my preference would have been to consider amendments on both sides under a regular process, which we could have done earlier this week. Instead, we have been locked out and in a few moments, the rules of the Senate will be effectively changed to lock out the Minority party even more.
Not only did Reid offer the motion to suspend for Senator Coburn, he had agreed earlier to allow a vote on the amendment. It does not follow that the Coburn, nor the McConnell motion to suspend the rules was a stalling tactic. The parliamentarian advised the Chair of the Senate that the amendments were not dilatory. Reid appealed the ruling of the chair and the Senate voted 48-51 to support the Chair.
Alex Bolton at The Hill reports:
The maneuver is arcane but momentous. If a simple majority of the Senate votes with Reid and strikes down the ruling, the chamber’s precedent will be changed through the unilateral action of one party. Republicans had considered using this maneuver, dubbed the “nuclear option,” in 2005 to change Senate rules to prohibit the filibuster of judicial nominees. Democrats decried the plan and the crisis was resolved by a bipartisan agreement forged by 14 rank-and-file senators known as the Gang of 14.
This effort by Democrats further restricts the rights of Republicans to offer amendments to bills. If Republicans take control of the Senate in the next Congress, then Democrats will have less opportunity to offer amendments to bills. This new precedent will restrict the rights of the minority and individual members of both parties.
October 6, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked a vote on President Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act tonight.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had pledged to offer an unchanged version of the President’s American Jobs Act as an amendment to the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Bill (S. 1619). Reid stopped a vote on the President’s so called jobs bill by filling the amendment tree. Last year I wrote about Reid’s obstructionism and argued that Reid’s strong arm tactics by constantly filling the amendment tree as a means to block out all amendments were against the spirit and letter of the Senate’s rules.
Reid will fill up all of the possible amendments to the bill with technical corrections as a means to prevent Senators from offering substantive amendments. This will block out amendments from the other 99 Senators. A Senator will then have to get the consent of Reid to offer an amendment. This is not a good faith application of the Senate’s rules
This tactic is when the Majority Leader uses the tradition of being recognized first to offer amendment after amendment to block out all other amendments. It is a way to get a bill passed unchanged and a means to stop Senators from offering amendments.
Reid had filled the tree then he filed cloture on the bill to end debate.
After Reid blocked consideration of the McConnell amendment, Senator McConnell filed something called a motion to suspend the rules.
Some Republicans have used the tactic of filing motions to suspend the rules in order to get a vote on amendments after debate is complete. Seven amendments were pending as motions to suspend the rules. Motions to suspend the rules can only be done after a filibuster and after the Senate invokes a motion to shut off debate.
Reid raised a point of order against motions to suspend the rules after cloture is invoked. He argued that the pending amendments, including the McConnell Amendment, amounted to a second filibuster and were dilatory. A dilatory action is a delaying action. There are existing precedents in the long history of the Senate where the Senate has disallowed stalling tactics what were deemed “dillatory.”
Here is what Reid said on the Senate floor:
Now since the Senate amended rule 22 in 1979, cloture has been a process to bring the Senate consideration to a close. The fundamental nature of cloture is to make consideration of the pending measure finite. The terms of rule 22 provide that the question is this: and I quote, “it is the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close.” Indeed, late this morning the Republican Leader stated, and I also quote what my friend, the Republican Leader, said. “if 60 senators are in favor bringing a matter to a conclusion, it will be brought it a conclusion.” That’s just what happened a few minutes ago.” So I repeat, that’s what the Republican Leader said. Now, notwithstanding the clear nature of the cloture rule to provide for finite consideration of a measure, a practice has begun in this Congress that has undermined the cloture rule. The practice has arisen with senators filing multiple motions to suspend the rules for the consideration of further amendments.
Reid concluded that he was going to move to obliterate the precedent.
Unless the Senate votes to change its precedents today, we will be faced with a potentially serious series of motions to suspend the rules and that is a result that a functioning democracy cannot tolerate.
Reid then called up motion to suspend the rules to consider an amendment by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and made a point of order that the amendment was dilatory. It seems illogical to call up and offer an amendment, then to argue that the amendment is dilatory.
Senator McConnell responded that Reid had agreed earlier to allow votes on these amendments, yet he backed away from the agreement.
