I know this isn't politics, but I decided to offer something a little different to help you relax after the long, hard week. My brother is quite the musician, and has written and created several albums. One of these albums is called "Crystal Vision," and he collaborated with Lia Harris, who was 14 when she recorded this. She has since married and is now Lia Mack, and is a recording artist with Juggernaut Records LLC in Manteca, CA. You can find more information about her online at:
http://theofficiallia.wordpress.com/
Update: I had earlier stated the vocalist was Tina Harris, a former member of Sweetbox who later performed with Brittany Spears and NSYNC. This was my mistake... Tina is Lia's mother.
This song is a very good one, if you ask me, and I hope you like it. This is "The Light" from the album "Crystal Vision" by Mark Givens, performed by Mark Givens and Lia Mack.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulJYwa6QAKY
Let me know if you liked this song, if you'd be so kind.
Read the rest...
Friday, February 25, 2011
See What I Mean? A Big Romney Negative
Yesterday we discovered that my reasoning on Romney is correct. Answering criticism from Romney, a spokesman for his campaign said that Mitt Romney is PROUD of RomneyCare.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50161.html
So there it is. Romney's opinion on health care reform matches that of Obama and the Democrats. He thinks government controlling the health care system is just fine, and forcing people to buy insurance is a great idea.
Of course, he TRIES to draw a line of difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
What Romney misses is that a one-size-fits-all plan doesn't even work for the state of Massachusetts! Whatever happened to the free market and individual rights? Romney's continuing support of RomneyCare shows that he doesn't think much of the whole small-government idea that respects individual freedom. Nope, not at all, because the similarities between RomneyCare and ObamaCare FAR outweigh the differences.
I need no other reasons to know why Romney would make a bad President. He shares Obama's belief in government solutions and government control over free markets; and that's a belief that would transcend the subject of health care and color his policies in other areas.
And that's a BAD thing to have in our next President. Do we REALLY want Obama's policies coming from a Republican President?
I can't speak for you, but I do not.
Read the rest...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50161.html
"Mitt Romney is proud of what he accomplished for Massachusetts in getting everyone covered,” Romney’s spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, told the Boston Globe, in the first direct response Team Mitt made to Huckabee's criticism of the health plan in his new book.
So there it is. Romney's opinion on health care reform matches that of Obama and the Democrats. He thinks government controlling the health care system is just fine, and forcing people to buy insurance is a great idea.
Of course, he TRIES to draw a line of difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
“What's important now is to return to the states the power to determine their own healthcare solutions by repealing Obamacare," Fehrnstrom added. "A one-size-fits-all plan for the entire nation just doesn't work.”
What Romney misses is that a one-size-fits-all plan doesn't even work for the state of Massachusetts! Whatever happened to the free market and individual rights? Romney's continuing support of RomneyCare shows that he doesn't think much of the whole small-government idea that respects individual freedom. Nope, not at all, because the similarities between RomneyCare and ObamaCare FAR outweigh the differences.
I need no other reasons to know why Romney would make a bad President. He shares Obama's belief in government solutions and government control over free markets; and that's a belief that would transcend the subject of health care and color his policies in other areas.
And that's a BAD thing to have in our next President. Do we REALLY want Obama's policies coming from a Republican President?
I can't speak for you, but I do not.
Read the rest...
Thursday, February 24, 2011
I Thought Violent Rhetoric Was Bad?
Okay, I thought the Democrats were all up in arms about "violent rhetoric" being used in political debate. Apparently not, based on this song. You see, the unions protesting in Wisconsin now have a song written specifically for their efforts. This song was written for them and they are using it, on the web and elsewhere.
Warning: The following video contains language that is offensive and not safe for work.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j2Ng153ORDo
Basically, the song includes the following lyrics:
And here I thought that violent rhetoric was a bad thing. So, either the Democrats and the MSM were lying and are hypocrites or... No, there's really no other choice.
Now compare that to the Tea Party anthem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1byTDgu7iA
Which cause would YOU rather associate yourself with? "Take the b@st@rds down and smash them to the ground" or "We're standing up for freedom and liberty"?
Read the rest...
Warning: The following video contains language that is offensive and not safe for work.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j2Ng153ORDo
Basically, the song includes the following lyrics:
Let them know
We gotta take the b@st@rds down
Let them know
We gotta smash them to the ground
Let them know
We got to take the b@st@rds down
And here I thought that violent rhetoric was a bad thing. So, either the Democrats and the MSM were lying and are hypocrites or... No, there's really no other choice.
Now compare that to the Tea Party anthem:
We're having a Tea Party across this land.
If you love this country, come on and join our band.
We're standing up for freedom and liberty.
'Cause patriots have shown us freedom ain't free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1byTDgu7iA
Which cause would YOU rather associate yourself with? "Take the b@st@rds down and smash them to the ground" or "We're standing up for freedom and liberty"?
Read the rest...
Are You Ready For The Coming Storm?
I can see dark clouds moving in now, piling up on the horizon, a looming reminder of the storm that will soon engulf this state. What I'm talking about here is judicial activism to force higher property taxes on everybody across the state of Alabama.
I wrote about this lawsuit a while back. On March 21, when this case goes to trial, the sky will be covered with black clouds, looming over us with the possibility for the fiscal dissipation of our state. As I wrote earlier this month:
The judge involved here, U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith, appears poised to rule in favor of the plaintiffs here, and order the state Legislature to "fix" the property tax system sometime in the coming year.
How many think he won't do it?
The issue is a simple one. State law requires voters to approve any property tax increases. How can that be discriminatory when the minorities involved have the same right to vote on those increases as anybody else? I caution you, don't try to understand the mentality of the looters.
But as you can see, the limiting factor here isn't any alleged discrimination in state law, it's that the voters don't want to pay the higher taxes that the plaintiffs clearly believe we should pay.
I perceive a likelihood that Judge Lynwood Smith may well rule in favor of the plaintiffs, thus triggering the deluge and forcing this state into a massively disruptive argument. If the plaintiffs ultimately win and the voter approval requirement for property tax increases is lifted, watch for property tax rates to rise dramatically, up to 1000% or more in some places.
And, I guarantee to you, that money will not improve the quality of education received by children in this state. Spending on education in this state has doubled from 1997 to 2009, but the quality of education has not improved to match the extra spending. A massive influx of tax revenue will not help, because the major problem isn't lack of funding, it's poor teaching.
One of my daughter's teachers once told her, "If you want to learn anything, sit in front. Otherwise, sit in the back." Wonderful attitude, and a perfect example of the problems that exist in our education system. Oh sure, we have some fairly decent schools and teachers, but the rest drag down the numbers. Throwing money at the problem won't fix it.
What do you think massively increasing property tax rates across the state will do to the state economy? Don't you think all those tax dollars being taken away from individuals and businesses to pour into state coffers MIGHT have an adverse effect on our economy? Heck, property valuations are still rising in the state, even though real estate values are ACTUALLY dropping like a rock. If you pile soaring property tax rates on top of that, you'll know what I meant about a "looming storm" threatening the fiscal viability of our state economy.
Read the rest...
