WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has proposed a $3.8 trillion budget for fiscal 2013 that aims to slash the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years but still envisions growth in the government's major health benefit programs. The agency-by-agency breakdown:
___
Agency: Agriculture
Spending: $154.7 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 4.8 percent increase
Discretionary Spending: $23 billion
Highlights: Obama's budget envisions savings of $32 billion over 10 years by cutting some farm subsidies, such as eliminating direct payments, which are made regardless of price and crop yield. Other subsidies are paid only when prices dip or a farmer's revenue drops.
Obama and his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, have proposed similar cuts in every annual budget for the last several years to no avail as Congress has blocked their attempts. But the mood has shifted on Capitol Hill, where even farm-state lawmakers say that direct payments should be cut.
Lawmakers are supposed to consider a new five-year farm bill in 2012, though its fate is uncertain in an election year. In early negotiations last fall, farm-state members agreed to cut $23 billion over 10 years and eliminate direct payments. Obama's proposal would go even further, achieving savings through reducing subsidies to crop insurance companies and consolidating some programs aimed at protecting environmentally sensitive land.
Other cuts would come through consolidation of department offices across the country that was announced earlier this year. The department would close about 260 offices and offer early retirement and targeted buyouts of employees in more than 15 agencies and offices, reducing the USDA workforce by about 900 jobs. The department has said the consolidations and other efforts to cut administrative costs would save about $150 million a year.
The budget would increase dollars for agricultural research grants and direct loans for projects in low-income rural areas, including schools, hospitals, day care facilities, fire stations and police stations.
The administration would maintain eligibility requirements for food stamps, which cost the government an estimated $75 billion last year and are the bulk of the department's total budget. Obama's budget also proposes to continue food-stamp benefits for some adults without dependents that were scheduled to expire.
___
Agency: Commerce
Spending: $9.2 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 15.6 percent increase
Discretionary Spending: $8 billion
Highlights: Obama's proposed budget would provide $708 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology laboratories with the goal of making U.S. manufacturers more competitive. The president also is calling for spending $517 million on the International Trade Administration to promote U.S. exports in key markets abroad and to improve trade enforcement.
Obama's budget blueprint calls for more than $5 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an increase of about $160 million.
The administration would increase funds for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to accelerate patent processing and improve patent quality.
Obama also wants $10 billion to help build an interoperable public safety broadband network. Those costs would be offset by auctioning spectrum used to expand wireless broadband access and services.
___
Agency: Defense
Spending: $677.7 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 4 percent decrease
Discretionary Spending: $614 billion
Highlights: The cuts come as the Pentagon seeks to save about $260 billion over the next five years. Among the major cuts is a significant reduction in the size of the military over five years to save $50 billion, including slicing about 80,000 from the Army's peak size of 570,000. The budget will takes steps toward cutting eight Army combat brigades, six Marine Corps battalions and 11 fighter squadrons, and will start to pull two Army brigades out of Europe.
Ending the war in Iraq and scaling back the fight in Afghanistan will save about $26 billion by trimming operations and equipment, and cutting the costs of training and equipping the Afghan security forces by nearly half. The overall budget includes $88.5 billion for the wars. The budget assumes that the military will maintain 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through Sept. 30, 2013, but officials said that the total can be changed.
There will be limited reductions in major weapons systems over the next year as the Pentagon phases in plans to reduce the number of Navy ships and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters it will buy, and eliminates one version of the Global Hawk surveillance drone. Over the next year, the Pentagon plans to buy 29 F-35s, two less than this year, for a savings of about $75 million.
While there will be a pay raise of 1.7 percent for military personnel, the Pentagon will also begin to phase in increases in health care costs for military retirees. The increases will also be based on income, so that those who make more money will pay a bit more.
The department is expected to maintain or even increase spending in three key areas: cybersecurity, special operations forces and unmanned aircraft.
___
Agency: Education
Spending: $55.7 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 52 percent decrease
Discretionary Spending: $69.8 billion
Highlights: Obama seeks to shape education policy in America by using both financial carrots and sticks to get states, higher education institutions and school districts to adopt reforms he favors.
His budget seeks $850 million for his administration's high-profile "Race to the Top" competition, which has already awarded more than $5 billion in grants. States competing have had to promise changes such as adopting meaningful teacher and principal evaluations systems. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said the competition is being revised so that it won't just be states competing with each other, but districts competing as well.
Seeking to reign in the rising costs of college, Obama is proposing similar competitions among colleges and universities that come up with plans that curtail spending. But he's also targeting the growing tuition costs by threatening to take away some financial aid to universities that continue to raise prices. At a recent speech at the University of Michigan, Obama said that higher education has become an imperative for success in America, but the cost has grown unrealistic for too many families and the debt burden unbearable.
Speaking at a community college on Monday in Annandale, Va., Obama offered an $8 billion proposal to encourage colleges and businesses to work together to train 2 million workers in high-growth industries. It would institute "pay for performance" in job training, meaning there would be financial incentives to ensure that trainees find permanent jobs — particularly for programs that place individuals facing the greatest hurdles getting work.
His college affordability efforts including proposing to set the maximum Pell grant award at $5,635, which is slightly higher than the current school year; making a tax credit for college costs permanent; and suspending a student loan interest rate set to double this summer.
In K-12 education, the president is seeking $260 million for science, technology, engineering and math programs and $534 million in "school turnaround grants" to help states and districts fix troubled schools.
The Education Department said the decrease primarily reflects that one-time federal stimulus dollars that were again requested in 2012 are not continued in 2013. A recalculation in the government's student loan assets also contributes to the drop although discretionary spending would increase.
Obama's approach has drawn criticism. Conservatives have accused him of executive overreach, and presidents of public universities have said his plan to link the awarding of financial aid to a school's tuition costs could unfairly hurt students in states where severe budget cuts have led to the tuition increases.
___
Agency: Energy
Spending: $32.3 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 41 percent increase
Discretionary Spending: $27.2 billion
Highlights: Obama would increase spending for two priorities: clean energy and national security. The budget calls for an additional $580 million to advance clean-energy technologies such as industrial and building energy efficiency, next generation biofuels and renewable electricity generation from solar, wind, and geothermal resources. That amounts to a 13 percent increase over current levels.
The budget would provide $310 million for the SunShot Initiative to make solar energy cost-competitive without subsidies by the end of the decade; $95 million to develop wind energy research; and $65 million for geothermal energy.
The blueprint calls for a total of $1.2 billion for energy efficiency, including initiatives to improve clean-vehicle technologies and advanced manufacturing materials. Some $770 million would go to the Office of Nuclear Energy, which includes $65 million for advanced small modular reactors and $60 million for nuclear waste research that lines up with recommendations made by a president's commission.
The budget also includes $350 million — a 37 percent increase over 2012 — for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a program that seeks to fund transformative energy research.
Obama would repeal more than $4 billion per year in tax subsidies to oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers. The budget proposal says the plan "eliminates inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to address the threat of climate change."
The budget would cut about $92 million from a program to develop so-called "clean coal."
The proposal includes $38 million to administer a stimulus-law program that provides loans and loan guarantees for renewable energy companies such as now-bankrupt Solyndra Inc. The law expired last year, and no new money was requested for additional loans.
The proposal puts on hold a planned $6 billion plutonium research laboratory in New Mexico. Critics say the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory is unnecessary.
The budget includes $5.6 billion to continue cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites across the country.
___
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Spending: $8.1 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 2.1 percent decrease
Discretionary Spending: $8.3 billion
Highlights: Perhaps anticipating resistance from congressional Republicans, who are looking to target the Environmental Protection Agency's budget, Obama has proposed a $175 million cut to the nation's environmental protector. It's the third consecutive year that the Democratic president has called for trimming the agency's spending.
To achieve those savings, the EPA's proposed budget reduces cleanup money for the nation's most hazardous waste sites, leaving enough to deal with emergency releases. It also would eliminate what it calls redundant grant programs to states and tribes to help reduce indoor radon exposure and monitor beaches to ensure they're safe enough for swimming.
To help states meet a host of new air pollution regulations finalized and in the works at EPA, the budget includes a $66 million increase for air quality programs. But it cuts money to states to improve infrastructure and treatment plants for drinking water.
Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, a top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told reporters last week that the GOP would be taking a hard look at the agency's assistance to states. But many of them are struggling financially and have made their own cuts to environmental programs, reducing monitoring, inspections and enforcement in communities and neighborhoods.
The budget includes $5 million for the EPA to increase the number and frequency of inspections at high-risk oil and chemical facilities.
Obama reiterated his commitment to reduce the gases blamed for global warming, and says the agency will continue to pursue ways to control greenhouse gas-pollution from power plants, factories and refineries, despite opposition from Republicans and some industry groups.
___
Agency: Health and Human Services
Spending: $921.6 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 3.7 percent increase
Discretionary Spending: $72 billion
Highlights: The budget reflects the growing costs of providing health care to the poor, disabled and elderly as mandatory spending for Medicare and Medicaid grows by about 9 percent in Obama's proposed blueprint. Some of the increase is a result of rising health costs, but another significant driver is the steady increase in people enrolling in government health programs. The number of elderly and disabled enrolled in Medicare will increase by 1.8 million in the coming fiscal year as more baby boomers retire.
The administration seeks to slow future growth in the two programs by about $360 billion over the next decade. It would do so by lowering payments to some health care providers and by requiring wealthier Medicare beneficiaries to pay higher monthly premiums, among other steps.
The budget for the National Institutes of Health would remain at about $31 billion to research diseases and therapies. A new $90 million HHS fund would boost research and public health services for Alzheimer's disease.
The budget also includes fewer dollars for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration as well as the Administration on Children and Families, which oversees social welfare programs.
The administration is also proposing giving the Federal Trade Commission authority to prohibit agreements that allow brand-name drug manufacturers to pay a generic drug manufacturer to delay entering the market.
Beginning in 2017, Obama would require Medicare beneficiaries to pay a surcharge if they purchase private insurance that supplements their Medicare coverage. Studies indicate that those who buy these Medigap policies tend to seek more health services. The administration is also proposing to charge new home health patients a $100 co-payment per visit, starting in 2017.
The administration also seeks cuts to a program that provides fuel assistance to the poor, and it will reduce the amount of money made available to state and local governments for economic development in low-income communities.
___
Agency: Homeland Security
Spending: $45.1 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 5.4 percent decrease
Discretionary Spending: $45 billion
Highlights: Obama's proposed budget would consolidate the department's US-Visit program within its two major branches — Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It would reduce funds by about $27 million. The program is used to collect biometric data from international travelers heading to the United States. Concerns remain about the security of air travel and the government's ability to identify would-be terrorists before they are able to board a flight bound for the U. S.
Funds and staffing at the northern and southern borders and the ports of entries would remain the same.
The budget request for ICE would continue to provide some funds for local authorities to participate in a program that allows officers to enforce immigration laws if they have the proper training. The request also includes a provision that would cut off funds if an agency is deemed to violate the rules of the program, known as 287 (g) for the section of law that governs it. Last year, DHS ended the program at the Maricopa County sheriff's office in Arizona after a Justice Department investigation concluded there was a pattern of racial profiling against Latinos at the department.
The budget also includes requests for funds to replace aging equipment at ICE, CBP, and continue funding for upgrades for the Coast Guard.
___
Agency: Housing and Urban Development
Spending: $44 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 21.3 percent decrease
Discretionary Spending: $35.3 billion
Highlights: Obama's proposed budget would provide $2.3 billion for the administration's goal to end chronic homelessness. HUD's programs serve primarily the poor, elderly and disabled.
The blueprint also seeks $34.8 billion to preserve rental housing assistance to 4.7 million low-income families and $154 million to expand affordable housing to seniors and persons with disabilities. Obama is also asking for $650 million for housing for Native American tribes.
Obama's proposal would keep funding for the Community Development Block Grant program at 2012 levels. States and cities use the money to build streets and sidewalks, provide water and build sewers and make other infrastructure improvements in low-income neighborhoods. Local officials struggling to balance budgets support the program.
___
Agency: Interior
Spending: $11.4 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 2.1 percent decrease
Discretionary Spending: $11.4 billion
Highlights: Obama makes good on his dual promises to boost oil and gas production on public lands and back newer, cleaner forms of energy on public property. However, his budget would slashes nearly $50 million for ongoing and new construction of dams, canals and other water projects that supply power and drinking water in the West.
The proposal includes a $28 million increase for the two agencies formed after the Gulf oil spill disaster to continue reforms and to boost oversight of offshore oil and gas drilling. The additional money would pay for new oil and gas inspectors, real-time monitoring of drilling operations, and help expedite the review of oil and gas drilling permits — a process that Republicans and the industry have criticized as being too slow following a temporary moratorium on new exploratory drilling.
The budget again floats new fees for the oil and gas industry to pay for the processing of permits and to expedite drilling on leased parcels where no production is occurring. But those ideas have made little headway in Congress.
In a move that is sure to irk coal-state lawmakers and the industry, Obama again calls for changing how the fees collected from industry to clean up abandoned coal mines are distributed. Instead of the money being dispersed to states based on how much coal they produce, the Interior budget suggests that it should be given to states through a competitive process that focuses on the most hazardous mines. States with no abandoned mines to clean up would not receive payments.
The budget also calls for charging companies mining for silver, gold and copper an abandoned mine cleanup fee and royalties.
On the conservation side, the budget sets aside $450 million for a grant program aimed at preserving public lands and improving outdoor recreation.
___
Agency: Justice
Spending: $30 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 15.3 percent decrease
Discretionary Spending: $17.9 billion
Highlights: Obama wants to spend more than $700 million to investigate and prosecute financial crimes that take place from Wall Street to Main Street, an increase of $55 million over the current budget. The extra money would pay for additional FBI agents, prosecutors, civil attorneys and accountants. The types of misconduct the law enforcement money would target include securities and commodities fraud, investment scams like the infamous Ponzi scheme of Bernard Madoff, mortgage foreclosure schemes and fraud against economic recovery programs.
The administration is proposing to spend nearly $40 million to combat intellectual property theft, an increase of $5 million from the current budget. Criminals using the Internet have cashed in on the explosion in online commerce by trafficking in counterfeit goods and copyrighted products. The Obama administration has worked with law enforcement officials from more than 30 countries to round up criminals running the illicit networks.
The department also is proposing $12.444 billion for its four key law enforcement components, $38 million less than the current spending level. The four agencies are the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the U.S. Marshals Service. Since 2001, the year of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Justice Department's law enforcement components have grown by 106 percent. The administration says it is encouraged by the downward trend in violent crime rates and that the Justice Department has identified $138 million in savings that will be carried out by consolidating or eliminating some offices.
The Justice Department disclosed Monday that it is closing one of the long-time pet projects of former Rep. John Murtha — the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, Pa.