So what is about to happen is that the Majority is trying to set a new precedent on how the Senate operates. For the record, my preference would have been to consider amendments on both sides under a regular process, which we could have done earlier this week. Instead, we have been locked out and in a few moments, the rules of the Senate will be effectively changed to lock out the Minority party even more.
Not only did Reid offer the motion to suspend for Senator Coburn, he had agreed earlier to allow a vote on the amendment. It does not follow that the Coburn, nor the McConnell motion to suspend the rules was a stalling tactic. The parliamentarian advised the Chair of the Senate that the amendments were not dilatory. Reid appealed the ruling of the chair and the Senate voted 48-51 to support the Chair.
Alex Bolton at The Hill reports:
The maneuver is arcane but momentous. If a simple majority of the Senate votes with Reid and strikes down the ruling, the chamber’s precedent will be changed through the unilateral action of one party. Republicans had considered using this maneuver, dubbed the “nuclear option,” in 2005 to change Senate rules to prohibit the filibuster of judicial nominees. Democrats decried the plan and the crisis was resolved by a bipartisan agreement forged by 14 rank-and-file senators known as the Gang of 14.
This effort by Democrats further restricts the rights of Republicans to offer amendments to bills. If Republicans take control of the Senate in the next Congress, then Democrats will have less opportunity to offer amendments to bills. This new precedent will restrict the rights of the minority and individual members of both parties.
9 US Sheriffs Announce Press Conference to Call for Holder’s Resignation (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, October 6, 2011, 10:56 PM
The sheriffs will also call for accessory to murder charges for any future victims of Fast and Furious guns.
ABC15 has more on tomorrow’s press conference:
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and nine other elected sheriffs will hold a press conference to discuss ATF’s “Operation Fast and Furious.” 11am, Arizona Peace Officers Memorial, Wesley Bolin Plaza, Phoenix.
The sheriffs will also call for accessory to murder charges for any future victims of Fast and Furious guns.
ABC15 has more on tomorrow’s press conference:
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and nine other elected sheriffs will hold a press conference to discuss ATF’s “Operation Fast and Furious.” 11am, Arizona Peace Officers Memorial, Wesley Bolin Plaza, Phoenix.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Affirmative Action Hoax
Lecture presented by Steve Farron at the fourth annual conference of the Property and Freedom Society held in May 2009 at the Hotel Karia Princess in Bodrum, Turkey. http://propertyandfreedom.org
U.S. Funds Targeted for Small Business Instead Used by Banks to Repay TARP
Tale of Two Loan Programs
BY EMILY MALTBY AND ANGUS LOTEN
More than half of $4 billion in federal funds disbursed this year to spur small-business lending by community banks was used to repay bailout funds that the banks received under the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program.
The Small Business Lending Fund was meant to raise capital at smaller banks, which tend to lend more heavily to small businesses, in the hopes of jump-starting growth and employment. But instead of directly lending to small businesses, many of the banks used the money to rid themselves of higher-cost TARP debt and tougher restrictions.
"It was basically a bailout for 100-plus banks," said ...
PAYWALL HERE
BY EMILY MALTBY AND ANGUS LOTEN
More than half of $4 billion in federal funds disbursed this year to spur small-business lending by community banks was used to repay bailout funds that the banks received under the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program.
The Small Business Lending Fund was meant to raise capital at smaller banks, which tend to lend more heavily to small businesses, in the hopes of jump-starting growth and employment. But instead of directly lending to small businesses, many of the banks used the money to rid themselves of higher-cost TARP debt and tougher restrictions.
"It was basically a bailout for 100-plus banks," said ...
PAYWALL HERE
Shareef Allman on YouTube with Jesse Jackson
Subject of massive manhunt
By Lori Preuitt
Wednesday, Oct 5, 2011
Updated 7:40 PM PD
The subject of a massive manhunt in the South Bay is a volunteer producer for the San Jose cable access station CreaTV.
Shareef Allman is accused of a mass workplace shooting at a South Bay rock quarry that left three people dead.
Word of that shooting sent shockwaves to the people who knew Allman as a community activist and doting father.