I wrote about this lawsuit a while back. On March 21, when this case goes to trial, the sky will be covered with black clouds, looming over us with the possibility for the fiscal dissipation of our state. As I wrote earlier this month:
The basis of their claim is this. The Alabama Constitution limits the amount of property taxes that can be levied, and also requires a vote of the people before they can be raised. They claim that this limits the amount of money that can be spent on education and discriminates against poor, black children.
If they win, all such limits disappear, and cities and counties, not to mention the state, are free to raise property taxes as they wish. No limits. No approval by the voters required. And we all get to watch our property taxes skyrocket while the quality of our education system stays exactly the same.
The judge involved here, U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith, appears poised to rule in favor of the plaintiffs here, and order the state Legislature to "fix" the property tax system sometime in the coming year.
How many think he won't do it?
The issue is a simple one. State law requires voters to approve any property tax increases. How can that be discriminatory when the minorities involved have the same right to vote on those increases as anybody else? I caution you, don't try to understand the mentality of the looters.
But as you can see, the limiting factor here isn't any alleged discrimination in state law, it's that the voters don't want to pay the higher taxes that the plaintiffs clearly believe we should pay.
The state's best argument may be that Sumter and Lawrence counties, where the children who are plaintiffs attend public schools, can raise property taxes. Lawrence County could raise almost $15 million more for schools, while Sumter County could raise about $5 million more, the state says.
But voters there have refused to do so. Lawrence County voters rejected proposed tax increases of 3 mills and 11 mills in 1990 and 1992. In 2006, Sumter County voters, about three-fourths of whom are African-American, crushed a proposed 15-mill tax increase.
"The essential truth is that citizens of Lawrence and Sumter counties and their elected representatives have opted to have lower property taxes than plaintiffs would like," state lawyers wrote. "Plaintiffs need to take their complaint to their elected representatives, not to a federal court."
I perceive a likelihood that Judge Lynwood Smith may well rule in favor of the plaintiffs, thus triggering the deluge and forcing this state into a massively disruptive argument. If the plaintiffs ultimately win and the voter approval requirement for property tax increases is lifted, watch for property tax rates to rise dramatically, up to 1000% or more in some places.
And, I guarantee to you, that money will not improve the quality of education received by children in this state. Spending on education in this state has doubled from 1997 to 2009, but the quality of education has not improved to match the extra spending. A massive influx of tax revenue will not help, because the major problem isn't lack of funding, it's poor teaching.
One of my daughter's teachers once told her, "If you want to learn anything, sit in front. Otherwise, sit in the back." Wonderful attitude, and a perfect example of the problems that exist in our education system. Oh sure, we have some fairly decent schools and teachers, but the rest drag down the numbers. Throwing money at the problem won't fix it.
What do you think massively increasing property tax rates across the state will do to the state economy? Don't you think all those tax dollars being taken away from individuals and businesses to pour into state coffers MIGHT have an adverse effect on our economy? Heck, property valuations are still rising in the state, even though real estate values are ACTUALLY dropping like a rock. If you pile soaring property tax rates on top of that, you'll know what I meant about a "looming storm" threatening the fiscal viability of our state economy.
Read the rest...
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
A Truly Lovely Bill
Every now and then, a bill is introduced somewhere that makes an important point with such panache and grace that I am forced to spray my mouthful of coke all across my computer monitor. Such a bill was recently introduced into the Texas Legislature. Prepare yourself for this one... and put down your coke before reading the rest.
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=8203908
I can hear you chortling in glee... well, most of you. Those of you who ignored my instructions to put down your coke, take a moment now to clean your monitors.
This is a LOVELY bill! It even requires some representative of the Senator/Representative to provide a RECEIPT for custody of said illegal alien!
Obviously, this bill isn't intended to be taken seriously, but it does make an excellent point in a provocative manner. It's a not so subtle hint that our Congress is ignoring immigration issues and refusing to enforce existing immigration law.
An EXCELLENT bill. My congratulations to Miss Kolkhorst for her truly original and innovative idea.
Read the rest...
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=8203908
This should get their attention.
A measure filed by State Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) would allow any law enforcement agency that has custody of an illegal immigrant to take the illegal to 'the office of a U.S. Senator or Representative' and leave them there.
I can hear you chortling in glee... well, most of you. Those of you who ignored my instructions to put down your coke, take a moment now to clean your monitors.
This is a LOVELY bill! It even requires some representative of the Senator/Representative to provide a RECEIPT for custody of said illegal alien!
Obviously, this bill isn't intended to be taken seriously, but it does make an excellent point in a provocative manner. It's a not so subtle hint that our Congress is ignoring immigration issues and refusing to enforce existing immigration law.
An EXCELLENT bill. My congratulations to Miss Kolkhorst for her truly original and innovative idea.
Read the rest...
Why I'll Never Vote For Chris Christie
A while back, I weighed in on the potential 2012 Presidential race by telling you why I'll never vote for Mitt Romney. You can find that article here:
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-ill-never-vote-for-romney.html
Today, I'd like to tell you why I won't vote for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, either.
One of my major issues is the Second Amendment. I firmly believe that we each have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and I oppose those who think government should impose limits on those rights. And Chris Christie is on the record as supporting gun control. When he ran for State Assembly in 1995, Christie included the following segment in a campaign flyer.
He supported the assault weapons ban and, when asked in a 2007 interview with Sean Hannity about allowing handgun permits for New Jersey residents, he said "that's not going to happen."
So he loses with me on the whole issue of gun control. Where else does he lose with me?
Let's start with ObamaCare. Governor Christie had the opportunity to join the states challenging ObamaCare in front of Florida judge Roger Vinson, and he decided not to do so. His first response to questions was to say he needed time to decide what the ramifications of repeal would be... a position he kept for TEN MONTHS before finally beginning to say he supported repealing ObamaCare. He lost me there, too.
Let's look at his support for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is essentially a 10-state cap & trade scheme. His major concern about the RGGI is that Pennsylvania was smart enough not to become involved, and he says that lack of participation hurts New Jersey. To be clear, Christie TO THIS DAY has not pulled New Jersey out of this regional cap & trade scheme.
Now, on to another issue: illegal immigration. In April of 2008, Christie treated us to his views that illegal immigrants really aren't in this country illegally, they're just undocumented.
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2008/04/christie_at_church_forum_illeg.html
And he hasn't changed much. Last July, he reiterated his support of "comprehensive immigration reform," though he was smart enough not enough to use that phrase.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39208_Page2.html
Sounds like "comprehensive immigration reform" to me.
I could go on, but I think you see by this time that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is hardly a conservative icon. In fact, he holds a lot of positions that are more often associated with liberals than with conservatives. And all the while, he TALKS like a conservative and pretends to be one.
If Christie wins the nomination, we will have two choices. We can vote to re-elect Barack Obama, or we can vote to elect Obama-lite.
Or, if we have any brains at all, we can vote to have a DIFFERENT option for the Republican candidate for President of the United States.
Those are my reasons why I will never vote for Chris Christie. If you disagree with me, then I'm sorry for you. Looking at Christie's record, he will NOT be the President we need next in office.
Read the rest...
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-ill-never-vote-for-romney.html
Today, I'd like to tell you why I won't vote for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, either.