The intelligence collection center in Murtha's old district was financed with congressionally earmarked funds during the congressman's long and controversial chairmanship of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Justice Department officials said 57 of the 140 center staffers would be offered jobs with the Drug Enforcement Administration in the Washington area. The rest would be offered early retirement or assistance in finding other jobs within the department.
Murtha, who died two years ago, was known as one of the champions of earmarking funds for his district, often to favored defense contractors who bankrolled his political campaigns. The center was budgeted at $20 million in the current year and $34 million for last year.
___
Agency: Labor
Spending: $89 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 35.7 percent decrease
Discretionary Spending: $12 billion
Highlights: Most of the cuts at Labor would come from an expected decrease in spending on unemployment insurance programs as the overall unemployment rate declines and fewer people claim benefits.
But those projections also assume there will be no further spending on long-term unemployment benefits beyond Feb. 29. That's when a temporary extension of benefits that Congress enacted late last year will expire. House and Senate negotiators are working on a deal that would extend those benefits past the end of the month as part of broader discussions on extending the payroll tax cut. The deal is likely to reduce the maximum number of 99 weeks that unemployed people are allowed to seek benefits.
Like last year's plan, the budget would trim $450 million from Labor's share of a program that helps train older workers for jobs and community service programs. The program would be transferred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The agency also is expected to save about $245 million from a reduced work load in processing unemployment benefit claims.
The budget would increase spending on wage enforcement and workplace safety programs, including $10 million to crack down on companies that cheat workers out of minimum wage and overtime payments. It would also boost a program that identifies workers misclassified as independent contractors.
Another $15 million increase would go to programs that offer employment and training services to help the long-term unemployed return to the workforce.
The department is requesting an additional $17 million to help reduce the backlog of mine safety cases.
___
Agency: NASA
Spending: $17.7 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 0.3 percent decrease.
Discretionary Spending: $17.7 billion
Highlights: Obama's proposed space agency budget entails a large shift within NASA for how the same amount of money is essentially spent. The biggest loser is the planet Mars, along with exploring the rest of the planets in our solar system. The president proposed cutting $309 million for studying planets this year, with more cuts in future years. After an already mostly built Mars mission in 2013, future journeys to the red planet are eliminated, put on hold or restructured. While the study of planets would be sliced 21 percent, spending for the overall budget and long delayed James Webb Space Telescope would increase 21 percent. The telescope which may cost $8 billion is the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope and would peer further into the universe and back in time than ever.
The president wants to double the amount of money spent to help private firms develop their own spaceships that could eventually carry astronauts and others to the International Space Station as taxis. This would replace the now retired space shuttle program and the dependence on Russia for rides into orbit. The president wants to spend $829.7 million to help these companies, but Congress has regularly cut his commercial space proposals. The budget includes the last bit of spending on the retired space shuttles: $71 million.
Much of the spending continues a trend shifting from current space missions to developing the next generation of rockets and capsules for flights out of Earth's orbit to an asteroid or even to Mars. The president proposes an extra $345 million in spending on developing new rocketry and space technology. That overall proposal includes $1.8 billion for a congressionally mandated large rocket that could carry bigger loads further into space and $1 billion for the Orion crew capsule to take astronauts to new places. A first test flight of the spaceships — without astronauts — could be as early as 2017, with astronauts flying in them no earlier than 2021.
___
Agency: State
Spending: $69 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 13.8 percent increase
Discretionary Spending: $54.3 billion
Highlights: Obama's proposed budget for the State Department and U.S. foreign assistance calls for spending $11.8 billion for civilian operations and aid in Iraq ($4.8 billion), Afghanistan ($4.6 billion) and Pakistan ($2.4 billion). It retains major military aid programs to Israel, which will get $3.1 billion; Egypt, which is slated for $1.3 billion, and Jordan, which is to get $300 million.
The spending plan sets aside $770 million for the creation of a new Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund to promote democracy, good governance and free market economies in Arab nations roiled by revolt. It allocates $2.7 billion in economic assistance to support transitions in other parts of the developing world, including the world's newest nation, South Sudan, Liberia, Haiti and Myanmar.
The proposal maintains billions of dollars in spending on international health projects, including the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which will cost $5.4 billion and expects to have treated six million people, many in Africa, by the end of 2013.
On the savings side, the budget pares aid to eastern European and Eurasian countries by 18 percent, cuts back on a planned expansion of State Department personnel and reduces an ambitious overseas construction program that was to build new secure embassies.
___
Agency: Transportation
Spending: $74.3 billon
Percentage Change from 2012: 39.4 percent decrease
Discretionary Spending: $13.8 billion
Highlights: Obama's proposed transportation budget includes a six-year, $476 billion surface transportation bill to be paid for by user fees and some of the savings from reducing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a decrease from the bare bones, six-year, $556 billion surface transportation bill he proposed last year.
A key difference is that last year Obama's plan — which was largely ignored by Congress — didn't include proposals to pay transportation investments. Also, both last year's plan and this year's plan far exceed the spending called for under transportation bills in the House and Senate, where lawmakers have struggled to find money to pay for highway and transit projects. The House bill would spend $260 billion over 4 1/2 years; the Senate $109 billion over less than two years.
Like last year, Obama's proposal calls for significant funding for high-speed trains — $47 billion over six years. That's about $6 billion less than last year's proposal. But neither the House nor the Senate bills contain any money for high-speed rail. Nor is there any money in the current budget.
Obama's budget also repeats his call last year for a $50 billion "upfront" infusion for roads, bridges, transit systems, border crossing railways and runways in the current fiscal year to spur job creation — money Congress so far has been unwilling to provide. The fiscal 2012 transportation budget is $72.7 billion, or 2 percent less than Obama's request for fiscal 2013. However, when the $50 billion is added to the administration's request for 2012, the total is $122 billion, or 39.4 percent less than his request for 2013.
The idea of taking war "savings" to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been largely financed through borrowing, so stopping the wars doesn't create a pool of ready cash, just less debt.
___
Agency: Treasury
Spending: $519.5 billion.
Percentage change from 2012: 0.8 percent decrease.
Discretionary Spending: $13.2 billion.
Highlights: The bulk of Treasury's spending is for interest on the public debt, an ever increasing component of the federal budget.
The overall decrease in spending would be achieved through various initiatives to improve efficiency in the operations of various Treasury agencies, including consolidating the operations of the Bureau of the Public Debt, which handles the government's borrowing needs on its growing debt, and the Financial Management Service, the agency which pays the government's bills.
Treasury is also seeking to save money by halting the production of new $1 coins, which it projects will save the U.S. Mint $50 million annually, and by seeking legislation to allow the Treasury secretary to change the composition of coins to more cost-effective materials. Treasury estimates that it costs 2.4 cents to make a penny and 11.2 cents to make a nickel.
In all, the administration budget is seeking more than $75 million in savings in 2013 through cost cutting in the production of coins and paper currency.
___
Agency: Veterans Affairs
Spending: $137.4 billion
Percentage Change from 2012: 10.6 percent increase
Discretionary Spending: $61 billion
Highlights: Obama's budget reflects the growing number of veterans who will need health care through the VA. The budget projects that about 610,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will get health care through VA's hospitals and clinics this fiscal year. The budget seeks spending increases for virtually all health services provided, including a 5 percent increase for mental health services, which has become a top priority among congressional oversight committees, and a double-digit increase for health programs designed to assist female veterans.
The budget also proposes $1 billion over five years for a Veterans Jobs Corps, a new initiative that would put veterans to work rebuilding roads, trails and other infrastructure on public lands.
The budget seeks a 33 percent increase in spending to combat homelessness among veterans. The administration has set a goal of eliminating homelessness among veterans by 2015. The money would be used to hire coordinators who will help veterans with disability claims, housing problems and other needs. Additional money would be provided to nonprofits that help house veterans and their families.
Obama also is seeking more money to deal with the growing number of disability claims that the department is getting from veterans. Veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan are filing claims that include about 8.5 disabilities per veteran, a rate nearly double that for claims from veterans of previous wars.
Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The War on Capitalism: Amish Edition
Feds shut down Amish farm for selling fresh milk
Washington Times:
The FDA won its two-year fight to shut down an Amish farmer who was selling fresh raw milk to eager consumers in the Washington, D.C., region after a judge this month banned Daniel Allgyer from selling his milk across state lines and he told his customers he would shut down his farm altogether.
The decision has enraged Mr. Allgyer’s supporters, some of whom have been buying from him for six years and say the government is interfering with their parental rights to feed their children.
But the Food and Drug Administration, which launched a full investigation complete with a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and a straw-purchase sting operation against Mr. Allgyer’s Rainbow Acres Farm, said unpasteurized milk is unsafe and it was exercising its due authority to stop sales of the milk from one state to another.
Adding to Mr. Allgyer’s troubles, Judge Lawrence F. Stengel said that if the farmer is found to violate the law again, he will have to pay the FDA’s costs for investigating and prosecuting him.
His customers are wary of talking publicly, fearing the FDA will come after them.
“I can’t believe in 2012 the federal government is raiding Amish farmers at gunpoint all over a basic human right to eat natural food,” said one of them, who asked not to be named but received weekly shipments of eggs, milk, honey and butter from Rainbow Acres, a farm near Lancaster, Pa. “In Maryland, they force taxpayers to pay for abortions, but God forbid we want the same milk our grandparents drank.”
The FDA, though, said the judge made the right call in halting Mr. Allgyer’s cross-border sales.
“Intrastate sale of raw milk is allowed in Pennsylvania, and Mr. Allgyer had previously received a warning letter advising him that interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption is illegal,” agency spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey said.
Neither the FDA nor the Justice Department, which pursued the legal case, provided numbers to The Washington Times on the cost of the investigation and court fight.
Fans of fresh milk, which they also call raw milk, attribute all kinds of health benefits to it, including better teeth and stronger immune systems. Raw milk is particularly popular among parents who want it for their children.
In a unique twist, the movement unites people on the left and the right who argue that the federal government has no business controlling what people choose to consume.
In a rally last year, they drank fresh milk in a park across Constitution Avenue from the Senate.
But the FDA says it concluded, after extensive study along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that raw milk is never safer than pasteurized milk. It disputes those who say pasteurization — the process of heating food to kill harmful organisms — makes it less healthy.
Many food-safety researchers say pasteurization, which became widespread in the 1920s and 1930s, dramatically reduced instances of milk-transmitted diseases such as typhoid fever and diphtheria.
The FDA began looking into Mr. Allgyer’s operations in late 2009, when an investigator in the agency’s Baltimore office used aliases to sign up for a Yahoo user group made up of Rainbow Acres customers.
The investigator placed orders for fresh milk and had it delivered to private residences in Maryland, where it was picked up and documented as evidence in the case. By crossing state lines, the milk became part of interstate commerce and thus subject to the FDA’s ban.
At one point, FDA employees made a 5 a.m. visit to Mr. Allgyer’s farm. He turned them away, but not before they observed milk containers labeled for shipment to Maryland.
After the FDA first took action, Mr. Allgyer changed his business model. He arranged to sell shares in the cows to his customers, arguing that they owned the milk and he was only transferring it to them.
Judge Stengel called that deal “merely a subterfuge.”
“The practical result of the arrangement is that consumers pay money to Mr. Allgyer and receive raw milk,” the judge wrote in a 13-page opinion.
Grassfed On the Hill Buying Club has about 500 active members.
Liz Reitzig, a mother who has become a raw-milk activist and is an organizer of the group, said the lawyers who pursued the case against Mr. Allgyer ought to “be ashamed.”
“Many families are dependent on the milk for health reasons or nutritional needs, so a lot of people will be desperately trying to find another source now,” she said.
Washington Times:
The FDA won its two-year fight to shut down an Amish farmer who was selling fresh raw milk to eager consumers in the Washington, D.C., region after a judge this month banned Daniel Allgyer from selling his milk across state lines and he told his customers he would shut down his farm altogether.
The decision has enraged Mr. Allgyer’s supporters, some of whom have been buying from him for six years and say the government is interfering with their parental rights to feed their children.
But the Food and Drug Administration, which launched a full investigation complete with a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and a straw-purchase sting operation against Mr. Allgyer’s Rainbow Acres Farm, said unpasteurized milk is unsafe and it was exercising its due authority to stop sales of the milk from one state to another.
Adding to Mr. Allgyer’s troubles, Judge Lawrence F. Stengel said that if the farmer is found to violate the law again, he will have to pay the FDA’s costs for investigating and prosecuting him.
His customers are wary of talking publicly, fearing the FDA will come after them.
“I can’t believe in 2012 the federal government is raiding Amish farmers at gunpoint all over a basic human right to eat natural food,” said one of them, who asked not to be named but received weekly shipments of eggs, milk, honey and butter from Rainbow Acres, a farm near Lancaster, Pa. “In Maryland, they force taxpayers to pay for abortions, but God forbid we want the same milk our grandparents drank.”
The FDA, though, said the judge made the right call in halting Mr. Allgyer’s cross-border sales.
“Intrastate sale of raw milk is allowed in Pennsylvania, and Mr. Allgyer had previously received a warning letter advising him that interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption is illegal,” agency spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey said.
Neither the FDA nor the Justice Department, which pursued the legal case, provided numbers to The Washington Times on the cost of the investigation and court fight.
Fans of fresh milk, which they also call raw milk, attribute all kinds of health benefits to it, including better teeth and stronger immune systems. Raw milk is particularly popular among parents who want it for their children.
In a unique twist, the movement unites people on the left and the right who argue that the federal government has no business controlling what people choose to consume.
In a rally last year, they drank fresh milk in a park across Constitution Avenue from the Senate.
But the FDA says it concluded, after extensive study along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that raw milk is never safer than pasteurized milk. It disputes those who say pasteurization — the process of heating food to kill harmful organisms — makes it less healthy.
Many food-safety researchers say pasteurization, which became widespread in the 1920s and 1930s, dramatically reduced instances of milk-transmitted diseases such as typhoid fever and diphtheria.
The FDA began looking into Mr. Allgyer’s operations in late 2009, when an investigator in the agency’s Baltimore office used aliases to sign up for a Yahoo user group made up of Rainbow Acres customers.
The investigator placed orders for fresh milk and had it delivered to private residences in Maryland, where it was picked up and documented as evidence in the case. By crossing state lines, the milk became part of interstate commerce and thus subject to the FDA’s ban.
At one point, FDA employees made a 5 a.m. visit to Mr. Allgyer’s farm. He turned them away, but not before they observed milk containers labeled for shipment to Maryland.
After the FDA first took action, Mr. Allgyer changed his business model. He arranged to sell shares in the cows to his customers, arguing that they owned the milk and he was only transferring it to them.
Judge Stengel called that deal “merely a subterfuge.”
“The practical result of the arrangement is that consumers pay money to Mr. Allgyer and receive raw milk,” the judge wrote in a 13-page opinion.
Grassfed On the Hill Buying Club has about 500 active members.
Liz Reitzig, a mother who has become a raw-milk activist and is an organizer of the group, said the lawyers who pursued the case against Mr. Allgyer ought to “be ashamed.”