He was seen in YouTube videos interviewing Jesse Jackson as well as hosting a community access talk show. The Jackson clip was dated Septemeber 24, 2010, and lists Allman as executive producer and host.
Allman also authored a fiction book titled "Saving Grace" on the subject of domestic violence.
CreaTV issued the following statement following the shooting:
"Shareef Allman was one of 130 Community producers at CreaTV. He is not an employee. Our hearts go out to the families who were affected by this. This is not the Shareef we knew, at all."
Suzanne St. John-Crane
Executive Director, CreaTV San Jose
Police said Allman walked into a meeting at his workplace in Cupertino at 4:15 a.m. Wednesday morning and opened fire. The meeting included about 15 people according to Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith. She said in all ten people were shot with three of the nine dead. Authorities said three hours later Allman shot a woman after failing to steal her car in an HP parking lot, then fled into a neighborhood in nearby Sunnyvale.
Allman's neighbors in San Jose told reporters they were shocked to hear that he was the man they heard about on the news was Allman. One man told the Mercury News that he had spoken to Allman a couple days ago about growing up in the hood and finding a way to turn their life around. "It makes no sense," Albert Salazar said. "He must have snapped. I couldn't believe it when I heard it was him this morning."
A YouTube clip of Allman interviewing Jesse Jackson was taken down by CreaTV, but NBC Bay Area obtained a portion of the clip before it was taken down.
Allman also hosted a show called Reel 2 Reel at CreaTV. Qwen Mejia co-hosted that show with him on occasion called Qwen's Couch. She told NBC Bay Area's Kris Sanchez she has known Allman for years and was devastated to hear that he was the gunman police were looking for.
She said she never saw any sign of a temper. She said Allman lived for his daughter and can't imagine what could have pushed him to the point of snapping. She also pleaded with him to turn himself in.
Below is a clip of Reel 2 Reel. In it he talks about himself and how his struggles in his childhood impacted him as an adult.
By Lori Preuitt
Wednesday, Oct 5, 2011
Updated 7:40 PM PD
View more videos at: http://nbcbayarea.com.
The subject of a massive manhunt in the South Bay is a volunteer producer for the San Jose cable access station CreaTV.
Shareef Allman is accused of a mass workplace shooting at a South Bay rock quarry that left three people dead.
Word of that shooting sent shockwaves to the people who knew Allman as a community activist and doting father.
He was seen in YouTube videos interviewing Jesse Jackson as well as hosting a community access talk show. The Jackson clip was dated Septemeber 24, 2010, and lists Allman as executive producer and host.
Allman also authored a fiction book titled "Saving Grace" on the subject of domestic violence.
CreaTV issued the following statement following the shooting:
"Shareef Allman was one of 130 Community producers at CreaTV. He is not an employee. Our hearts go out to the families who were affected by this. This is not the Shareef we knew, at all."
Suzanne St. John-Crane
Executive Director, CreaTV San Jose
Police said Allman walked into a meeting at his workplace in Cupertino at 4:15 a.m. Wednesday morning and opened fire. The meeting included about 15 people according to Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith. She said in all ten people were shot with three of the nine dead. Authorities said three hours later Allman shot a woman after failing to steal her car in an HP parking lot, then fled into a neighborhood in nearby Sunnyvale.
Allman's neighbors in San Jose told reporters they were shocked to hear that he was the man they heard about on the news was Allman. One man told the Mercury News that he had spoken to Allman a couple days ago about growing up in the hood and finding a way to turn their life around. "It makes no sense," Albert Salazar said. "He must have snapped. I couldn't believe it when I heard it was him this morning."
A YouTube clip of Allman interviewing Jesse Jackson was taken down by CreaTV, but NBC Bay Area obtained a portion of the clip before it was taken down.
Allman also hosted a show called Reel 2 Reel at CreaTV. Qwen Mejia co-hosted that show with him on occasion called Qwen's Couch. She told NBC Bay Area's Kris Sanchez she has known Allman for years and was devastated to hear that he was the gunman police were looking for.
She said she never saw any sign of a temper. She said Allman lived for his daughter and can't imagine what could have pushed him to the point of snapping. She also pleaded with him to turn himself in.
Below is a clip of Reel 2 Reel. In it he talks about himself and how his struggles in his childhood impacted him as an adult.