One of my major issues is the Second Amendment. I firmly believe that we each have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and I oppose those who think government should impose limits on those rights. And Chris Christie is on the record as supporting gun control. When he ran for State Assembly in 1995, Christie included the following segment in a campaign flyer.
He supported the assault weapons ban and, when asked in a 2007 interview with Sean Hannity about allowing handgun permits for New Jersey residents, he said "that's not going to happen."
HANNITY: Should every — should every citizen in the state be allowed to get a licensed weapon if they want one?
CHRISTIE: In New Jersey, that's not going to happen, Sean.
HANNITY: Why?
CHRISTIE: Listen, the Democratic legislature we have, there's no way those type of things — listen, at the end of the day, what I support are common sense laws that will allow people to protect themselves, but I also am very concerned about the safety of our police officers on the streets, very concerned. And I want to make sure that we don't have an abundance of guns out there.
So he loses with me on the whole issue of gun control. Where else does he lose with me?
Let's start with ObamaCare. Governor Christie had the opportunity to join the states challenging ObamaCare in front of Florida judge Roger Vinson, and he decided not to do so. His first response to questions was to say he needed time to decide what the ramifications of repeal would be... a position he kept for TEN MONTHS before finally beginning to say he supported repealing ObamaCare. He lost me there, too.
Let's look at his support for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is essentially a 10-state cap & trade scheme. His major concern about the RGGI is that Pennsylvania was smart enough not to become involved, and he says that lack of participation hurts New Jersey. To be clear, Christie TO THIS DAY has not pulled New Jersey out of this regional cap & trade scheme.
Now, on to another issue: illegal immigration. In April of 2008, Christie treated us to his views that illegal immigrants really aren't in this country illegally, they're just undocumented.
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2008/04/christie_at_church_forum_illeg.html
U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie surprised many at a Dover church public forum when he said sneaking into the United States is not a criminal act.
"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."
Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it's not a criminal act, Christie said.
And he hasn't changed much. Last July, he reiterated his support of "comprehensive immigration reform," though he was smart enough not enough to use that phrase.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39208_Page2.html
On the hot-button topic of immigration reform, he said he has long declined to “demagogue” the issue as a former U.S. Attorney, because “I come from law enforcement and it’s not an easy issue.”
But he did intimate that he thinks stringent state-by-state laws – such as in Arizona – are the wrong approach, and added, “I think President Obama doesn’t do this at his own risk because it’s affecting the economy in the country…to me, I think the president’s really gotta show the leadership on this.”
“This is a federal problem, it’s gotta have a federal fix,” he said. “I’m not really comfortable with state law enforcement having a big role.”
He said that without border security, enforcement of existing laws and a “clear” path to legalization for immigrants, there would never be a fix.
Sounds like "comprehensive immigration reform" to me.
I could go on, but I think you see by this time that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is hardly a conservative icon. In fact, he holds a lot of positions that are more often associated with liberals than with conservatives. And all the while, he TALKS like a conservative and pretends to be one.
If Christie wins the nomination, we will have two choices. We can vote to re-elect Barack Obama, or we can vote to elect Obama-lite.
Or, if we have any brains at all, we can vote to have a DIFFERENT option for the Republican candidate for President of the United States.
Those are my reasons why I will never vote for Chris Christie. If you disagree with me, then I'm sorry for you. Looking at Christie's record, he will NOT be the President we need next in office.
Read the rest...
Prattville On Verge Of Bankruptcy
You may not have been paying attention to Prattville, but former Mayor Byard and the incompetents on the City Council have left that city with staggering debt.
http://progress.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110219/PROGRESS/102180350
They are so far in debt that they are looking at tax increases and other radical solutions to try to balance the budget. Seems to me they should cut back some on the spending and abandon plans to raise taxes in this economic climate. These new taxes won't do the city any good, from an economic standpoint.
So, with all the cities going bankrupt across the nation, don't forget our very own Prattville, city of the declining standard of living and rising taxes.
Read the rest...
http://progress.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110219/PROGRESS/102180350
Staggering debt load biggest factor; proposed budget of $33.6M includes sales tax increase, sewer surcharge, day-a-month furloughs, layoffs.
They are so far in debt that they are looking at tax increases and other radical solutions to try to balance the budget. Seems to me they should cut back some on the spending and abandon plans to raise taxes in this economic climate. These new taxes won't do the city any good, from an economic standpoint.
So, with all the cities going bankrupt across the nation, don't forget our very own Prattville, city of the declining standard of living and rising taxes.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
How Important Is A Functioning Government?
With the possibility of a "government shutdown" looming, I find myself wondering how much such a shutdown would hurt our country.
Did you know there is a situation existing right now that embarrasses the HECK out of those who believe big government is absolutely essential? I direct you to Belgium. Essentially what has happened is that political squabbles got so bad that the politicians have left that country without a functioning government... for the past eight months.
And the result? Did the country collapse and is everybody dying of poverty? Quite the contrary.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-belgium-impasse-20110221,0,2958446.story
Maybe, just maybe, having a functioning government passing new laws just isn't as essential as Harry Reid and Obama want us to think.
So, go ahead and shut down the government. We'd save money, time, and grief not having to worry about what the scoundrels in Washington are trying to do to us today. Hold out for those budget cuts... but for heavens' sake, set your sights higher than a paltry $60 billion! With a $1.5 trillion deficit, we need to cut $1 trillion or more... THIS YEAR!
And maybe the prospect of no functioning government isn't so bad after all...
Read the rest...
Did you know there is a situation existing right now that embarrasses the HECK out of those who believe big government is absolutely essential? I direct you to Belgium. Essentially what has happened is that political squabbles got so bad that the politicians have left that country without a functioning government... for the past eight months.
And the result? Did the country collapse and is everybody dying of poverty? Quite the contrary.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-belgium-impasse-20110221,0,2958446.story
Unable — or unwilling — to work together, bickering politicians have left unassuming Belgium without a fully functioning government for eight months, the longest for any nation in Europe since World War II.
Through most of that time, few Belgians, let alone the outside world, even seemed to notice. Trains continue to run, waffles are still being grilled on street corners, and people window-shop along centuries-old arcades. Tourists still sample mussels, go for overpriced canal rides in Bruges and snap up Tintin souvenirs, blissfully unaware of a political crisis.
Maybe, just maybe, having a functioning government passing new laws just isn't as essential as Harry Reid and Obama want us to think.
So, go ahead and shut down the government. We'd save money, time, and grief not having to worry about what the scoundrels in Washington are trying to do to us today. Hold out for those budget cuts... but for heavens' sake, set your sights higher than a paltry $60 billion! With a $1.5 trillion deficit, we need to cut $1 trillion or more... THIS YEAR!
And maybe the prospect of no functioning government isn't so bad after all...
Read the rest...
Ruminations On Red-Light Cameras
On Saturday, I wrote about Montgomery expanding their red-light camera program to include more intersections. I received an email response to that post, essentially telling me off. Apparently, I presented no detailed arguments against the cameras because my arguments are weak and because I "...prefer running red lights and speeding without consequence and use the "it's just a revenue stream" as your main argument without any recognition of the lives that are saved."
After a little back and forth, I decided to go ahead and post my arguments against the RLC's, as well as some of the data that supports my position. I won't post all, because there are a LOT of studies that I could use.