“Many families are dependent on the milk for health reasons or nutritional needs, so a lot of people will be desperately trying to find another source now,” she said.
Battle of the billionaires -- Super PACs offer chance for high rollers to sway 2012 race
FOX NEWS:
If the American presidential system were boiled down into a Las Vegas casino game, "Super PAC" betting would be placed exclusively in the high-stakes room.
The Super PAC system, a product of recent Supreme Court rulings, allows unlimited donations for political causes. And recent federal disclosure forms reveal the people behind them are the whales of the campaign trail -- putting up donations frequently in excess of a quarter-million dollars.
For the first time, voters are getting a glimpse at who's funding the previously opaque organizations boosting the presidential candidates' campaigns with outside spending.
Mitt Romney, not surprisingly, has a slew of investment titans -- including former colleagues at Bain Capital -- pumping money into the Super PAC supporting his campaign. Newt Gingrich enjoys high-powered support out of Vegas. Ron Paul is being indirectly funded by the co-founder of PayPal. Rick Santorum's Super PAC is backed mostly by two people. And President Obama's Super PAC is kept well-heeled by Hollywood and union support.
The nature of the donations is a world apart from the traditional campaign finance of presidential campaigns themselves -- for which individual donations are capped at $2,500.
In the world of Super PACs, $2,500 makes for a modest starting point. Donors routinely put up $100,000 and up in support of the campaign committee of their choice. And a relatively small number of high-dollar contributors are involved.
No Super PAC better exemplifies the unbound financial potential of the new system than Romney's group Restore Our Future.
According to end-of-year filings with Federal Election Commission, the pro-Romney committee has raised more than $30 million, from just 282 donors. The average donation tops $100,000, and the fund is backed by plenty of high-rollers.
At the top are donors like Robert Mercer, an executive at hedge fund firm Renaissance Technologies; John Paulson, president of hedge fund Paulson and Co.; Julian Robertson, founder of hedge fund Tiger Management; Paul Singer, founder of Elliott Management Corp.; and Edward Conard, a former Bain colleague. All put up $1 million apiece.
J.W. Marriott Jr., chairman of Marriott International, also contributed $500,000, as did Richard Marriott, chief of Marriott offshoot Host Hotels & Resorts.
By law, these campaign committees cannot coordinate with the presidential campaigns themselves or directly fund them. This catch explains why, when Romney and other candidates are challenged on Super PAC-funded ads, they note that their campaigns had nothing to do with the production.
But they are surely aware, and the Super PACs serve a blunt purpose.
According to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics, Restore Our Future has spent $17 million in opposition to Gingrich - in large part through advertising.
The other Super PACs don't have nearly as much money, but nevertheless serve as a potent tool for the candidates.
Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich group, has been backed by Texas businessman Harold Simmons. The group reported raising over $2 million at the end of the year, from just 18 people.
More recently, and subsequent to the 2011 filing period, Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson drew headlines for putting up $5 million for the Gingrich Super PAC. His wife reportedly followed suit with another $5 million.
In Paul's corner is the Endorse Liberty group, which reported about $1 million raised for 2011. The group is supported almost exclusively by Peter Thiel, a hedge fund manager who co-founded PayPal.
Santorum's Red White and Blue Fund has raised slightly less than Paul's Super PAC. That, too, is backed by a handful of supporters, including wealthy investor Foster Friess and John Templeton Jr., son of philanthropist John Templeton.
And the pro-Obama Priorities USA Super PAC has raised a total of $4.4 million as of the end of 2011. About half of that came in the form of a $2 million donation from DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg. Steven Spielberg also threw in $100,000.
Those five groups are just a slice of the national Super PAC pie, though they account for much of the money raised. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 318 groups have raised nearly $99 million as of early February. They've spent nearly $47 million in the 2012 cycle.
The campaign finance free-for-all has raised pressing questions all along about whether the new system is a boon for free speech -- speech, that is, in the form of monetary donations and ads -- or a barrier for candidates who might not have the behind-the-scenes support of such wealth.
Gingrich, despite the support of his Las Vegas benefactors, has complained that the glut of negative advertising by Romney's supporters has damaged his candidacy.
In Congress, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and others are pushing for a new bill that would, among other provisions, require TV ads to name top donors.
Yet Obama's campaign this past week seemed to embrace the new Super PAC reality. The campaign said Obama officials would speak at Priorities USA events.
Romney reportedly has sanctioned the same kind of interaction.
FoxNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.
If the American presidential system were boiled down into a Las Vegas casino game, "Super PAC" betting would be placed exclusively in the high-stakes room.
The Super PAC system, a product of recent Supreme Court rulings, allows unlimited donations for political causes. And recent federal disclosure forms reveal the people behind them are the whales of the campaign trail -- putting up donations frequently in excess of a quarter-million dollars.
For the first time, voters are getting a glimpse at who's funding the previously opaque organizations boosting the presidential candidates' campaigns with outside spending.
Mitt Romney, not surprisingly, has a slew of investment titans -- including former colleagues at Bain Capital -- pumping money into the Super PAC supporting his campaign. Newt Gingrich enjoys high-powered support out of Vegas. Ron Paul is being indirectly funded by the co-founder of PayPal. Rick Santorum's Super PAC is backed mostly by two people. And President Obama's Super PAC is kept well-heeled by Hollywood and union support.
The nature of the donations is a world apart from the traditional campaign finance of presidential campaigns themselves -- for which individual donations are capped at $2,500.
In the world of Super PACs, $2,500 makes for a modest starting point. Donors routinely put up $100,000 and up in support of the campaign committee of their choice. And a relatively small number of high-dollar contributors are involved.
No Super PAC better exemplifies the unbound financial potential of the new system than Romney's group Restore Our Future.
According to end-of-year filings with Federal Election Commission, the pro-Romney committee has raised more than $30 million, from just 282 donors. The average donation tops $100,000, and the fund is backed by plenty of high-rollers.
At the top are donors like Robert Mercer, an executive at hedge fund firm Renaissance Technologies; John Paulson, president of hedge fund Paulson and Co.; Julian Robertson, founder of hedge fund Tiger Management; Paul Singer, founder of Elliott Management Corp.; and Edward Conard, a former Bain colleague. All put up $1 million apiece.
J.W. Marriott Jr., chairman of Marriott International, also contributed $500,000, as did Richard Marriott, chief of Marriott offshoot Host Hotels & Resorts.
By law, these campaign committees cannot coordinate with the presidential campaigns themselves or directly fund them. This catch explains why, when Romney and other candidates are challenged on Super PAC-funded ads, they note that their campaigns had nothing to do with the production.
But they are surely aware, and the Super PACs serve a blunt purpose.
According to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics, Restore Our Future has spent $17 million in opposition to Gingrich - in large part through advertising.
The other Super PACs don't have nearly as much money, but nevertheless serve as a potent tool for the candidates.
Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich group, has been backed by Texas businessman Harold Simmons. The group reported raising over $2 million at the end of the year, from just 18 people.
More recently, and subsequent to the 2011 filing period, Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson drew headlines for putting up $5 million for the Gingrich Super PAC. His wife reportedly followed suit with another $5 million.
In Paul's corner is the Endorse Liberty group, which reported about $1 million raised for 2011. The group is supported almost exclusively by Peter Thiel, a hedge fund manager who co-founded PayPal.
Santorum's Red White and Blue Fund has raised slightly less than Paul's Super PAC. That, too, is backed by a handful of supporters, including wealthy investor Foster Friess and John Templeton Jr., son of philanthropist John Templeton.
And the pro-Obama Priorities USA Super PAC has raised a total of $4.4 million as of the end of 2011. About half of that came in the form of a $2 million donation from DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg. Steven Spielberg also threw in $100,000.
Those five groups are just a slice of the national Super PAC pie, though they account for much of the money raised. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 318 groups have raised nearly $99 million as of early February. They've spent nearly $47 million in the 2012 cycle.
The campaign finance free-for-all has raised pressing questions all along about whether the new system is a boon for free speech -- speech, that is, in the form of monetary donations and ads -- or a barrier for candidates who might not have the behind-the-scenes support of such wealth.
Gingrich, despite the support of his Las Vegas benefactors, has complained that the glut of negative advertising by Romney's supporters has damaged his candidacy.
In Congress, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and others are pushing for a new bill that would, among other provisions, require TV ads to name top donors.
Yet Obama's campaign this past week seemed to embrace the new Super PAC reality. The campaign said Obama officials would speak at Priorities USA events.
Romney reportedly has sanctioned the same kind of interaction.
FoxNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.
Did spy inside send U.S. drone to Iran?
CIA fears drone downed in Iran failed to dump sensitive data
(NEWSCORE):
WASHINGTON -- A CIA investigation failed to discover what caused a US drone to come down in Iran late last year and raised fears it failed to dump sensitive data, FOX News Channel reported Friday.
A former intelligence official confirmed to FOX News that the CIA's comprehensive, 10-week review was unable to replicate the malfunction that brought down the RQ-170 Sentinel drone in Iran.
Contact was lost with the drone and its operators Nov. 29.
Based on the review, investigators believe one of the drone's three major data streams began sending back bad information to its US-based operator. A leading question is whether the bad data caused the drone's operator to inadvertently land the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
It raises the question of whether the faulty data stream meant the drone did not dump the intelligence that it collected. When the UAV malfunctions, it is programmed to dump data so it does not fall into the wrong hands.
"We have looked at this eight ways to Sunday. I can tell you it was a US technical problem. The information [data] was not lining up, and it was not the result of Iranian interference or jamming," a congressional official familiar with the CIA review said.
Investigators were focusing on how to prevent a repeat of the incident in the future, but without the hardware or the drone -- Iran refused to return it -- those efforts have been frustrated.
(NEWSCORE):
WASHINGTON -- A CIA investigation failed to discover what caused a US drone to come down in Iran late last year and raised fears it failed to dump sensitive data, FOX News Channel reported Friday.
A former intelligence official confirmed to FOX News that the CIA's comprehensive, 10-week review was unable to replicate the malfunction that brought down the RQ-170 Sentinel drone in Iran.
Contact was lost with the drone and its operators Nov. 29.
Based on the review, investigators believe one of the drone's three major data streams began sending back bad information to its US-based operator. A leading question is whether the bad data caused the drone's operator to inadvertently land the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
It raises the question of whether the faulty data stream meant the drone did not dump the intelligence that it collected. When the UAV malfunctions, it is programmed to dump data so it does not fall into the wrong hands.
"We have looked at this eight ways to Sunday. I can tell you it was a US technical problem. The information [data] was not lining up, and it was not the result of Iranian interference or jamming," a congressional official familiar with the CIA review said.
Investigators were focusing on how to prevent a repeat of the incident in the future, but without the hardware or the drone -- Iran refused to return it -- those efforts have been frustrated.
Allen West driven out of congressional district by America-hating Republicans!
PALM BEACH POST: West out, Hasner in — the latest on congressional District 22 intrigue
The redistricting-fueled intrigue continues to swirl around Palm Beach-Broward congressional District 22.
A day after freshman U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, announced he’s leaving the district to run in a more Republican-friendly district to the north, former state House Majority Leader Adam Hasner of Boca Raton confirmed this afternoon that he’s abandoning his Republican U.S. Senate bid to pursue the District 22 seat.
Hasner begins the congressional campaign with about $670,000 in cash from his Senate run. He also picked up an endorsement from West, who said, “I wish him the best, believe in him wholeheartedly and look forward to working alongside of him on Capitol Hill.”
District 22 is divided nearly evenly between Republicans and Democrats now, but state legislators are expected to approve a map that gives District 22 a pronounced Democratic tilt.
With incumbent West gone and the district’s new partisan makeup, two Democratic Broward County commissioners — Kristin Jacobs of Pompano Beach and John Rodstrom of Fort Lauderdale — said today they are considering entering the District 22 race.
Two well-financed Democrats are already in the race — former West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel and Fort Lauderdale accountant Patrick Murphy. Each has raised about $1.4 million.
But sources close to Murphy say he is giving serious thought to leaving the District 22 race and running against West in the proposed new District 18, which includes parts of northern Palm Beach County and the Treasure Coast. Such a move could allow Murphy to sidestep a costly Democratic primary. And keeping the outspoken conservative West as an opponent would allow Murphy to continue to appeal to national Democratic donors for contributions.
U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta, lives in the proposed District 18. But he announced Tuesday that he will seek reelection in an adjacent rural District 17, which includes parts of eight counties. Within an hour of Rooney announcing his plans on Tuesday, West announced his jump into the District 18 race.
West, one of the top money-raisers in the U.S., began 2012 with more than $2.7 million in his campaign account.
Murphy began the year with $897,140. Frankel has just over $1 million in her campaign account. Frankel today was endorsed by former Florida Chief Financial Officer and 2010 Democratic nominee for governor Alex Sink.
The redistricting-fueled intrigue continues to swirl around Palm Beach-Broward congressional District 22.
A day after freshman U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, announced he’s leaving the district to run in a more Republican-friendly district to the north, former state House Majority Leader Adam Hasner of Boca Raton confirmed this afternoon that he’s abandoning his Republican U.S. Senate bid to pursue the District 22 seat.
Hasner begins the congressional campaign with about $670,000 in cash from his Senate run. He also picked up an endorsement from West, who said, “I wish him the best, believe in him wholeheartedly and look forward to working alongside of him on Capitol Hill.”
District 22 is divided nearly evenly between Republicans and Democrats now, but state legislators are expected to approve a map that gives District 22 a pronounced Democratic tilt.
With incumbent West gone and the district’s new partisan makeup, two Democratic Broward County commissioners — Kristin Jacobs of Pompano Beach and John Rodstrom of Fort Lauderdale — said today they are considering entering the District 22 race.
Two well-financed Democrats are already in the race — former West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel and Fort Lauderdale accountant Patrick Murphy. Each has raised about $1.4 million.
But sources close to Murphy say he is giving serious thought to leaving the District 22 race and running against West in the proposed new District 18, which includes parts of northern Palm Beach County and the Treasure Coast. Such a move could allow Murphy to sidestep a costly Democratic primary. And keeping the outspoken conservative West as an opponent would allow Murphy to continue to appeal to national Democratic donors for contributions.
U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta, lives in the proposed District 18. But he announced Tuesday that he will seek reelection in an adjacent rural District 17, which includes parts of eight counties. Within an hour of Rooney announcing his plans on Tuesday, West announced his jump into the District 18 race.
West, one of the top money-raisers in the U.S., began 2012 with more than $2.7 million in his campaign account.
Murphy began the year with $897,140. Frankel has just over $1 million in her campaign account. Frankel today was endorsed by former Florida Chief Financial Officer and 2010 Democratic nominee for governor Alex Sink.
Santorum Is Within 2 Points of Romney in California
Weekly Standard:
The first GOP presidential poll taken in California in 2012 shows Mitt Romney leading Rick Santorum by just 2 percentage points, which is well within the survey’s 4.6-point margin of error. The poll, taken by SurveyUSA, shows Romney with 33 percent support and Santorum with 31 percent support. Newt Gingrich is in third place, with 17 percent support, while Ron Paul has 9 percent support.
SurveyUSA divides the Golden State into four regions. Romney leads Santorum by a wide margin in the San Francisco Bay Area (33 to 18 percent), and he also leads in Greater Los Angeles (34 to 29 percent). The two candidates are essentially tied in the Inland Empire (Romney leads 32 to 31 percent), which includes San Diego as well as Southern California’s inland counties. Santorum leads by a wide margin in the Central Valley (43 to 30 percent), which includes almost everything north of Los Angeles that isn’t along the coast, as well as the Central Coast between Pismo Beach and Monterey.
No previous California poll had shown Santorum with even 5 percent support. The primary there will be held later this year, on June 5.
The first GOP presidential poll taken in California in 2012 shows Mitt Romney leading Rick Santorum by just 2 percentage points, which is well within the survey’s 4.6-point margin of error. The poll, taken by SurveyUSA, shows Romney with 33 percent support and Santorum with 31 percent support. Newt Gingrich is in third place, with 17 percent support, while Ron Paul has 9 percent support.
SurveyUSA divides the Golden State into four regions. Romney leads Santorum by a wide margin in the San Francisco Bay Area (33 to 18 percent), and he also leads in Greater Los Angeles (34 to 29 percent). The two candidates are essentially tied in the Inland Empire (Romney leads 32 to 31 percent), which includes San Diego as well as Southern California’s inland counties. Santorum leads by a wide margin in the Central Valley (43 to 30 percent), which includes almost everything north of Los Angeles that isn’t along the coast, as well as the Central Coast between Pismo Beach and Monterey.
No previous California poll had shown Santorum with even 5 percent support. The primary there will be held later this year, on June 5.
Top 0.1% pays more income tax than bottom 80%
Weekly Standard:
In his recently released deficit plan, President Obama lays out the “Buffett Rule” (named, of course, for Warren Buffett, the famous investor and supporter of Obama). The rule, as Obama defines it, is “that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.”
Obama’s clear inference, of course, is that this otherwise happens routinely; that the rich are shirking their citizenly duties while the middle class pays. Is this inference true? Or is it simply a political fiction, a straw man from which Obama hopes to make hay in 2012?
The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a center-left joint-creation of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, publishes federal tax statistics by income group (see, here, here, here, and here). The essential funding source (at least from individuals) for most of the general functions of government — defense, roads, national parks, federal law enforcement, etc. — is the income tax. It is almost entirely through the income tax that individual citizens contribute financially to the day-to-day functions of their government.
In 2010, according to the TPC, Americans in the lowest quintile of income-earners — the bottom 20 percent — paid minus-3.8 percent of the total federal income tax burden. In other words, they got more back, in income tax credits and the like, than they paid in. Similarly, those in the second quintile paid minus-4.3 percent of the total federal income tax burden — so they, too, weren’t paying into the income tax till but rather were taking out.
Those in the middle quintile — pretty much the center of the middle class (this quintile had an average income of $44,000) — paid 3.9 percent of the total federal income tax burden (about $1 of every $25 dollars in income taxes paid nationwide). And those in the fourth quintile — whose income ranged from $58,000 to $102,000 — paid 15.1 percent of the total federal income tax burden.
So, all told, the 80 percent of Americans whose income placed them in one of these first four quintiles of income-earners combined to pay 10.9 percent of the total federal income tax burden. Put otherwise, this 80 percent of the citizenry paid about $1 out of every $9 that was paid in federal income taxes nationwide.
Meanwhile, Americans in the highest 0.1 percent of all income-earners — these are the very rich, with incomes of at least $1.974 million — paid 16.4 percent of the total federal tax burden. Essentially, one out of every $6 paid in federal income tax was paid by this 0.1 percent of the citizenry.
In other words, the top 0.1 percent paid more toward the workings of government than the bottom 80 percent did. That’s despite the fact that the bottom 80 percent collectively made more than six times as much money as the top 0.1 percent did.
On average, a given member of the top 0.1 percent paid $1.1 million in annual federal income tax — $1,147,616, to be more exact. That’s more than 1,000 times what the average person in the middle quintile paid ($1,017). Yes, the very rich made a lot more money — but not anywhere near 1,000 times as much. In fact, only 12 percent of this gap in income-tax payments is attributable to the gap in income between the two groups. The rest resulted from the very rich paying a much higher percentage of their income — more than 8 times as high — in income tax.
Now, I don’t know how much Warren Buffett pays his secretary, or how much either of them really pays in income taxes. But when 0.1 percent of the population is collectively paying more in income taxes than 80 percent of the population is collectively paying, it’s clear that there’s not a whole lot of need for the “Buffett Rule.”
Again, the stats I’ve quoted — all of which are from the TPC — are for income tax. What if we were to include all federal taxes — including payroll taxes, which people pay and then (to a greater or lesser degree) get back in direct payments for themselves in the form of Social Security or Medicare? What if we were also to include employers’ share of these payroll taxes, crediting employees as if they had made these payments themselves (like the TPC does)?
Factoring in payroll taxes in this manner, those in the top 0.1 percent no longer paid more in taxes than the bottom 80 percent did last year (although they did pay more than the bottom 40 percent did — four times as much, in fact). But they still paid much higher rates. The average total federal tax rate for those in the top 0.1 percent was 30.7 percent. (That’s before factoring in any state or local taxes.) In comparison, the average total federal tax rate for those in the middle quintile was 12.8 percent. The average rate for those in the fourth quintile was 16.8 percent. And the average rate for those between the 95th and 99th percentile (those making between $204,000 and $509,000) was 23.4 percent. So even if Buffett’s secretary makes a cool half-million annually, he or she still likely pays a much lower total tax rate than the average person in the top 0.1 percent.
Certain prominent Obama supporters (Buffett, General Electric) do seem to be particularly good at avoiding paying taxes, but that doesn’t mean they’re the norm. The facts are clear: Our very richest citizens collectively pay for more of the day-to-day operations of our government than 80 percent of our citizens collectively do. The rich would already seem to be paying — as Obama likes to say — “their fair share.”
In his recently released deficit plan, President Obama lays out the “Buffett Rule” (named, of course, for Warren Buffett, the famous investor and supporter of Obama). The rule, as Obama defines it, is “that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.”
Obama’s clear inference, of course, is that this otherwise happens routinely; that the rich are shirking their citizenly duties while the middle class pays. Is this inference true? Or is it simply a political fiction, a straw man from which Obama hopes to make hay in 2012?
The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a center-left joint-creation of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, publishes federal tax statistics by income group (see, here, here, here, and here). The essential funding source (at least from individuals) for most of the general functions of government — defense, roads, national parks, federal law enforcement, etc. — is the income tax. It is almost entirely through the income tax that individual citizens contribute financially to the day-to-day functions of their government.
In 2010, according to the TPC, Americans in the lowest quintile of income-earners — the bottom 20 percent — paid minus-3.8 percent of the total federal income tax burden. In other words, they got more back, in income tax credits and the like, than they paid in. Similarly, those in the second quintile paid minus-4.3 percent of the total federal income tax burden — so they, too, weren’t paying into the income tax till but rather were taking out.
Those in the middle quintile — pretty much the center of the middle class (this quintile had an average income of $44,000) — paid 3.9 percent of the total federal income tax burden (about $1 of every $25 dollars in income taxes paid nationwide). And those in the fourth quintile — whose income ranged from $58,000 to $102,000 — paid 15.1 percent of the total federal income tax burden.
So, all told, the 80 percent of Americans whose income placed them in one of these first four quintiles of income-earners combined to pay 10.9 percent of the total federal income tax burden. Put otherwise, this 80 percent of the citizenry paid about $1 out of every $9 that was paid in federal income taxes nationwide.
Meanwhile, Americans in the highest 0.1 percent of all income-earners — these are the very rich, with incomes of at least $1.974 million — paid 16.4 percent of the total federal tax burden. Essentially, one out of every $6 paid in federal income tax was paid by this 0.1 percent of the citizenry.
In other words, the top 0.1 percent paid more toward the workings of government than the bottom 80 percent did. That’s despite the fact that the bottom 80 percent collectively made more than six times as much money as the top 0.1 percent did.
On average, a given member of the top 0.1 percent paid $1.1 million in annual federal income tax — $1,147,616, to be more exact. That’s more than 1,000 times what the average person in the middle quintile paid ($1,017). Yes, the very rich made a lot more money — but not anywhere near 1,000 times as much. In fact, only 12 percent of this gap in income-tax payments is attributable to the gap in income between the two groups. The rest resulted from the very rich paying a much higher percentage of their income — more than 8 times as high — in income tax.
Now, I don’t know how much Warren Buffett pays his secretary, or how much either of them really pays in income taxes. But when 0.1 percent of the population is collectively paying more in income taxes than 80 percent of the population is collectively paying, it’s clear that there’s not a whole lot of need for the “Buffett Rule.”
Again, the stats I’ve quoted — all of which are from the TPC — are for income tax. What if we were to include all federal taxes — including payroll taxes, which people pay and then (to a greater or lesser degree) get back in direct payments for themselves in the form of Social Security or Medicare? What if we were also to include employers’ share of these payroll taxes, crediting employees as if they had made these payments themselves (like the TPC does)?
Factoring in payroll taxes in this manner, those in the top 0.1 percent no longer paid more in taxes than the bottom 80 percent did last year (although they did pay more than the bottom 40 percent did — four times as much, in fact). But they still paid much higher rates. The average total federal tax rate for those in the top 0.1 percent was 30.7 percent. (That’s before factoring in any state or local taxes.) In comparison, the average total federal tax rate for those in the middle quintile was 12.8 percent. The average rate for those in the fourth quintile was 16.8 percent. And the average rate for those between the 95th and 99th percentile (those making between $204,000 and $509,000) was 23.4 percent. So even if Buffett’s secretary makes a cool half-million annually, he or she still likely pays a much lower total tax rate than the average person in the top 0.1 percent.
Certain prominent Obama supporters (Buffett, General Electric) do seem to be particularly good at avoiding paying taxes, but that doesn’t mean they’re the norm. The facts are clear: Our very richest citizens collectively pay for more of the day-to-day operations of our government than 80 percent of our citizens collectively do. The rich would already seem to be paying — as Obama likes to say — “their fair share.”
Fart joke leads to bomb scare
Student Harold Wayne Hadley Arrested In Mississippi
Nothing clears a room like a fart -- except, perhaps, a bomb scare.
Harold Wayne Hadley, Jr., 19, was arrested at a Mississippi junior college after he allegedly wrote a note on a piece of toilet paper on Tuesday, containing the word 'bomb,' according to Weirdnews.net.
The note prompted 11 emergency agencies to respond to the school, but there was no bomb.
Hadley and his family contend that he was only explaining the joy of flatulating in the library.
"He was in the restroom doodling on some toilet paper ... we are from the country, and he calls passing gas, bombs," said Hadley's aunt, who wouldn't give her name to WDAM. "[He] put 'I passed a bomb in the library,' talking about passing gas, and somebody came in and found it, gave it to a teacher that recognized his hand writing and it blew all out of proportion."
Investigators wouldn't say exactly what Hadley wrote, but WDAM reports that it was no more explicit than "I passed a bomb in the library."
Hadley was arrested and held on $20,000 bail. If convicted of threatening to blow up the school, he faces 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, according to WAPT. His aunt says he earned straight A's at Jones County Junior College and was scheduled to graduate in May.
Nothing clears a room like a fart -- except, perhaps, a bomb scare.
Harold Wayne Hadley, Jr., 19, was arrested at a Mississippi junior college after he allegedly wrote a note on a piece of toilet paper on Tuesday, containing the word 'bomb,' according to Weirdnews.net.
The note prompted 11 emergency agencies to respond to the school, but there was no bomb.
Hadley and his family contend that he was only explaining the joy of flatulating in the library.
"He was in the restroom doodling on some toilet paper ... we are from the country, and he calls passing gas, bombs," said Hadley's aunt, who wouldn't give her name to WDAM. "[He] put 'I passed a bomb in the library,' talking about passing gas, and somebody came in and found it, gave it to a teacher that recognized his hand writing and it blew all out of proportion."
Investigators wouldn't say exactly what Hadley wrote, but WDAM reports that it was no more explicit than "I passed a bomb in the library."
Hadley was arrested and held on $20,000 bail. If convicted of threatening to blow up the school, he faces 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, according to WAPT. His aunt says he earned straight A's at Jones County Junior College and was scheduled to graduate in May.
Public radio pay to play
Ploughshares Fund gives millions to slant coverage on Iran
A progressive anti-nuclear foundation has spent more than $5.6 million in 2010 alone to create “a world without nuclear weapons.” One of its projects: shift the debate on Iran’s nuclear program away from military action and toward accepting Tehran as a nuclear power.
The Ploughshares Fund opposes military action against Iran and has funded organizations that share this goal, including the Center for American Progress, the pro-Tehran National Iranian American Council, and liberal fringe group J Street.
One of Ploughshares’ highest profile recipients is National Public Radio. NPR was paid $150,000 by the group in 2010. The money was used to fund “increased coverage of U.S. nuclear policy issues and the proliferation risks from North Korea and Iran,” according to funding documents publicly available on Ploughshares’ website.
Coinciding with the payment was NPR’s series of articles and reports that closely reflected Ploughshares’ anti-nuclear worldview.
One NPR piece was written by Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby, a controversial book that accused the pro-Israel community of putting U.S. foreign policy in a nefarious chokehold.
The NPR report by Walt argued that the United States was “too secure,” and praised the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia, an accord criticized by conservatives in Congress and the private sector as not being in American interests. After data required under the treaty was made public by the State Department last year, figures showed that Russia was already within the treaty limits and thus the United States was the only party to the treaty that is required to cut its nuclear forces.
Days after the Walt piece, NPR correspondent Peter Kenyon delivered an on-air report advocating negotiations with Iran over what U.S. officials say is a covert pursuit of nuclear arms.
“Many analysts believe there’s more time for diplomacy than had previously been thought,” Kenyon stated during a November 2010 segment of the NPR program Morning Edition. “But to date, there’s been no evidence that the U.S. or its allies have come up with a diplomatic approach other than the pressure of sanctions, and the threat of military force.”
In February 2011, public documents show Ploughshares gave NPR an additional $150,000 to cover “Iran, U.S. nuclear weapons policy, and nonproliferation issues.”
When approached for comment last week by the Washington Free Beacon, a NPR spokeswoman said that her organization has never received money from Ploughshares. After being directed to the funding item, however, the spokesperson said that she’d look into it. NPR never followed up.