To start, let's settle on what we're talking about. Proponents of the cameras, mostly city officials or industry groups, hide the revenue stream behind claims that the cameras are a safety issue. The argument goes that the cameras reduce the number of accidents, and therefore save lives. But do they?
The most severe kinds of crashes are "t-bone" crashes, where one car broadsides another. Some studies have shown cameras in some areas reduce the number of those crashes, while other studies have shown the reverse. The evidence is mixed, at best.
2003 study by the Transportation Research Board: "Although nearly every study and crash analysis performed, as discussed in chapters two and three, has had some experimental design or analysis flaw or deficiency, there is considerable “evidence” that RLR cameras do have 39 an overall positive effect."
2007 study for the Virginia Transportation Research Council: "Consistent with the findings of a previous Virginia study (Garber et al., 2005), this study finds that cameras are associated with an increase in rear-end crashes (about 27% or 42% depending on the statistical method used as shown in Tables ES1 and H1) and a decrease in red light running crashes (about 8% or 42% depending on the statistical method used as shown in Tables ES1 and H2). When these results are aggregated across all six jurisdictions, the cameras are associated with a net increase in comprehensive crash costs."
As you can see, even when the t-bone crashes are reduced, the rear-end crashes are increased. Indeed, though studies are mixed as to whether RLC's reduce t-bone crashes, they almost universally agree that the cameras cause an INCREASE in rear-end collisions.
In some areas, the cameras have been effective. In others, not. So, sorry to tell you rabid supporters of the cameras, but their effectiveness is debatable at best.
If I'm right about the revenue being the REAL reason why cities love the cameras, we'd expect to see efforts made by cities to artificially increase the number of tickets issued. And, if we look, we see EXACTLY that.
In Texas, at least one city tried to do this by redefining what "running a red light" meant. Basically, they redefined it so that an RLC ticket could be issued if a vehicle was already in the intersection when the light turned red. MANY fraudulent tickets were issued, and the city experienced significant legal difficulties.
More commonly, we see cities intentionally shortening the duration of yellow lights in order to increase the number of people ticketed for running the red lights. This practice, where not specifically prohibited by state law, is so common as to be termed widespread. The fact that cities would take steps to INCREASE the number of red-light violations merely for the money indicates pretty strongly that safety is just a red herring, and not the real purpose of the cameras at all.
But the question we NOW have before us is this: if RLC's don't work to reduce the number of people running red lights, what CAN we do? The answer to that is as simple as it is time-tested. If yellow lights are lengthened slightly, the number of people who run the red lights drops by up to 80%. Why is this? Because most of the people who run red lights do so by less than a second. By lengthening the yellow light, those violations disappear, and the safety issue is moot.
Georgia tried this by passing a law REQUIRING all intersections with RLC's to have their yellow light set to be one-second longer than the "minimum duration" required by their safety codes. When they did this, cities saw the number of citations drop by 80%. If reducing the number of red-light runners improves safety and reduces the number of accidents, doesn't this mean that lengthening the duration of yellow lights is MORE effective than RLC's?
Yes, it does.
Indeed, some places have noticed that lengthening yellow lights have reduced the number of violations so much that maintaining the RLC's is no longer profitable.
If you want statistical evidence on the longer-yellow-lights thing, here's one from the Texas Transportation Institute.
An interesting tidbit from that study is that most RLC violations occur within half a second of the light turning red, while most t-bone collisions occur from violations A FULL FIVE SECONDS AFTER the light turns red. In other words, most of the tickets issued wouldn't have resulted in t-bone crashes anyway, i.e. no safety issue at all.
I'm just scratching the surface of all the evidence against RLC's, here, and can easily provide more if you really need me to do so. But I think that most people get the point.
So, I oppose red-light cameras because they don't decrease accidents, and because there are simpler, more effective ways of achieving the desired result WITHOUT giving the city a massive revenue stream. Montgomery shouldn't be EXPANDING their RLC program, they should be phasing it out and replacing it with alternatives that work better.
Read the rest...
After a little back and forth, I decided to go ahead and post my arguments against the RLC's, as well as some of the data that supports my position. I won't post all, because there are a LOT of studies that I could use.
To start, let's settle on what we're talking about. Proponents of the cameras, mostly city officials or industry groups, hide the revenue stream behind claims that the cameras are a safety issue. The argument goes that the cameras reduce the number of accidents, and therefore save lives. But do they?
The most severe kinds of crashes are "t-bone" crashes, where one car broadsides another. Some studies have shown cameras in some areas reduce the number of those crashes, while other studies have shown the reverse. The evidence is mixed, at best.
2003 study by the Transportation Research Board: "Although nearly every study and crash analysis performed, as discussed in chapters two and three, has had some experimental design or analysis flaw or deficiency, there is considerable “evidence” that RLR cameras do have 39 an overall positive effect."
2007 study for the Virginia Transportation Research Council: "Consistent with the findings of a previous Virginia study (Garber et al., 2005), this study finds that cameras are associated with an increase in rear-end crashes (about 27% or 42% depending on the statistical method used as shown in Tables ES1 and H1) and a decrease in red light running crashes (about 8% or 42% depending on the statistical method used as shown in Tables ES1 and H2). When these results are aggregated across all six jurisdictions, the cameras are associated with a net increase in comprehensive crash costs."
As you can see, even when the t-bone crashes are reduced, the rear-end crashes are increased. Indeed, though studies are mixed as to whether RLC's reduce t-bone crashes, they almost universally agree that the cameras cause an INCREASE in rear-end collisions.
In some areas, the cameras have been effective. In others, not. So, sorry to tell you rabid supporters of the cameras, but their effectiveness is debatable at best.
If I'm right about the revenue being the REAL reason why cities love the cameras, we'd expect to see efforts made by cities to artificially increase the number of tickets issued. And, if we look, we see EXACTLY that.
In Texas, at least one city tried to do this by redefining what "running a red light" meant. Basically, they redefined it so that an RLC ticket could be issued if a vehicle was already in the intersection when the light turned red. MANY fraudulent tickets were issued, and the city experienced significant legal difficulties.
More commonly, we see cities intentionally shortening the duration of yellow lights in order to increase the number of people ticketed for running the red lights. This practice, where not specifically prohibited by state law, is so common as to be termed widespread. The fact that cities would take steps to INCREASE the number of red-light violations merely for the money indicates pretty strongly that safety is just a red herring, and not the real purpose of the cameras at all.
But the question we NOW have before us is this: if RLC's don't work to reduce the number of people running red lights, what CAN we do? The answer to that is as simple as it is time-tested. If yellow lights are lengthened slightly, the number of people who run the red lights drops by up to 80%. Why is this? Because most of the people who run red lights do so by less than a second. By lengthening the yellow light, those violations disappear, and the safety issue is moot.
Georgia tried this by passing a law REQUIRING all intersections with RLC's to have their yellow light set to be one-second longer than the "minimum duration" required by their safety codes. When they did this, cities saw the number of citations drop by 80%. If reducing the number of red-light runners improves safety and reduces the number of accidents, doesn't this mean that lengthening the duration of yellow lights is MORE effective than RLC's?
Yes, it does.
Indeed, some places have noticed that lengthening yellow lights have reduced the number of violations so much that maintaining the RLC's is no longer profitable.
If you want statistical evidence on the longer-yellow-lights thing, here's one from the Texas Transportation Institute.
An interesting tidbit from that study is that most RLC violations occur within half a second of the light turning red, while most t-bone collisions occur from violations A FULL FIVE SECONDS AFTER the light turns red. In other words, most of the tickets issued wouldn't have resulted in t-bone crashes anyway, i.e. no safety issue at all.
I'm just scratching the surface of all the evidence against RLC's, here, and can easily provide more if you really need me to do so. But I think that most people get the point.
So, I oppose red-light cameras because they don't decrease accidents, and because there are simpler, more effective ways of achieving the desired result WITHOUT giving the city a massive revenue stream. Montgomery shouldn't be EXPANDING their RLC program, they should be phasing it out and replacing it with alternatives that work better.
Read the rest...
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Montgomery's Red Light District Expands
It's not what you think. The city of Montgomery has decided to install nine more red light cameras at five new intersections sometime within the next month or so. Despite their rationalizing, they are doing this so they can issue more tickets and rake in more money. This is a revenue stream, pure and simple.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110218/NEWS01/102180303/1007/rss02
Oh, and in case you're okay with that, they also want the Legislature to pass enabling legislation so that they can ALSO operate SPEED cameras.
Look, I opposed this whole red light camera scheme from the beginning. I told you that this would balloon, that the revenue was and would always remain the driving reason for those cameras. I also said that having the red-light cameras would make speed cameras more likely.
This is a BAD idea, folks... from so MANY angles. I saw it coming, but far too many others weren't quite so prescient.
And before you think even for a SECOND that the GOP won't pass the speed camera bill, I remember it was a GOP legislator who sponsored that danged red-light camera bill in the first place.
How's this for a new slogan for the GOP in Alabama? "GOP: Empowering your government over you at every opportunity!" How... inspiring. And EXACTLY what we wanted to see, isn't it, when we voted at the last election?
Read the rest...
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110218/NEWS01/102180303/1007/rss02
Nine additional cameras will be installed at Montgomery intersections in the coming weeks to catch red-light runners, and if enabling legislation is passed in the upcoming session, cameras also will be used to catch speeders in Montgomery.
On Thursday, Mayor Todd Strange announced the additional cameras for five new intersections throughout Montgomery. There currently are 12 cameras in the program located at nine intersections.
Oh, and in case you're okay with that, they also want the Legislature to pass enabling legislation so that they can ALSO operate SPEED cameras.
Look, I opposed this whole red light camera scheme from the beginning. I told you that this would balloon, that the revenue was and would always remain the driving reason for those cameras. I also said that having the red-light cameras would make speed cameras more likely.
This is a BAD idea, folks... from so MANY angles. I saw it coming, but far too many others weren't quite so prescient.
And before you think even for a SECOND that the GOP won't pass the speed camera bill, I remember it was a GOP legislator who sponsored that danged red-light camera bill in the first place.
How's this for a new slogan for the GOP in Alabama? "GOP: Empowering your government over you at every opportunity!" How... inspiring. And EXACTLY what we wanted to see, isn't it, when we voted at the last election?
Read the rest...
Friday, February 18, 2011
Looking Back At The Week
A lot happened this week that I certainly would have commented on, if I hadn't been battling sickness. Since I STILL want to comment on them, I will do so now in mini-format.
Egypt
The problem with turning out the rascals in charge is that you don't know what you'll end up with. Despite Democrats crowing optimistically about Mubarak resigning to make way for Democracy, the ultimate form of the replacement government is still very much in doubt. Indeed, some of the actions of the military hint that they may never relinquish control of the country. With this movement spreading across the middle east, the US may want to think twice about encouraging folks to overthrow their government without having any idea what will replace it.
The Toomer Tree Poisoning
Apparently this issue of tree poisoning is evoking incredibly strong reactions from folks. I know I'm going to draw fire for this one, but who really cares? Sure, what the guy did was a crime, but it was a fairly minor crime in the great scheme of things. Charge him, convict him, and forget him. Plant new ones and move on. Talking about it ad nauseum doesn't accomplish anything.
Wisconsin v Unions
As you know by now, the Governor of Wisconsin is trying to pass a law that strips state workers of their collective bargaining powers, as well as requiring them to pay more for their health insurance and pensions. The Unions are responding that the Governor is Hitler, or some such babble. Typical hysteria, but in some ways both sides are wrong. Democrats and state workers: your world will not end in fire and blood because of this law, so live with it. Republicans and tea partiers: yes, this bill seems to be a decent one, but it is not a panacea that will right all wrongs and make the lame see and the blind walk... or something like that. Take the vote and abide by the results... isn't that how a representative republic is SUPPOSED to work?
Oh, and as for the President of the United States sticking his nose into the issue... Butt out! Let the states handle their own affairs for ONCE, will you? You know, Wisconsin has managed to survive and operate a LONG time without your benevolent intervention.
House votes to do away with 9 Czars
Okay, why only nine? Obama has FAR more than nine Czars, so why target only nine? Are the Republicans in the House saying that the other 50 or so Czars are just fine by them?
Obama administration responds to Florida ruling overturning ObamaCare
As we all know, Federal judge Vinson in Florida overturned ObamaCare, and intended his ruling to be functionally equivalent to a restraining order... he said so in his ruling. Now the government has filed a motion with the court seeking "clarification" as to what he really meant. This is rich. They first tell the judge how THEY interpret his ruling, i.e. it's a pretty piece of paper that doesn't mean a thing. Then they say that's how they'll TREAT his ruling UNLESS he issues a more detailed description of how he expects his ruling to be treated. Then they warn of requests for temporary relief from his ruling if he says the government should stop implementing the unconstitutional law. Barack Hussein Obama has absolutely zero respect for any court ruling that puts a crimp into his plans for this great nation.
Government shutdown... not OUR fault
Nancy Pelosi says that a government shutdown is likely and, when it happens, it will be the Republicans' fault. Republicans counter by saying that a shutdown can be avoided if the Democrats simply agree to the budget cuts they are proposing. This differs from Obama's famous "Republicans can come along for the ride, but they have to sit in the back" mentality... how? Grow up, guys. We can't keep running $1.5 trillion deficits, which means we have to cut spending. If you can't handle that, then resign and let the voters elect somebody who can.
And here are some articles you should read:
Cut Spending = More Jobs
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/18/cutting-spending-means-more-not-fewer-jobs/
Boehner says: Read my lips, we WILL cut spending
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/17/boehner-read-my-lips-were-going-to-cut-spending/
Obama's "Balanced budget in 2015" claim refuted
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/mr_president_do_you_think_were.html
Stupid politician quote of the day: The penalty isn't a penalty
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-jackson-lee-no-penalty-obamacare-onl
Read the rest...
Egypt
The problem with turning out the rascals in charge is that you don't know what you'll end up with. Despite Democrats crowing optimistically about Mubarak resigning to make way for Democracy, the ultimate form of the replacement government is still very much in doubt. Indeed, some of the actions of the military hint that they may never relinquish control of the country. With this movement spreading across the middle east, the US may want to think twice about encouraging folks to overthrow their government without having any idea what will replace it.