Ploughshares donates to a lengthy list of additional media outlets, including: Public Radio International, which produces radio programs such as NPR’s This American Life and The Tavis Smiley Show; the Mainstream Media Project, a non-profit organization that coordinates television and radio appearances for policy analysts and other experts; and Link Media, Inc., the parent company of Link TV, a satellite television network dedicated to “providing global perspectives on news, events and culture”
Asked why it contributes to such a large number of media groups, Ploughshares’ Program Director Paul Carroll said that his group just wants to support the news industry during difficult financial times.
“As you know, many media organizations are struggling financially,” Carroll said via a spokesperson. “By funding news organizations, we hope to ensure that their coverage of important national security issues, which includes nuclear security, continues to help inform and engage the public.”
He added that Ploughshares has “no editorial control on the stories that media groups present.”
Ploughshares’ stated mission is to decrease the number of nuclear arms across the world. However, it is actively advocating a policy of nuclear containment of Iran.
Asked about the issue of Iranian nuclear proliferation, Ploughshares’ Carroll said: “We seek to inform U.S. decision makers and the larger public on the status of Iran’s nuclear program, including the costs and benefits of different approaches to addressing the serious proliferation challenge that it presents.”
Ploughshares’ grant documents, however, seem to reveal a more specific goal: discrediting the military option against Iran.
Another one of Ploughshares more prominent grantees is the Center for American Progress (CAP), which was awarded at least $150,000 in 2011 “to hire two researchers for an expanded initiative on Iran aimed at countering support for military action.”
Last October, Matthew Duss, a policy analyst and director of Middle East Progress at CAP, produced a report that praised the Obama administration for pursuing a diplomatic approach to Iran’s nuclear program.
“It’s worth remembering that Iran was on a roll when President Obama took office,” Duss wrote. “This was thanks to precisely the sort of military solutions that many of the president’s conservative critics are now calling for again.”
Furthermore, the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Think Progress blog regularly decries what they term neoconservative war mongering against Iran and, per the Washington Post, has been “embroiled in a dispute with several Jewish organizations over charges that some center staffers have publicly used language that could be construed as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.”
In November, Ploughshares gave the dovish Jewish group J Street $25,000 “to support congressional advocacy and education against the use of a military resolution to the impasse over Iran’s nuclear program.”
Last month, J Street released a web video and policy campaign that advocated against using military force against Iran.
When approached for comment, a J Street spokesperson declined to reveal whether Ploughshares’ funds were used to produce the video or fund the campaign.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is another Ploughshares recipient with a track record for pushing against U.S. efforts to keep “all options on the table” regarding Iran, as President Obama himself put it.
NIAC received $125,000 in November, “to shape the debate among policymakers and in the media on credible, non-military approaches to resolving the impasse over Iran’s nuclear program.”
Up until 2006, Ploughshares also funded a group called Win Without War, which advocates against all U.S. military intervention abroad.
A progressive anti-nuclear foundation has spent more than $5.6 million in 2010 alone to create “a world without nuclear weapons.” One of its projects: shift the debate on Iran’s nuclear program away from military action and toward accepting Tehran as a nuclear power.
The Ploughshares Fund opposes military action against Iran and has funded organizations that share this goal, including the Center for American Progress, the pro-Tehran National Iranian American Council, and liberal fringe group J Street.
One of Ploughshares’ highest profile recipients is National Public Radio. NPR was paid $150,000 by the group in 2010. The money was used to fund “increased coverage of U.S. nuclear policy issues and the proliferation risks from North Korea and Iran,” according to funding documents publicly available on Ploughshares’ website.
Coinciding with the payment was NPR’s series of articles and reports that closely reflected Ploughshares’ anti-nuclear worldview.
One NPR piece was written by Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby, a controversial book that accused the pro-Israel community of putting U.S. foreign policy in a nefarious chokehold.
The NPR report by Walt argued that the United States was “too secure,” and praised the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia, an accord criticized by conservatives in Congress and the private sector as not being in American interests. After data required under the treaty was made public by the State Department last year, figures showed that Russia was already within the treaty limits and thus the United States was the only party to the treaty that is required to cut its nuclear forces.
Days after the Walt piece, NPR correspondent Peter Kenyon delivered an on-air report advocating negotiations with Iran over what U.S. officials say is a covert pursuit of nuclear arms.
“Many analysts believe there’s more time for diplomacy than had previously been thought,” Kenyon stated during a November 2010 segment of the NPR program Morning Edition. “But to date, there’s been no evidence that the U.S. or its allies have come up with a diplomatic approach other than the pressure of sanctions, and the threat of military force.”
In February 2011, public documents show Ploughshares gave NPR an additional $150,000 to cover “Iran, U.S. nuclear weapons policy, and nonproliferation issues.”
When approached for comment last week by the Washington Free Beacon, a NPR spokeswoman said that her organization has never received money from Ploughshares. After being directed to the funding item, however, the spokesperson said that she’d look into it. NPR never followed up.
Ploughshares donates to a lengthy list of additional media outlets, including: Public Radio International, which produces radio programs such as NPR’s This American Life and The Tavis Smiley Show; the Mainstream Media Project, a non-profit organization that coordinates television and radio appearances for policy analysts and other experts; and Link Media, Inc., the parent company of Link TV, a satellite television network dedicated to “providing global perspectives on news, events and culture”
Asked why it contributes to such a large number of media groups, Ploughshares’ Program Director Paul Carroll said that his group just wants to support the news industry during difficult financial times.
“As you know, many media organizations are struggling financially,” Carroll said via a spokesperson. “By funding news organizations, we hope to ensure that their coverage of important national security issues, which includes nuclear security, continues to help inform and engage the public.”
He added that Ploughshares has “no editorial control on the stories that media groups present.”
Ploughshares’ stated mission is to decrease the number of nuclear arms across the world. However, it is actively advocating a policy of nuclear containment of Iran.
Asked about the issue of Iranian nuclear proliferation, Ploughshares’ Carroll said: “We seek to inform U.S. decision makers and the larger public on the status of Iran’s nuclear program, including the costs and benefits of different approaches to addressing the serious proliferation challenge that it presents.”
Ploughshares’ grant documents, however, seem to reveal a more specific goal: discrediting the military option against Iran.
Another one of Ploughshares more prominent grantees is the Center for American Progress (CAP), which was awarded at least $150,000 in 2011 “to hire two researchers for an expanded initiative on Iran aimed at countering support for military action.”
Last October, Matthew Duss, a policy analyst and director of Middle East Progress at CAP, produced a report that praised the Obama administration for pursuing a diplomatic approach to Iran’s nuclear program.
“It’s worth remembering that Iran was on a roll when President Obama took office,” Duss wrote. “This was thanks to precisely the sort of military solutions that many of the president’s conservative critics are now calling for again.”
Furthermore, the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Think Progress blog regularly decries what they term neoconservative war mongering against Iran and, per the Washington Post, has been “embroiled in a dispute with several Jewish organizations over charges that some center staffers have publicly used language that could be construed as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.”
In November, Ploughshares gave the dovish Jewish group J Street $25,000 “to support congressional advocacy and education against the use of a military resolution to the impasse over Iran’s nuclear program.”
Last month, J Street released a web video and policy campaign that advocated against using military force against Iran.
When approached for comment, a J Street spokesperson declined to reveal whether Ploughshares’ funds were used to produce the video or fund the campaign.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is another Ploughshares recipient with a track record for pushing against U.S. efforts to keep “all options on the table” regarding Iran, as President Obama himself put it.
NIAC received $125,000 in November, “to shape the debate among policymakers and in the media on credible, non-military approaches to resolving the impasse over Iran’s nuclear program.”
Up until 2006, Ploughshares also funded a group called Win Without War, which advocates against all U.S. military intervention abroad.
Hussein Obama wants $800 billion for Arab Islamists!
By Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON | Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:39pm EST
(Reuters) - The White House announced plans on Monday to help "Arab Spring" countries swept by revolutions with more than $800 million in economic aid, while maintaining U.S. military aid to Egypt.
In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years -- $1.3 billion -- despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.
The proposals are part of Obama's budget request for fiscal year 2013, which begins October 1. His requests need the approval of Congress, where some lawmakers want to cut overseas spending to address U.S. budget shortfalls and are particularly angry at Egypt.
Obama proposed $51.6 billion in funding for the U.S. State Department and foreign aid overall, when $8.2 billion in assistance to war zones is included. The "core budget" for the category would increase by 1.6 percent, officials said.
Most of the economic aid for the Arab Spring countries -- $770 million -- would go to establish a new "Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund," the president said in his budget plan.
Analysts said it was difficult to tell how much of the proposal was actually new money.
"As presented it's very difficult to determine if the Arab spring fund is new wine in new bottles or old wine in new bottles," said John Norris, a former U.S. foreign aid worker now at the Center for American Progress.
The Middle East and North Africa Incentive fund "will provide incentives for long-term economic, political, and trade reforms to countries in transition -- and to countries prepared to make reforms proactively," the White House budget document said.
The proposal said this approach "expands our bilateral economic support in countries such as Tunisia and Yemen, where transitions are already underway."
It would also build on other programs for the area, including up to $2 billion in regional Overseas Private Investment Corporation financing, up to $1 billion in debt swaps for Egypt, and approximately $500 million in existing funds re-allocated to respond to the region last year, the budget document said.
It did not say how the Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund would be divided between countries, or give any other details of the plan.
Egypt has long been among the top recipients of U.S. aid, getting about $1.6 billion annually, mostly in military assistance. In fiscal 2012, $250 million of aid approved for Egypt was economic; $1.3 billion was military and there was a $60 million "enterprise fund" approved by Congress.
No U.S. assistance is moving to Egypt at the moment, U.S. lawmakers and their aides said last week. Some legislators favor cutting off aid to Egypt entirely if it does not drop accusations against American democracy activists and lift a travel ban on them.
Obama continued the practice of putting proposed foreign assistance for war zones in a separate account. This account, known as the "Overseas Contingency Operations," includes $8.2 billion for the State Department and foreign aid.
It includes $3.3 billion for Afghanistan, $1 billion for Pakistan, and $4 billion for Iraq, where U.S. troops have left the country but the State Department has picked up some of their functions such as police training.
(Editing by Christopher Wilson)
WASHINGTON | Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:39pm EST
(Reuters) - The White House announced plans on Monday to help "Arab Spring" countries swept by revolutions with more than $800 million in economic aid, while maintaining U.S. military aid to Egypt.
In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years -- $1.3 billion -- despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.
The proposals are part of Obama's budget request for fiscal year 2013, which begins October 1. His requests need the approval of Congress, where some lawmakers want to cut overseas spending to address U.S. budget shortfalls and are particularly angry at Egypt.
Obama proposed $51.6 billion in funding for the U.S. State Department and foreign aid overall, when $8.2 billion in assistance to war zones is included. The "core budget" for the category would increase by 1.6 percent, officials said.
Most of the economic aid for the Arab Spring countries -- $770 million -- would go to establish a new "Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund," the president said in his budget plan.
Analysts said it was difficult to tell how much of the proposal was actually new money.
"As presented it's very difficult to determine if the Arab spring fund is new wine in new bottles or old wine in new bottles," said John Norris, a former U.S. foreign aid worker now at the Center for American Progress.
The Middle East and North Africa Incentive fund "will provide incentives for long-term economic, political, and trade reforms to countries in transition -- and to countries prepared to make reforms proactively," the White House budget document said.
The proposal said this approach "expands our bilateral economic support in countries such as Tunisia and Yemen, where transitions are already underway."
It would also build on other programs for the area, including up to $2 billion in regional Overseas Private Investment Corporation financing, up to $1 billion in debt swaps for Egypt, and approximately $500 million in existing funds re-allocated to respond to the region last year, the budget document said.
It did not say how the Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund would be divided between countries, or give any other details of the plan.
Egypt has long been among the top recipients of U.S. aid, getting about $1.6 billion annually, mostly in military assistance. In fiscal 2012, $250 million of aid approved for Egypt was economic; $1.3 billion was military and there was a $60 million "enterprise fund" approved by Congress.
No U.S. assistance is moving to Egypt at the moment, U.S. lawmakers and their aides said last week. Some legislators favor cutting off aid to Egypt entirely if it does not drop accusations against American democracy activists and lift a travel ban on them.
Obama continued the practice of putting proposed foreign assistance for war zones in a separate account. This account, known as the "Overseas Contingency Operations," includes $8.2 billion for the State Department and foreign aid.
It includes $3.3 billion for Afghanistan, $1 billion for Pakistan, and $4 billion for Iraq, where U.S. troops have left the country but the State Department has picked up some of their functions such as police training.
(Editing by Christopher Wilson)
Monday, February 13, 2012
Ted Nugent Crushes Smug Piers Morgan on 2nd Amendment
Feb 12, 2012
The Nuge Crushes Piers Morgan
Ted Nugent against Piers Morgan is hardly a fair fight — which makes it all the more fun to watch Uncle Ted school the smug CNN moonbat on the Second Amendment:
Via 2nd Amendment TV, on a tip from Nobody.
By Dave Blount |
The Nuge Crushes Piers Morgan
Ted Nugent against Piers Morgan is hardly a fair fight — which makes it all the more fun to watch Uncle Ted school the smug CNN moonbat on the Second Amendment:
Via 2nd Amendment TV, on a tip from Nobody.
By Dave Blount |
Failed President to Unveil Job Training Program
Failed President to Unveil “Job Training” Program
Posted by Jammie on Feb 13, 2012 at 7:38 am
Is this guy for real? He’s spent us into oblivion and now he wants billions more to “train” already high-skilled workers? At what point is there an end to these slush funds of his? What was the $900 billion so-called “stimulus” for three years ago? Where has that money gone? Can’t he dip into his Obama stash and find this reported $8 billion somewhere?
President Obama will announce Monday an $8 billion commitment to forge partnerships with community colleges and businesses to train two million high-skilled workers, the White House said.
The President will discuss the program at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Va. The plan will provide funding to community colleges and states to partner with businesses to train workers in areas such as health care, transportation and advanced manufacturing.
In his State of the Union address last month, Obama said he wanted businesses and communities to commit to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to jobs.
Don’t people already attend college in order to learn these skills?
Speaking of his failed stimulus, that apparently wasn’t enough. We need more for infrastructure?
The White House is releasing the budget request Monday, and it is expected to include billions of dollars in new spending on the nation’s infrastructure, as well as new taxes on the wealthy.
In what’s sure to come as a shock, as soon as he unveils his sure-to-be rejected “budget” he’ll be hitting the road for fundrasiers. Wonderful.
Posted by Jammie on Feb 13, 2012 at 7:38 am
Is this guy for real? He’s spent us into oblivion and now he wants billions more to “train” already high-skilled workers? At what point is there an end to these slush funds of his? What was the $900 billion so-called “stimulus” for three years ago? Where has that money gone? Can’t he dip into his Obama stash and find this reported $8 billion somewhere?
President Obama will announce Monday an $8 billion commitment to forge partnerships with community colleges and businesses to train two million high-skilled workers, the White House said.