The Toomer Tree Poisoning
Apparently this issue of tree poisoning is evoking incredibly strong reactions from folks. I know I'm going to draw fire for this one, but who really cares? Sure, what the guy did was a crime, but it was a fairly minor crime in the great scheme of things. Charge him, convict him, and forget him. Plant new ones and move on. Talking about it ad nauseum doesn't accomplish anything.
Wisconsin v Unions
As you know by now, the Governor of Wisconsin is trying to pass a law that strips state workers of their collective bargaining powers, as well as requiring them to pay more for their health insurance and pensions. The Unions are responding that the Governor is Hitler, or some such babble. Typical hysteria, but in some ways both sides are wrong. Democrats and state workers: your world will not end in fire and blood because of this law, so live with it. Republicans and tea partiers: yes, this bill seems to be a decent one, but it is not a panacea that will right all wrongs and make the lame see and the blind walk... or something like that. Take the vote and abide by the results... isn't that how a representative republic is SUPPOSED to work?
Oh, and as for the President of the United States sticking his nose into the issue... Butt out! Let the states handle their own affairs for ONCE, will you? You know, Wisconsin has managed to survive and operate a LONG time without your benevolent intervention.
House votes to do away with 9 Czars
Okay, why only nine? Obama has FAR more than nine Czars, so why target only nine? Are the Republicans in the House saying that the other 50 or so Czars are just fine by them?
Obama administration responds to Florida ruling overturning ObamaCare
As we all know, Federal judge Vinson in Florida overturned ObamaCare, and intended his ruling to be functionally equivalent to a restraining order... he said so in his ruling. Now the government has filed a motion with the court seeking "clarification" as to what he really meant. This is rich. They first tell the judge how THEY interpret his ruling, i.e. it's a pretty piece of paper that doesn't mean a thing. Then they say that's how they'll TREAT his ruling UNLESS he issues a more detailed description of how he expects his ruling to be treated. Then they warn of requests for temporary relief from his ruling if he says the government should stop implementing the unconstitutional law. Barack Hussein Obama has absolutely zero respect for any court ruling that puts a crimp into his plans for this great nation.
Government shutdown... not OUR fault
Nancy Pelosi says that a government shutdown is likely and, when it happens, it will be the Republicans' fault. Republicans counter by saying that a shutdown can be avoided if the Democrats simply agree to the budget cuts they are proposing. This differs from Obama's famous "Republicans can come along for the ride, but they have to sit in the back" mentality... how? Grow up, guys. We can't keep running $1.5 trillion deficits, which means we have to cut spending. If you can't handle that, then resign and let the voters elect somebody who can.
And here are some articles you should read:
Cut Spending = More Jobs
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/18/cutting-spending-means-more-not-fewer-jobs/
Boehner says: Read my lips, we WILL cut spending
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/17/boehner-read-my-lips-were-going-to-cut-spending/
Obama's "Balanced budget in 2015" claim refuted
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/mr_president_do_you_think_were.html
Stupid politician quote of the day: The penalty isn't a penalty
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-jackson-lee-no-penalty-obamacare-onl
Read the rest...
Does Absence Make The Heart Grow Fonder?
I haven't been posting this week because, frankly, my wife and I have been at home sick with the flu. Well, sort of.
You see, my wife started to get sick and, one day later, I started showing the same symptoms she did. Sinuses, headache, joint aches, fever, you name it. Her fever spiked one day around 103. Mine spiked that night while I was sleeping... don't know the number, but I woke up twice freezing with my teeth chattering, so it was pretty high. We figured the flu, and went to the doc on the same day. We both took the flu test, and my wife had the flu. I did not.
Kind of unusual, eh? But the doc told Michon to avoid contact with other humans for the next three days, and gave me flu meds on the theory that I'd catch it from her. Yes, that's right, I protected the world (or at least parts of Montgomery and Wetumpka) by locking myself in with a disease vector for three days.
But we're feeling better now. Both of us went yesterday without a fever (except CABIN fever), and I'm back at work this morning. I could still use some more rest, of course, but I'm functional once again.
Now I have to catch up on all the work I missed and, somehow, try to do some blogging in the near future.
God bless, ya'll!
Read the rest...
You see, my wife started to get sick and, one day later, I started showing the same symptoms she did. Sinuses, headache, joint aches, fever, you name it. Her fever spiked one day around 103. Mine spiked that night while I was sleeping... don't know the number, but I woke up twice freezing with my teeth chattering, so it was pretty high. We figured the flu, and went to the doc on the same day. We both took the flu test, and my wife had the flu. I did not.
Kind of unusual, eh? But the doc told Michon to avoid contact with other humans for the next three days, and gave me flu meds on the theory that I'd catch it from her. Yes, that's right, I protected the world (or at least parts of Montgomery and Wetumpka) by locking myself in with a disease vector for three days.
But we're feeling better now. Both of us went yesterday without a fever (except CABIN fever), and I'm back at work this morning. I could still use some more rest, of course, but I'm functional once again.
Now I have to catch up on all the work I missed and, somehow, try to do some blogging in the near future.
God bless, ya'll!
Read the rest...
Monday, February 14, 2011
CPAC Straw Poll Results Are Out
Well, the CPAC straw poll was held on Saturday, and Sunday the results were released. Here are the results:
http://www.conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2-11-CPAC-Straw-Poll-Final-Compatibility-Mode.pdf
Notice a few things.
First, the winner of the straw poll was Texas Congressman Ron Paul... again. In second place was Mitt Romney, the man I'll never vote for because his ACTIONS in passing RomneyCare were incredibly similar to our President in passing ObamaCare. We don't need ANOTHER President who believes big government is the answer to everything.
Anyway. The next things to notice are the focus questions. When asked what concerned them most, the largest percentage of votes went towards controlling the size and scope of government. This is a good thing... IF the GOP doesn't dismiss these results entirely and continue on about their political concerns as normal.
Overall, these are good results. I believe, however, that they will be ignored by the GOP because they don't fit into what those leaders want. And the only thing that can stop them is the voters... that's US, ladies and gentlemen.
Read the rest...
http://www.conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2-11-CPAC-Straw-Poll-Final-Compatibility-Mode.pdf
Notice a few things.
First, the winner of the straw poll was Texas Congressman Ron Paul... again. In second place was Mitt Romney, the man I'll never vote for because his ACTIONS in passing RomneyCare were incredibly similar to our President in passing ObamaCare. We don't need ANOTHER President who believes big government is the answer to everything.
Anyway. The next things to notice are the focus questions. When asked what concerned them most, the largest percentage of votes went towards controlling the size and scope of government. This is a good thing... IF the GOP doesn't dismiss these results entirely and continue on about their political concerns as normal.
Overall, these are good results. I believe, however, that they will be ignored by the GOP because they don't fit into what those leaders want. And the only thing that can stop them is the voters... that's US, ladies and gentlemen.
Read the rest...
Friday, February 11, 2011
Ruminations On Egypt And Obama
Yesterday was fascinating, wasn't it? We started the morning with the electrifying headlines that Mubarak, the leader of Egypt, was going to comply with the demands of protesters and step down. Throughout the day, that became more and more certain... until Mubarak announced he would NOT step down.
The rumor that he WOULD step down was largely fueled by statements from Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that there was a "strong likelihood" that Mubarak would step down. This statement was NOT based upon any intelligence the CIA had, but rather upon news reports on the situation in Egypt. But whatever he based his statement on, his words started the massive expectation that Mubarak would resign.
I'm certain this surprised Mubarak, who obviously has no INTENTION of resigning. And do you really blame him? What do you think his life expectancy would be, out of office with no protection from his oh-so-peaceful and law-abiding critics?
But what I want to talk about today is Obama's curious stance on this issue.
Personally, I think he's a bit of a hypocrite. In a speech yesterday, he had this to say about the violent protests against the ruler of Egypt.
Okay, I can see that. He believes that the government of Egypt should be responsive to its citizens, so that's the position he takes.
It IS curious, however, that when our own protest movement arose against Obama in 2009, peaceful instead of violent, Obama at first denied even knowing what the Tea Party was. To this day, his administration and allies in Congress STILL denigrate, belittle, and ignore the entire small government, fiscally responsible movement sparked by those protests. And the election of 2010... didn't the people speak here, too? Yet Obama hasn't resigned. Heck, he hasn't even changed his policies.
The people of the United States are calling for change, BEGGING for him to change his policies to be more constructive and realistic, and he's ignoring us.
Maybe the difference here is one of degree. So, let's pretend (and I'm NOT advocating this!) that the Tea Party protests spark a larger round of protests against Obama and his ruinous policies, and that those protests turn violent. We see riots in the streets of every major city, including Washington DC, each one filled with angry calls for Obama to resign. Would he do so?
Are you kidding?
In the face of that, Obama would (rightly) denounce the violent protesters as lawless ruffians (or similar verbiage... you pick) and mobilize the national guard to quell disorder. He'd probably declare martial law in every affected area, and begin a surveillance crackdown to stop other problem spots from developing. The dissidents who were violently rioting would complain this is the beginning of a police state, and might even be right, but nobody would listen to them because they have no credibility. After all, if you start a fight, can you really complain when the other guy strikes back?
To recap. If Obama were faced with Mubarak's situation where a majority of the country doesn't like his policies and wants him out of office (and he IS, we're just not violent about it), he would not resign. Yet he calls for Mubarak to resign... to do something that he clearly would not do himself.
One wonders why. WHY is Obama so dead set on getting Mubarak out of office? A cynic might notice that the majority of the opposition is composed of members of the Muslim Brotherhood... they are the dominant force behind the opposition movement. And, for those who don't know, the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the worst of those groups, advocating using violence to spread Islam to take over non-Islamic countries. They have openly planned strategies for replacing the Constitution of the United States with Shariah law. They're not nice guys.
But they're Muslims. And Obama has always had respectful things to say about Islam. Every time I've heard (or read of) him referring to the Koran, it's always "the HOLY Koran"... but he doesn't take the same care to refer to "the HOLY Bible." Draw your own conclusions, here.
The upshot of it is, I think Obama has SOME reason for wanting Mubarak out. It may not be the obvious one I discussed above, but he has SOME reason. And it's important enough that he's willing to accept a new Egyptian government run by Muslim extremists who don't mind using violence to take over non-Muslim countries.
What else can explain the obvious hypocrisy of his stated reasoning?
Read the rest...
The rumor that he WOULD step down was largely fueled by statements from Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that there was a "strong likelihood" that Mubarak would step down. This statement was NOT based upon any intelligence the CIA had, but rather upon news reports on the situation in Egypt. But whatever he based his statement on, his words started the massive expectation that Mubarak would resign.
I'm certain this surprised Mubarak, who obviously has no INTENTION of resigning. And do you really blame him? What do you think his life expectancy would be, out of office with no protection from his oh-so-peaceful and law-abiding critics?
But what I want to talk about today is Obama's curious stance on this issue.
Personally, I think he's a bit of a hypocrite. In a speech yesterday, he had this to say about the violent protests against the ruler of Egypt.
“What is absolutely clear is that we are witnessing history unfold. It’s a moment of transformation that’s taking place because the people of Egypt are calling for change.”
Okay, I can see that. He believes that the government of Egypt should be responsive to its citizens, so that's the position he takes.
It IS curious, however, that when our own protest movement arose against Obama in 2009, peaceful instead of violent, Obama at first denied even knowing what the Tea Party was. To this day, his administration and allies in Congress STILL denigrate, belittle, and ignore the entire small government, fiscally responsible movement sparked by those protests. And the election of 2010... didn't the people speak here, too? Yet Obama hasn't resigned. Heck, he hasn't even changed his policies.
The people of the United States are calling for change, BEGGING for him to change his policies to be more constructive and realistic, and he's ignoring us.
Maybe the difference here is one of degree. So, let's pretend (and I'm NOT advocating this!) that the Tea Party protests spark a larger round of protests against Obama and his ruinous policies, and that those protests turn violent. We see riots in the streets of every major city, including Washington DC, each one filled with angry calls for Obama to resign. Would he do so?
Are you kidding?
In the face of that, Obama would (rightly) denounce the violent protesters as lawless ruffians (or similar verbiage... you pick) and mobilize the national guard to quell disorder. He'd probably declare martial law in every affected area, and begin a surveillance crackdown to stop other problem spots from developing. The dissidents who were violently rioting would complain this is the beginning of a police state, and might even be right, but nobody would listen to them because they have no credibility. After all, if you start a fight, can you really complain when the other guy strikes back?
To recap. If Obama were faced with Mubarak's situation where a majority of the country doesn't like his policies and wants him out of office (and he IS, we're just not violent about it), he would not resign. Yet he calls for Mubarak to resign... to do something that he clearly would not do himself.
One wonders why. WHY is Obama so dead set on getting Mubarak out of office? A cynic might notice that the majority of the opposition is composed of members of the Muslim Brotherhood... they are the dominant force behind the opposition movement. And, for those who don't know, the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the worst of those groups, advocating using violence to spread Islam to take over non-Islamic countries. They have openly planned strategies for replacing the Constitution of the United States with Shariah law. They're not nice guys.
But they're Muslims. And Obama has always had respectful things to say about Islam. Every time I've heard (or read of) him referring to the Koran, it's always "the HOLY Koran"... but he doesn't take the same care to refer to "the HOLY Bible." Draw your own conclusions, here.
The upshot of it is, I think Obama has SOME reason for wanting Mubarak out. It may not be the obvious one I discussed above, but he has SOME reason. And it's important enough that he's willing to accept a new Egyptian government run by Muslim extremists who don't mind using violence to take over non-Muslim countries.
What else can explain the obvious hypocrisy of his stated reasoning?
Read the rest...
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Patriot Act Provisions NOT Extended By House
So, the new Republican majority in the House fumbled their first one yesterday. They brought up a bill to extend three provisions of the Patriot Act that are about to expire, but they did so under special rules requiring a 2/3 majority to pass it... and they failed to get that many votes. So the measure died. Whoops.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41482485/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
They expected this one to be a slam-dunk, and it wasn't. Several Republicans voted against it, basically on the grounds that the Patriot Act provisions extended the government's power without sufficient oversight or safeguards. Roby voted in favor of this extension bill.