The President will discuss the program at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Va. The plan will provide funding to community colleges and states to partner with businesses to train workers in areas such as health care, transportation and advanced manufacturing.
In his State of the Union address last month, Obama said he wanted businesses and communities to commit to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to jobs.
Don’t people already attend college in order to learn these skills?
Speaking of his failed stimulus, that apparently wasn’t enough. We need more for infrastructure?
The White House is releasing the budget request Monday, and it is expected to include billions of dollars in new spending on the nation’s infrastructure, as well as new taxes on the wealthy.
In what’s sure to come as a shock, as soon as he unveils his sure-to-be rejected “budget” he’ll be hitting the road for fundrasiers. Wonderful.
100,000 Supporters Line Up to Back Sheriff Joe Arpaio Petition Says DOJ Investigation Nothing But Political Attack
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, February 12, 2012, 9:20 PM
Gateway Pundit
Grassfire Nation presented Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a stack of 100,000 signatures of support. The petition says that the Holder Department of Justice investigation was nothing more than a political attack on the popular sheriff.
World Net Daily reported:
Officials with Grassfire Nation, a key coordinating group for tea-party-type activities and issues, say the Department of Justice’s investigation of Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is nothing more than a political attack.
And to offer encouragement to the sheriff, Darla Dawald, representing the Grassfire Nation group, has presented Arpaio with a petition of some 100,000 signatures from people who have declared their support for the law-enforcement officer.
Grassfire Nation supports the Patriot Action Network, which calls itself the “nation’s largest conservative social action network, involving tens of thousands of citizens,” including many tea party members.
The petition demands DOJ prove its accusations that Arpaio’s office has engaged in a policy to systematically violate the civil rights of Hispanics, which WND has reported DOJ refuses to do.
The petition claims the DOJ investigation is nothing more than a baseless, politically motivated attack on Arpaio.
Hat Tip Mara
Gateway Pundit
Grassfire Nation presented Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a stack of 100,000 signatures of support. The petition says that the Holder Department of Justice investigation was nothing more than a political attack on the popular sheriff.
World Net Daily reported:
Officials with Grassfire Nation, a key coordinating group for tea-party-type activities and issues, say the Department of Justice’s investigation of Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is nothing more than a political attack.
And to offer encouragement to the sheriff, Darla Dawald, representing the Grassfire Nation group, has presented Arpaio with a petition of some 100,000 signatures from people who have declared their support for the law-enforcement officer.
Grassfire Nation supports the Patriot Action Network, which calls itself the “nation’s largest conservative social action network, involving tens of thousands of citizens,” including many tea party members.
The petition demands DOJ prove its accusations that Arpaio’s office has engaged in a policy to systematically violate the civil rights of Hispanics, which WND has reported DOJ refuses to do.
The petition claims the DOJ investigation is nothing more than a baseless, politically motivated attack on Arpaio.
Hat Tip Mara
Congress Left in Dark on DOJ Wiretaps
http://www.wired.com
A Senate staffer was tasked two years ago with compiling reports for a subcommittee about the number of times annually the Justice Department employed a covert internet and telephone surveillance method known as pen register and trap-and-trace capturing.
But the records, which the Justice Department is required to forward to Congress annually, were nowhere in sight.
That’s because the Justice Department was not following the law and had not provided Congress with the material at least for years 2004 to 2008. On the flip side, Congress was not exercising its watchdog role, thus enabling the Justice Department to skirt any oversight whatsoever on an increasingly used surveillance method that does not require court warrants, according to Justice Department documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.
The mishap is just one piece of an ever-growing disconnect between Americans’ privacy interests, and a Congress seemingly uncommitted to protecting those interests.
Pen registers obtain non-content information of outbound telephone and internet communications, such as phone numbers dialed, and the sender and recipient (and sometimes subject line) of an e-mail message. A trap-and-trace acquires the same information, but for inbound communications to a target.
The reports, recently posted on Justice Department website, chronicle a powerful surveillance tool undertaken tens of thousands of times annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
The reports show that, from 2004 to 2008, the number of times this wiretapping method was employed nearly doubled, from 10,885 to 21,152. Judges sign off on these telco orders when the authorities say the information is relevant to an investigation. No probable cause that the target committed a crime — the warrant standard — is necessary.
The Justice Department, beginning in late 2010, has only published the reports from 2004 to 2009, the year it obtained 23,895 judicial orders to conduct such surveillance. It did not immediately comment on whether the 2010 and 2011 reports have been compiled and sent to Congress, or explain why the mishap occurred.
Internet security researcher Christopher Soghoian recently obtained e-mails via a two-year FOIA process confirm for the first time that Congress was left out of the loop for at least the years 2004 to 2008. Using FOIA, he and others have crowbarred from the Justice Department the reports from 1999 to 2009.
“This is an important surveillance tool,” Soghoian said in a telephone interview. “In addition to showing that DOJ is lazy and not obeying the law, the most notable thing here is that Congress was asleep at the wheel.”
The handful of government e-mails (.pdf) Soghoian obtained confirm for the first time that Congress was left out of the loop for at least the years 2004 to 2008. A law review article suggests the same for years 1999 through 2003.
Soghoian provided the nine pages of e-mail to Wired.
They show that, in September of 2009, a staffer for then-Sen. Russ Feingold sent an e-mail to the Justice Department’s Mark Agrast, the deputy assistant attorney general for legislative affairs. The staffer, Lara Flint, was seeking “the last few” reports for a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Any help you can provide would be much appreciated,” Flint wrote Agrast.
Three months later, Agrast sent them over to Flint only after Agrast had learned from Mythili Raman, who was the DOJ’s principal deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division, that no reports were filed.
“Although there was an annual reporting requirement, apparently, no one had been actually fling the annual report,” Raman wrote Argast in a December 2009 e-mail.
Agrast did not immediately return a telephone message from Wired seeking comment.
To be sure, even had Congress obtained the data, it’s hard to imagine that it would have mattered.
Consider that the House and Senate punted in May on revising the controversial Patriot Act adopted in the wake of 9/11. Congress extended three expiring spy provisions for four years without any debate.
The three provisions extended included:
The “roving wiretap” provision allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from a secret intelligence court, known as the FISA court (under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) without identifying the target or what method of communication is to be tapped.
The “lone wolf” measure allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person for any reason — even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. The government has said it has never invoked that provision, but the Obama administration said it wanted to retain the authority to do so.
The “business records” provision allows FISA court warrants for any type of record, from banking to library to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is the law that requires the DOJ’s pen-register reporting. It turned 25 years old in October.
Another feature of that law had once protected Americans’ electronic communications from the government’s prying eyes, but it has become so woefully outdated that it now grants the authorities nearly carte blanche powers to obtain Americans’ e-mail stored in the cloud, such as in Gmail or Hotmail — without a court warrant.
Congress has shown no interest in amending the law to afford Americans their privacy, despite calls from some of the nation’s largest tech companies and civil rights groups to do so.
In October, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee who had originally sponsored ECPA during the Ronald Reagan administration, promised to hold hearings on ECPA reform before his committee by year’s end. He never called a hearing, despite saying “this law is significantly outdated and outpaced by rapid changes in technology.”
As Soghoian sees it, none of this is surprising.
“Privacy is a hot topic,” he said. “Congress is in the dark.’
A Senate staffer was tasked two years ago with compiling reports for a subcommittee about the number of times annually the Justice Department employed a covert internet and telephone surveillance method known as pen register and trap-and-trace capturing.
But the records, which the Justice Department is required to forward to Congress annually, were nowhere in sight.
That’s because the Justice Department was not following the law and had not provided Congress with the material at least for years 2004 to 2008. On the flip side, Congress was not exercising its watchdog role, thus enabling the Justice Department to skirt any oversight whatsoever on an increasingly used surveillance method that does not require court warrants, according to Justice Department documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.
The mishap is just one piece of an ever-growing disconnect between Americans’ privacy interests, and a Congress seemingly uncommitted to protecting those interests.
Pen registers obtain non-content information of outbound telephone and internet communications, such as phone numbers dialed, and the sender and recipient (and sometimes subject line) of an e-mail message. A trap-and-trace acquires the same information, but for inbound communications to a target.
The reports, recently posted on Justice Department website, chronicle a powerful surveillance tool undertaken tens of thousands of times annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
The reports show that, from 2004 to 2008, the number of times this wiretapping method was employed nearly doubled, from 10,885 to 21,152. Judges sign off on these telco orders when the authorities say the information is relevant to an investigation. No probable cause that the target committed a crime — the warrant standard — is necessary.
The Justice Department, beginning in late 2010, has only published the reports from 2004 to 2009, the year it obtained 23,895 judicial orders to conduct such surveillance. It did not immediately comment on whether the 2010 and 2011 reports have been compiled and sent to Congress, or explain why the mishap occurred.
Internet security researcher Christopher Soghoian recently obtained e-mails via a two-year FOIA process confirm for the first time that Congress was left out of the loop for at least the years 2004 to 2008. Using FOIA, he and others have crowbarred from the Justice Department the reports from 1999 to 2009.
“This is an important surveillance tool,” Soghoian said in a telephone interview. “In addition to showing that DOJ is lazy and not obeying the law, the most notable thing here is that Congress was asleep at the wheel.”
The handful of government e-mails (.pdf) Soghoian obtained confirm for the first time that Congress was left out of the loop for at least the years 2004 to 2008. A law review article suggests the same for years 1999 through 2003.
Soghoian provided the nine pages of e-mail to Wired.
They show that, in September of 2009, a staffer for then-Sen. Russ Feingold sent an e-mail to the Justice Department’s Mark Agrast, the deputy assistant attorney general for legislative affairs. The staffer, Lara Flint, was seeking “the last few” reports for a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Any help you can provide would be much appreciated,” Flint wrote Agrast.
Three months later, Agrast sent them over to Flint only after Agrast had learned from Mythili Raman, who was the DOJ’s principal deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division, that no reports were filed.
“Although there was an annual reporting requirement, apparently, no one had been actually fling the annual report,” Raman wrote Argast in a December 2009 e-mail.
Agrast did not immediately return a telephone message from Wired seeking comment.
To be sure, even had Congress obtained the data, it’s hard to imagine that it would have mattered.
Consider that the House and Senate punted in May on revising the controversial Patriot Act adopted in the wake of 9/11. Congress extended three expiring spy provisions for four years without any debate.
The three provisions extended included:
The “roving wiretap” provision allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from a secret intelligence court, known as the FISA court (under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) without identifying the target or what method of communication is to be tapped.
The “lone wolf” measure allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person for any reason — even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. The government has said it has never invoked that provision, but the Obama administration said it wanted to retain the authority to do so.
The “business records” provision allows FISA court warrants for any type of record, from banking to library to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is the law that requires the DOJ’s pen-register reporting. It turned 25 years old in October.
Another feature of that law had once protected Americans’ electronic communications from the government’s prying eyes, but it has become so woefully outdated that it now grants the authorities nearly carte blanche powers to obtain Americans’ e-mail stored in the cloud, such as in Gmail or Hotmail — without a court warrant.
Congress has shown no interest in amending the law to afford Americans their privacy, despite calls from some of the nation’s largest tech companies and civil rights groups to do so.
In October, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee who had originally sponsored ECPA during the Ronald Reagan administration, promised to hold hearings on ECPA reform before his committee by year’s end. He never called a hearing, despite saying “this law is significantly outdated and outpaced by rapid changes in technology.”
As Soghoian sees it, none of this is surprising.
“Privacy is a hot topic,” he said. “Congress is in the dark.’
Good news: 1 in 5 Americans now dependent on government assistance (not including public sector employees)
Hey, check it out, kids: it's another Obama record!
The number of Americans dependent on the federal government has exploded over the past five years, reaching a record 67.3 million people, according to Heritage’s annual Index of Dependence on Government. That means 1 in 5 Americans (21.8 percent) today receive some level of assistance from the federal government.
This week’s chart — one of 15 featured in this year’s report — depicts the percentage of the U.S. population who receive government assistance and the total number of individuals who are dependent on the federal government.
Fifty years ago, before President Lyndon Johnson created the Great Society programs, some 21.7 million people (or 11.7 percent of the population) received assistance through government programs that existed at the time. The number increased sharply in the 1960s and 1970s before falling in the 1990s. Recently, however, it has skyrocketed.
I think this chart must be racist or something.
Or it could just be that this country is headed for fiscal collapse unless we reverse course ASAP.
The number of Americans dependent on the federal government has exploded over the past five years, reaching a record 67.3 million people, according to Heritage’s annual Index of Dependence on Government. That means 1 in 5 Americans (21.8 percent) today receive some level of assistance from the federal government.
This week’s chart — one of 15 featured in this year’s report — depicts the percentage of the U.S. population who receive government assistance and the total number of individuals who are dependent on the federal government.
Fifty years ago, before President Lyndon Johnson created the Great Society programs, some 21.7 million people (or 11.7 percent of the population) received assistance through government programs that existed at the time. The number increased sharply in the 1960s and 1970s before falling in the 1990s. Recently, however, it has skyrocketed.
I think this chart must be racist or something.
Or it could just be that this country is headed for fiscal collapse unless we reverse course ASAP.
Lazy, Good for Nothing Obama-Cronies Caught Red-Handed Burning the Taxpayers
CDN:
Barack Obama and company pumped a half a billion taxpayer dollars into the failed Solar Panel company, Solyndra. Big-time Obama donors were put on the “we get paid first” list while the taxpayers were basically told to eat dirt.($500 million dollars worth of it) With Solyndra pleading bankruptcy, the remaining assets were ordered to be sold so that past debts can be paid, albeit for pennies on the dollar, if at all. So how can anyone justify the following video, where we see Solyndra employees dumping millions of dollars worth of special glass tubes used in the manufacturing of solar panels into a dumpster?
In that video, courtesy of CBS5 in San Francisco, they filmed Solyndra employees throwing away thousands of these high-tech glass tubes, representing millions of dollars worth of materials that surely could have been sold? According to the CBS5 report it gets even worse:
Solyndra paid at least $2 million for the specialized glass. A CBS 5 crew found one piece lying in the parking lot. Solyndra still owes the German company that made the tubes close to another $8 million.
Neither the Germans nor the U.S. taxpayers can expect any effort on the part of Obama’s Solyndra cronies to pay back what they owe them. This is proven right in that video. CBS5 also blows the lid off the lies and excuses being told to justify this lunacy:
An employee for Heritage Global Partners, the company in charge of selling Solyndra’s assets, told CBS 5 they conducted an exhaustive search for buyers but no one wanted them. But how exhaustive was that search? The tubes were never included on the list of Solyndra assets put up for sale at two auctions last year.If they were, David Lucky told CBS 5 he would have bought them. “We certainly would have bid on them, yes,” Lucky said. Lucky owns several large warehouses near Las Vegas. He buys and then resells manufacturing equipment and components all the time.
Meanwhile President Obama has the audacity to brag about his grand solar panel investments on behalf of the taxpayers, in these Liberal Green energy failures. When asked by Liberal fluff-master and Obama’s favorite softball server,George Stephanopoulos if he regretted his promotion of the bankrupt Solyndra solar panel company, the teleprompter in chief simply stated, “No, I don’t.” $500 million hard-earned tax dollars were thrown in the dumpster with nothing to show for it, and Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t regret it one little bit. Yet today there are still 47% of the uninformed masses in America today saying they want four more years of this. (in the form of Obama’s approval rate) Go figure.
Barack Obama and company pumped a half a billion taxpayer dollars into the failed Solar Panel company, Solyndra. Big-time Obama donors were put on the “we get paid first” list while the taxpayers were basically told to eat dirt.($500 million dollars worth of it) With Solyndra pleading bankruptcy, the remaining assets were ordered to be sold so that past debts can be paid, albeit for pennies on the dollar, if at all. So how can anyone justify the following video, where we see Solyndra employees dumping millions of dollars worth of special glass tubes used in the manufacturing of solar panels into a dumpster?
In that video, courtesy of CBS5 in San Francisco, they filmed Solyndra employees throwing away thousands of these high-tech glass tubes, representing millions of dollars worth of materials that surely could have been sold? According to the CBS5 report it gets even worse:
Solyndra paid at least $2 million for the specialized glass. A CBS 5 crew found one piece lying in the parking lot. Solyndra still owes the German company that made the tubes close to another $8 million.
Neither the Germans nor the U.S. taxpayers can expect any effort on the part of Obama’s Solyndra cronies to pay back what they owe them. This is proven right in that video. CBS5 also blows the lid off the lies and excuses being told to justify this lunacy:
An employee for Heritage Global Partners, the company in charge of selling Solyndra’s assets, told CBS 5 they conducted an exhaustive search for buyers but no one wanted them. But how exhaustive was that search? The tubes were never included on the list of Solyndra assets put up for sale at two auctions last year.If they were, David Lucky told CBS 5 he would have bought them. “We certainly would have bid on them, yes,” Lucky said. Lucky owns several large warehouses near Las Vegas. He buys and then resells manufacturing equipment and components all the time.
Meanwhile President Obama has the audacity to brag about his grand solar panel investments on behalf of the taxpayers, in these Liberal Green energy failures. When asked by Liberal fluff-master and Obama’s favorite softball server,George Stephanopoulos if he regretted his promotion of the bankrupt Solyndra solar panel company, the teleprompter in chief simply stated, “No, I don’t.” $500 million hard-earned tax dollars were thrown in the dumpster with nothing to show for it, and Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t regret it one little bit. Yet today there are still 47% of the uninformed masses in America today saying they want four more years of this. (in the form of Obama’s approval rate) Go figure.
Venting: MSM and their continuous effort to paint stars as experts
Here’s a letter to the New York Times:
You think it’s heartening and good that, as you report, “Michelle Obama is on the road, campaigning and telling Americans to eat their vegetables” (“Helpings of Energy and Cheer for the Trail,” Feb. 11).
I think it’s creepy and obnoxious.
Who the hell is she to tell – or even to advise – people outside of her own family what to eat? Free and responsible men and women do not take seriously those who use their fame as a platform to issue advice about matters on which they know nothing – and politicians’ spouses (no less than politicians themselves, Hollywood entertainers, sports stars, and the like) have zero knowledge about each individual American’s tastes and preferences over a wide range of lifestyle options. I’m downright repulsed by the media’s habit of mistaking a person’s celebrity for expertise, popularity for acumen, and visibility for enlightenment.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
You think it’s heartening and good that, as you report, “Michelle Obama is on the road, campaigning and telling Americans to eat their vegetables” (“Helpings of Energy and Cheer for the Trail,” Feb. 11).
I think it’s creepy and obnoxious.
Who the hell is she to tell – or even to advise – people outside of her own family what to eat? Free and responsible men and women do not take seriously those who use their fame as a platform to issue advice about matters on which they know nothing – and politicians’ spouses (no less than politicians themselves, Hollywood entertainers, sports stars, and the like) have zero knowledge about each individual American’s tastes and preferences over a wide range of lifestyle options. I’m downright repulsed by the media’s habit of mistaking a person’s celebrity for expertise, popularity for acumen, and visibility for enlightenment.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
The French Housing Bubble You Never Hear Anything About
Business Insider:
Joe Weisenthal
This is an interesting chart from Deutsche Bank's Torsten Slook, who has put together a slide presentation of housing markets around the world, and where they are in the cycle.
As is stated by the title, France actually had a bigger bubble than the US. In every year since the late 90s, French home prices appreciated at a faster real rate than American ones. And contrary to the US bust, France has already recovered, with prices once again growing annually.
Joe Weisenthal
This is an interesting chart from Deutsche Bank's Torsten Slook, who has put together a slide presentation of housing markets around the world, and where they are in the cycle.
As is stated by the title, France actually had a bigger bubble than the US. In every year since the late 90s, French home prices appreciated at a faster real rate than American ones. And contrary to the US bust, France has already recovered, with prices once again growing annually.
Under what authority does the EPA now regulate family farms?
If you have a farm and store fuel for your equipment on the premises, well, you've got a new partner for your business. It's called the EPA. Please consider this delightful warning from The Billings Gazette:
EPA moves to prevent fuel spills on farms
At Nedens farms, the price of fuel is no small matter. The family business north of Hardin burns through more than 60,000 gallons of diesel a year.
So, when the opportunity arises to save a few pennies a gallon, the Nedens pounce, usually by buying an entire fuel truck's worth of diesel at a time.
"Obviously, if you buy a whole tanker load of fuel, it's going to be substantially lower," Brett Nedens said of the price. "I think I can save about 20 cents a gallon. Obviously if you can load it at the refinery, it costs a lot less."
The savings add up for Nedens and other farmers, who save about $20,000 a year buying bulk. But now they'll have to weigh that savings against the costs of complying with federal regulations...
The Natural Resources and Conservation Service also has begun offering Montana farmers help both with the costs of designing the plan and also construction costs, said Tim Ouellette of NRCS in Bozeman. NRCS is getting involved because it would like plans that not only address risks to rivers and streams, but also groundwater.
Is there anything that this federal monstrosity doesn't have their claws in? Light bulbs, toilet tanks, shower heads, fuel tanks, fuel mileage, health care, soft drinks, alcohol, water... anything and everything you could possibly imagine.
This nation's founders would be sickened by how thoroughly disconnected this Beltway Leviathan is from our nation's highest law, the Constitution. And just about every government failure you can think of -- from the deficit to Obamacare -- has its roots in the Democrats' 100-year war on the Constitution.
EPA moves to prevent fuel spills on farms
At Nedens farms, the price of fuel is no small matter. The family business north of Hardin burns through more than 60,000 gallons of diesel a year.
So, when the opportunity arises to save a few pennies a gallon, the Nedens pounce, usually by buying an entire fuel truck's worth of diesel at a time.
"Obviously, if you buy a whole tanker load of fuel, it's going to be substantially lower," Brett Nedens said of the price. "I think I can save about 20 cents a gallon. Obviously if you can load it at the refinery, it costs a lot less."
The savings add up for Nedens and other farmers, who save about $20,000 a year buying bulk. But now they'll have to weigh that savings against the costs of complying with federal regulations...
The Natural Resources and Conservation Service also has begun offering Montana farmers help both with the costs of designing the plan and also construction costs, said Tim Ouellette of NRCS in Bozeman. NRCS is getting involved because it would like plans that not only address risks to rivers and streams, but also groundwater.
Is there anything that this federal monstrosity doesn't have their claws in? Light bulbs, toilet tanks, shower heads, fuel tanks, fuel mileage, health care, soft drinks, alcohol, water... anything and everything you could possibly imagine.
This nation's founders would be sickened by how thoroughly disconnected this Beltway Leviathan is from our nation's highest law, the Constitution. And just about every government failure you can think of -- from the deficit to Obamacare -- has its roots in the Democrats' 100-year war on the Constitution.
Small Business Smoke and Mirrors
Townhall.com
Lurita Doan
Feb 13, 2012
The Obama Administration likes to "talk the talk" when it comes to small businesses, but they have yet to "walk the walk". None of the Administrations efforts to help small businesses have worked as promised and most were mere gimmicks designed to fool some of the people all of the time. Barack Obama's recent announcement that he was promoting the SBA to a cabinet-level agency was just another example of window dressing and political sleight-of-hand to cover three years of missteps with the small business community.
Most of Obama's announcements are timed and designed to cover up failures, and small business is no exception. Thus, the most recent White House announcement, lest the president seem lagging behind congress which has four, bipartisan bills working their way through the House, in support of small businesses doing business with the government.
But rather than taking actions that might actually encourage small business formation, reduce the regulatory burdens, or open more opportunities to small business growth, Barack Obama took the largely ceremonial step of elevating the Small Business Administration to cabinet level status. No doubt, Obama hopes that this ceremonial move will demonstrate his true devotion to small business.
Obama probably also hopes that Americans will forget that this president seldom meets or consults with his Cabinet. Even Democrats have complained that he summons them rarely, and only when needed for an appropriate photo op, and has instead turned power once held by Cabinet Officers over to one of the many, different White House Czars.
But anyone willing to take a closer look at Barack Obama’s policies toward small business will see that he has no idea just how irresponsible, punishing, and openly corrupt his policies have become towards small business.
Even in the federal government contracting world, where government has direct control over contracts awarded, during the past three years, small businesses did not participate, to any significant extent, in the splurge of federal spending—almost $4 Trillion in 3 years, and only a tiny percentage went to small businesses--which is a real shame since history has shown that small businesses create 3 out of every 4 jobs in this country.
After three years of effort, there remains a severe disconnect about what kinds of policies help small businesses grow and have the confidence to hire employees and create jobs.
For example, the Subcontractor Transparency and Reliability Act (H.R. 3893) is well-intentioned and correctly identifies the pervasive problem of "bait and switch" small business subcontracting practices within the federal government. But, the solution is not more frequent reporting, but rather more accurate reporting. Reporting designed and stream-lined to ensure that the small businesses originally proposed to win the procurement are actually the small businesses currently performing the work is what is needed.
Obama seems unaware that there is only one way to remedy this deficiency. Large businesses must perform the work as promised, with the subcontracting small business team originally proposed, or they must forfeit payment until such time as the large business can fulfill its small business subcontracting promises.
Another piece of small business legislation that is also well-intentioned requires the inclusion of the Office of the Small Business Advocate in the procurement process. The problem with this is that it is already part of the existing small business procurement regulations process--the small business advocate is already required to review all federal agency procurements to determine which, if any, are appropriate for small businesses--but, this procedure is rarely, if ever, enforced.
No new laws are required. The White House (and congress) simply need to enforce the laws already existing on the books.
Another example, H.R. 3850 ( GETS) seeks to increase the small business contracting goals from 23% to 25%. While this may seem like a great way to increase the size of the small business pie ( and I certainly applaud the spirit and the intent of the legislation), government agencies already are adept at the duck-and-dodge when they do not achieve or succeed in meeting the current, legislated standards. These federal agencies are given a pass, year after year, and so the canard continues.
Occasionally, a wily, federal small business, procurement office, for example in DHS, will achieve or even appear to exceed their small business procurement goals by awarding one or two contracts, worth anywhere from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to one or two Alaskan Indian firms ( that rarely seem to have any Alaskan Indians working in them). Alaskan Native Firms have long operated in an openly corrupt system that allows them to compete for federal business unfairly. Rarely are the Alaskan Native businesses required to have relevant past performance or experience, and are allowed to submit sole source proposals, and have been awarded some $5 billion in government contracts.
To be sure, phony contracting to Alaskan native firms, and the special protected status of these firms, has been a growing problem for years. Yet, when confronted with the facts about how corrupt the system has become, Barack Obama elected to EXPAND the program to include Hawaiian native companies.
In worst case scenarios, whether intentional or not, large corporations often help the government continue the small business assistance shams, In the course of the sham, there'll be great fanfare and publicity about small business initiatives. Perhaps the large business will co-host a trade fare to "partner" with the government agency.
But none of these expenditures of money or effort will result in giving the small business community what they need most, a fair shot at winning government contracts, lower taxes to spur investment and hiring, and access to investment capital.
What will occur is that the entity, whether private sector or government, will take the funds expended on these trifles and claim the cost of these small business conferences as their way of meeting their small business set-aside requirements-- and complicit government allows the sham to succeed.
What Barack Obama needs to understand is that elevating the SBA Administrator to the Cabinet level doesn't magically solve this country's small business problems, especially if he keeps loading regulations and restrictions that increase the burdens on small businesses. The White House’s small business policies are mere election year shenanigans, smoke-and-mirrors designed to get folks re-elected, that do little to address the real and troubling problems facing small business.
By now, Americans should know that Barack Obama is a great fan of smoke and mirrors. As long as no one looks too closely, Barack Obama’s sad and pathetic record on small businesses will never be seen as it truly is, a corrupt and despicable fraud.
Lurita Doan
Feb 13, 2012
The Obama Administration likes to "talk the talk" when it comes to small businesses, but they have yet to "walk the walk". None of the Administrations efforts to help small businesses have worked as promised and most were mere gimmicks designed to fool some of the people all of the time. Barack Obama's recent announcement that he was promoting the SBA to a cabinet-level agency was just another example of window dressing and political sleight-of-hand to cover three years of missteps with the small business community.
Most of Obama's announcements are timed and designed to cover up failures, and small business is no exception. Thus, the most recent White House announcement, lest the president seem lagging behind congress which has four, bipartisan bills working their way through the House, in support of small businesses doing business with the government.
But rather than taking actions that might actually encourage small business formation, reduce the regulatory burdens, or open more opportunities to small business growth, Barack Obama took the largely ceremonial step of elevating the Small Business Administration to cabinet level status. No doubt, Obama hopes that this ceremonial move will demonstrate his true devotion to small business.
Obama probably also hopes that Americans will forget that this president seldom meets or consults with his Cabinet. Even Democrats have complained that he summons them rarely, and only when needed for an appropriate photo op, and has instead turned power once held by Cabinet Officers over to one of the many, different White House Czars.
But anyone willing to take a closer look at Barack Obama’s policies toward small business will see that he has no idea just how irresponsible, punishing, and openly corrupt his policies have become towards small business.
Even in the federal government contracting world, where government has direct control over contracts awarded, during the past three years, small businesses did not participate, to any significant extent, in the splurge of federal spending—almost $4 Trillion in 3 years, and only a tiny percentage went to small businesses--which is a real shame since history has shown that small businesses create 3 out of every 4 jobs in this country.
After three years of effort, there remains a severe disconnect about what kinds of policies help small businesses grow and have the confidence to hire employees and create jobs.
For example, the Subcontractor Transparency and Reliability Act (H.R. 3893) is well-intentioned and correctly identifies the pervasive problem of "bait and switch" small business subcontracting practices within the federal government. But, the solution is not more frequent reporting, but rather more accurate reporting. Reporting designed and stream-lined to ensure that the small businesses originally proposed to win the procurement are actually the small businesses currently performing the work is what is needed.
Obama seems unaware that there is only one way to remedy this deficiency. Large businesses must perform the work as promised, with the subcontracting small business team originally proposed, or they must forfeit payment until such time as the large business can fulfill its small business subcontracting promises.
Another piece of small business legislation that is also well-intentioned requires the inclusion of the Office of the Small Business Advocate in the procurement process. The problem with this is that it is already part of the existing small business procurement regulations process--the small business advocate is already required to review all federal agency procurements to determine which, if any, are appropriate for small businesses--but, this procedure is rarely, if ever, enforced.
No new laws are required. The White House (and congress) simply need to enforce the laws already existing on the books.
Another example, H.R. 3850 ( GETS) seeks to increase the small business contracting goals from 23% to 25%. While this may seem like a great way to increase the size of the small business pie ( and I certainly applaud the spirit and the intent of the legislation), government agencies already are adept at the duck-and-dodge when they do not achieve or succeed in meeting the current, legislated standards. These federal agencies are given a pass, year after year, and so the canard continues.
Occasionally, a wily, federal small business, procurement office, for example in DHS, will achieve or even appear to exceed their small business procurement goals by awarding one or two contracts, worth anywhere from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to one or two Alaskan Indian firms ( that rarely seem to have any Alaskan Indians working in them). Alaskan Native Firms have long operated in an openly corrupt system that allows them to compete for federal business unfairly. Rarely are the Alaskan Native businesses required to have relevant past performance or experience, and are allowed to submit sole source proposals, and have been awarded some $5 billion in government contracts.
To be sure, phony contracting to Alaskan native firms, and the special protected status of these firms, has been a growing problem for years. Yet, when confronted with the facts about how corrupt the system has become, Barack Obama elected to EXPAND the program to include Hawaiian native companies.
In worst case scenarios, whether intentional or not, large corporations often help the government continue the small business assistance shams, In the course of the sham, there'll be great fanfare and publicity about small business initiatives. Perhaps the large business will co-host a trade fare to "partner" with the government agency.
But none of these expenditures of money or effort will result in giving the small business community what they need most, a fair shot at winning government contracts, lower taxes to spur investment and hiring, and access to investment capital.
What will occur is that the entity, whether private sector or government, will take the funds expended on these trifles and claim the cost of these small business conferences as their way of meeting their small business set-aside requirements-- and complicit government allows the sham to succeed.
What Barack Obama needs to understand is that elevating the SBA Administrator to the Cabinet level doesn't magically solve this country's small business problems, especially if he keeps loading regulations and restrictions that increase the burdens on small businesses. The White House’s small business policies are mere election year shenanigans, smoke-and-mirrors designed to get folks re-elected, that do little to address the real and troubling problems facing small business.
By now, Americans should know that Barack Obama is a great fan of smoke and mirrors. As long as no one looks too closely, Barack Obama’s sad and pathetic record on small businesses will never be seen as it truly is, a corrupt and despicable fraud.
Barack Obama: In the Footsteps of Twentieth Century Despots
February 13, 2012
Barack Obama: In the Footsteps of Twentieth Century Despots
By Steve McCann
How many times will the American people have to be hit over the head before they understand that Barack Obama is the most corrupt, dictatorial, and ideologically driven president in American history? That his entire being and psyche are devoted to transforming the country not only into a socialist utopia, but into a nation permanently governed by a radical oligarchy?
This mindset has been on display since the beginning of Obama's term, as detailed by David Limbaugh in his book, Crimes Against Liberty. Yet so many seem to not care or are deliberately oblivious to the long-term implications of his actions, many of which mirror those of the despots that ran roughshod over the last century.
The recent ruling by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services forcing religious institutions to provide either directly or through private insurance not only contraceptives, but abortion pills and sterilization is not a matter of so-called women's rights, but a means of setting the precedent and foundation to force organized religion to be subservient to the state.
The passage of ObamaCare, from which this edict stems, has nothing to do with healthcare; rather, it is a vehicle to ultimately control the day-to-day activities of the American people through the dictates and mandates emanating from an overarching bureaucracy. Once fully implemented, individual liberty and freedom, the hallmarks of the nation's history, will be eradicated forever.
Further, the Obama regime has shown a callous disregard for the sanctity of life, as no administration in the nation's past has so aggressively promoted abortion, and, through the rationing mechanism in ObamaCare, the very real prospect of government-sponsored euthanasia.
Nothing reveals Obama's dictatorial mindset more than his relationship with Congress. His recent actions in unilaterally making appointments that are subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session are blatantly unconstitutional and done to marginalize Congress. His appointment of innumerable "czars" is a means of bypassing Congress and their oversight of the federal Cabinet departments. His Department of Justice has been transformed into an advocacy group to enforce the left-wing radical version of social justice while refusing to be accountable to Congress. Obama has resorted to utilizing executive orders and volumes of regulations from various agencies under his command in order to put in place his radical policies and sidestep Congress and thus the will of the people.
In furtherance of Obama's transformative goals, he and his minions are in the process of shackling the free market through unfettered government control and influence. It is the aim of the Obama presidency to create a so-called "government-business partnership" wherein the government chooses the winners and losers based upon their allegiance to and support of the regime.
The massive spending and debt incurred over the past three years are the byproduct of Obama's overarching objective to make certain that the overwhelming majority of the populace becomes, by necessity, dependent on the government, thus more subservient and easily controlled. Whether the country becomes insolvent or the middle class ceases to exist is immaterial.
In his public speeches and well-produced appearances, Barack Obama plays the fictional role of someone who cares for the "little guy." He is the people's avenger against those he defines as the enemy, be it the wealthy, the corporations, deeply committed religious groups, conservatives and the Tea Party movement, or those intransigent ideologues in Congress who stand in the way of his nation-saving agenda. In this quest for power, there are no lies or obfuscations too egregious to tell or societal tensions too dangerous to create, as he alone can save the nation.
Barack Obama is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century. If given another term in office, he, along with his fellow-travelers in the administration, will be unencumbered in attempting to complete the transformation of the United States. However, they will not accomplish their quest -- just as those they admire in the previous century did not. They will succeed only in initiating massive social upheaval and violence.
I had to survive a war that was precipitated by leaders in various European countries who were democratically elected. Yet once in power, these power-crazed ideologues began to systematically usurp and overthrow the rule of law with the ultimate goal of becoming the government themselves.
Their lust for power led them to shred any written constitution or traditions as they systematically imposed new regulations, laws, and executive orders geared primarily to centralize authority in the government as individual rights and liberties were extinguished. Legislatures were abolished or marginalized; organized religion was forced to be subservient to the state, and respect for the sanctity of life was extinguished. The owners and managers of business and industry were intimidated and compelled to be submissive and loyal to the state. By the time the populace became aware of what was happening to their respective countries, it was too late.
The citizens of Germany in the first four years of the 1930s would have found it impossible to imagine what became of their country by 1945 or to think it even remotely possible. Those in Italy in the 1920s, promised so much by the Mussolini regime, eagerly voted the Fascists into power only to end up with a society torn asunder and a nation lying in ruins. The same results were played out in Russia, China, and many countries in Eastern Europe.
The history of the United States and its traditions of liberty and individual freedom should be a bulwark against the successful emergence of someone like Barack Obama and his cronies. Yet the majority of the citizenry, the media, the opposition party, the members of Congress, and the judiciary are not shouting from the highest hilltop and taking action to stop the Obama regime's unconstitutional acts and power-grabs.
Has this country enjoyed peace and prosperity so long that everyone is jaded and preoccupied with themselves, or in a self-induced stupor, either ignoring the situation or telling themselves that these unconstitutional steps and power-grabs are minor? Is a pre-packaged television image all that matters? Is it because Obama happens to have black skin, and everyone is too intimidated by political correctness to speak out? Are we as a society unwilling to say in the bluntest of terms that a national leader is a liar and a fraud? Why are countless members of the Ruling Class unwilling to learn from history, or is it that their egos are such that they cannot admit a mistake, or do far too many have a vested interest in the current state of affairs?
Perhaps it is as it was in Germany, Italy, and Russia among many -- a belief that the worst could never happen here.
For those of us who emigrated from those nations whose societies suffered not only overwhelming destruction, but a devastating loss of freedom and liberty, we can only warn our fellow citizens that the country is going down a road that is becoming eerily familiar. It is not hyperbole to say that we see someone in the White House whose character reflects the worst and most dangerous traits to be found in a national leader, and we are stunned that the majority of the American people do not understand what is happening to the most successful society in the history of mankind. We know that the only viable solution to avoid the stormclouds gathering over the horizon is to relegate Barack Obama and his regime to a footnote in the annals of American history.
Either the citizens, on the 6th of November 2012, will choose to reverse course and return to the basic tenets of freedom and liberty upon which the nation was founded, or the people will choose to blindly follow Barack Obama on a path which will eventuate in internal chaos and violence as well as subservience to those countries who wish to see the end of America's time on the world stage.
Barack Obama: In the Footsteps of Twentieth Century Despots
By Steve McCann
How many times will the American people have to be hit over the head before they understand that Barack Obama is the most corrupt, dictatorial, and ideologically driven president in American history? That his entire being and psyche are devoted to transforming the country not only into a socialist utopia, but into a nation permanently governed by a radical oligarchy?
This mindset has been on display since the beginning of Obama's term, as detailed by David Limbaugh in his book, Crimes Against Liberty. Yet so many seem to not care or are deliberately oblivious to the long-term implications of his actions, many of which mirror those of the despots that ran roughshod over the last century.
The recent ruling by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services forcing religious institutions to provide either directly or through private insurance not only contraceptives, but abortion pills and sterilization is not a matter of so-called women's rights, but a means of setting the precedent and foundation to force organized religion to be subservient to the state.
The passage of ObamaCare, from which this edict stems, has nothing to do with healthcare; rather, it is a vehicle to ultimately control the day-to-day activities of the American people through the dictates and mandates emanating from an overarching bureaucracy. Once fully implemented, individual liberty and freedom, the hallmarks of the nation's history, will be eradicated forever.
Further, the Obama regime has shown a callous disregard for the sanctity of life, as no administration in the nation's past has so aggressively promoted abortion, and, through the rationing mechanism in ObamaCare, the very real prospect of government-sponsored euthanasia.
Nothing reveals Obama's dictatorial mindset more than his relationship with Congress. His recent actions in unilaterally making appointments that are subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session are blatantly unconstitutional and done to marginalize Congress. His appointment of innumerable "czars" is a means of bypassing Congress and their oversight of the federal Cabinet departments. His Department of Justice has been transformed into an advocacy group to enforce the left-wing radical version of social justice while refusing to be accountable to Congress. Obama has resorted to utilizing executive orders and volumes of regulations from various agencies under his command in order to put in place his radical policies and sidestep Congress and thus the will of the people.
In furtherance of Obama's transformative goals, he and his minions are in the process of shackling the free market through unfettered government control and influence. It is the aim of the Obama presidency to create a so-called "government-business partnership" wherein the government chooses the winners and losers based upon their allegiance to and support of the regime.
The massive spending and debt incurred over the past three years are the byproduct of Obama's overarching objective to make certain that the overwhelming majority of the populace becomes, by necessity, dependent on the government, thus more subservient and easily controlled. Whether the country becomes insolvent or the middle class ceases to exist is immaterial.
In his public speeches and well-produced appearances, Barack Obama plays the fictional role of someone who cares for the "little guy." He is the people's avenger against those he defines as the enemy, be it the wealthy, the corporations, deeply committed religious groups, conservatives and the Tea Party movement, or those intransigent ideologues in Congress who stand in the way of his nation-saving agenda. In this quest for power, there are no lies or obfuscations too egregious to tell or societal tensions too dangerous to create, as he alone can save the nation.
Barack Obama is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century. If given another term in office, he, along with his fellow-travelers in the administration, will be unencumbered in attempting to complete the transformation of the United States. However, they will not accomplish their quest -- just as those they admire in the previous century did not. They will succeed only in initiating massive social upheaval and violence.
I had to survive a war that was precipitated by leaders in various European countries who were democratically elected. Yet once in power, these power-crazed ideologues began to systematically usurp and overthrow the rule of law with the ultimate goal of becoming the government themselves.
Their lust for power led them to shred any written constitution or traditions as they systematically imposed new regulations, laws, and executive orders geared primarily to centralize authority in the government as individual rights and liberties were extinguished. Legislatures were abolished or marginalized; organized religion was forced to be subservient to the state, and respect for the sanctity of life was extinguished. The owners and managers of business and industry were intimidated and compelled to be submissive and loyal to the state. By the time the populace became aware of what was happening to their respective countries, it was too late.
The citizens of Germany in the first four years of the 1930s would have found it impossible to imagine what became of their country by 1945 or to think it even remotely possible. Those in Italy in the 1920s, promised so much by the Mussolini regime, eagerly voted the Fascists into power only to end up with a society torn asunder and a nation lying in ruins. The same results were played out in Russia, China, and many countries in Eastern Europe.
The history of the United States and its traditions of liberty and individual freedom should be a bulwark against the successful emergence of someone like Barack Obama and his cronies. Yet the majority of the citizenry, the media, the opposition party, the members of Congress, and the judiciary are not shouting from the highest hilltop and taking action to stop the Obama regime's unconstitutional acts and power-grabs.
Has this country enjoyed peace and prosperity so long that everyone is jaded and preoccupied with themselves, or in a self-induced stupor, either ignoring the situation or telling themselves that these unconstitutional steps and power-grabs are minor? Is a pre-packaged television image all that matters? Is it because Obama happens to have black skin, and everyone is too intimidated by political correctness to speak out? Are we as a society unwilling to say in the bluntest of terms that a national leader is a liar and a fraud? Why are countless members of the Ruling Class unwilling to learn from history, or is it that their egos are such that they cannot admit a mistake, or do far too many have a vested interest in the current state of affairs?
Perhaps it is as it was in Germany, Italy, and Russia among many -- a belief that the worst could never happen here.
For those of us who emigrated from those nations whose societies suffered not only overwhelming destruction, but a devastating loss of freedom and liberty, we can only warn our fellow citizens that the country is going down a road that is becoming eerily familiar. It is not hyperbole to say that we see someone in the White House whose character reflects the worst and most dangerous traits to be found in a national leader, and we are stunned that the majority of the American people do not understand what is happening to the most successful society in the history of mankind. We know that the only viable solution to avoid the stormclouds gathering over the horizon is to relegate Barack Obama and his regime to a footnote in the annals of American history.
Either the citizens, on the 6th of November 2012, will choose to reverse course and return to the basic tenets of freedom and liberty upon which the nation was founded, or the people will choose to blindly follow Barack Obama on a path which will eventuate in internal chaos and violence as well as subservience to those countries who wish to see the end of America's time on the world stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)