But those of you cheering this event, don't get too excited.
You see, some form of extension WILL pass the House. The same bill can be brought up again under normal rules that require only a majority vote, and that is what will likely happen. If it doesn't, however, there are also bills filed to extend the provisions until 2013 AND to make them permanent. So you see, ONE of these bills will pass with a majority vote.
The only thing that really happened here is that Boehner just proved he couldn't count votes... and that's a mistake that Pelosi seldom made. It makes him and the Republicans look clumsy by comparison.
Now don't get me wrong, I think bills should be voted on even if the majority leader thinks they don't have enough votes to pass, but many people will not view it that way. They will see this, compare it to Pelosi, and conclude that the Republicans really don't know what they're doing.
Pity...
Read the rest...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41482485/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
The House of Representatives failed Tuesday to extend the life of three surveillance tools that are crucial to the United States' post-Sept. 11 anti-terror law, a slipup for the new Republican leaders who miscalculated the level of opposition.
The House voted 277-148 to keep the three provisions of the USA Patriot Act on the books until Dec. 8. Republicans brought up the bill under a special expedited procedure that required a two-thirds majority, and the vote was seven short of reaching that level.
They expected this one to be a slam-dunk, and it wasn't. Several Republicans voted against it, basically on the grounds that the Patriot Act provisions extended the government's power without sufficient oversight or safeguards. Roby voted in favor of this extension bill.
But those of you cheering this event, don't get too excited.
You see, some form of extension WILL pass the House. The same bill can be brought up again under normal rules that require only a majority vote, and that is what will likely happen. If it doesn't, however, there are also bills filed to extend the provisions until 2013 AND to make them permanent. So you see, ONE of these bills will pass with a majority vote.
The only thing that really happened here is that Boehner just proved he couldn't count votes... and that's a mistake that Pelosi seldom made. It makes him and the Republicans look clumsy by comparison.
Now don't get me wrong, I think bills should be voted on even if the majority leader thinks they don't have enough votes to pass, but many people will not view it that way. They will see this, compare it to Pelosi, and conclude that the Republicans really don't know what they're doing.
Pity...
Read the rest...
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
TSA Shenanigans
Two weeks ago, or so, the TSA made a curious announcement that puzzled a lot of people. They announced that they were not allowing any more airports to join a program that allowed them to use private screeners instead of TSA employees.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-29/travel/tsa.private_1_tsa-government-screeners-screening-program?_s=PM:TRAVEL
At the time, nobody could figure out WHY the program was being canceled. According to the Cato Institute, most of the useful and effective security innovations we've seen have come out of that program, so expanding it seems like a decent idea. As to security, a review of airports showed those with private security were more secure than those using TSA screeners.
However, NOW we know why they canceled the program.
You see, late last week the head of the TSA announced that he was giving limited bargaining rights to TSA screeners. That's right, TSA screeners will be allowed to unionize.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/02/04/tsa-okays-limited-collective-bargaining/
With all the problems we're having with the TSA, don't you just KNOW that unionizing the workers will make things just a whole heap better?
Unionized employees are LESS responsive to public outcry and opposition... They're protected. And the folks at TSA knew that if they unionized the screeners, airports across the country would want to join that little program and privatize their screeners. Dealing with a private security company is FAR preferable to dealing with a government union.
Does anybody out there think that unionizing TSA screeners will make air travel safer? Does anybody think it will make moving through airport security checkpoints easier and more pleasant?
Yeah, me neither.
Read the rest...
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-29/travel/tsa.private_1_tsa-government-screeners-screening-program?_s=PM:TRAVEL
A program that allows airports to replace government screeners with private screeners is being brought to a standstill, just a month after the Transportation Security Administration said it was "neutral" on the program.
TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it.
Though little known, the Screening Partnership Program allowed airports to replace government screeners with private contractors who wear TSA-like uniforms, meet TSA standards and work under TSA oversight. Among the airports that have "opted out" of government screening are San Francisco and Kansas City.
At the time, nobody could figure out WHY the program was being canceled. According to the Cato Institute, most of the useful and effective security innovations we've seen have come out of that program, so expanding it seems like a decent idea. As to security, a review of airports showed those with private security were more secure than those using TSA screeners.
However, NOW we know why they canceled the program.
You see, late last week the head of the TSA announced that he was giving limited bargaining rights to TSA screeners. That's right, TSA screeners will be allowed to unionize.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/02/04/tsa-okays-limited-collective-bargaining/
Based on this review and after much consideration, I have issued a Determination today, using my authority under the law that created TSA, to enable our TSO workforce to vote on whether or not they want to engage in collective bargaining under a unique framework that includes bargaining on limited, non-security issues relating to employment.
With all the problems we're having with the TSA, don't you just KNOW that unionizing the workers will make things just a whole heap better?
Unionized employees are LESS responsive to public outcry and opposition... They're protected. And the folks at TSA knew that if they unionized the screeners, airports across the country would want to join that little program and privatize their screeners. Dealing with a private security company is FAR preferable to dealing with a government union.
Does anybody out there think that unionizing TSA screeners will make air travel safer? Does anybody think it will make moving through airport security checkpoints easier and more pleasant?
Yeah, me neither.
Read the rest...
Monday, February 7, 2011
President Bob Riley?
I count this one as an "I told you so" for Politics Alabama. If you'll recall, a while back I predicted that Riley would run for President.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/12/riley-calls-special-session.html
Apparently, there is a movement afoot to bring exactly that about, and such movements rarely survive long without the willingness of the politician involved.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/02/former_alabama_gov_bob_riley_e.html
All I can say is may God help our nation.
I opposed Riley when he ran for Governor the FIRST time, and I didn't vote for him either time. The fact that his first major act upon assuming office was to try and pass the largest tax increase in the history of Alabama goes a long way toward vindicating my opinion.
Riley won't make a good President, in my humble opinion. It'd be a mistake to believe otherwise. He won't advocate for small, limited government... nor is he likely to push for the drastic spending cuts this nation needs.
So it looks like I may well be right in my prediction, but I honestly wish I wasn't.
Read the rest...
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/12/riley-calls-special-session.html
"Pay attention to that last line, as you'll likely hear Riley using it in 2012 or 2016 as he runs for President."
Apparently, there is a movement afoot to bring exactly that about, and such movements rarely survive long without the willingness of the politician involved.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/02/former_alabama_gov_bob_riley_e.html
Bob Riley, who three weeks ago completed eight years as governor, is being encouraged to seek the GOP nomination for president in 2012 and is actively considering the possibility, sources inside and outside Alabama said.
"I don't know right now which way the governor is leaning, but I can tell you he is being encouraged by various people at important levels in the party to seek the nomination," said Mike Hubbard, chairman of the state Republican Party and the new speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives.
All I can say is may God help our nation.
I opposed Riley when he ran for Governor the FIRST time, and I didn't vote for him either time. The fact that his first major act upon assuming office was to try and pass the largest tax increase in the history of Alabama goes a long way toward vindicating my opinion.
Riley won't make a good President, in my humble opinion. It'd be a mistake to believe otherwise. He won't advocate for small, limited government... nor is he likely to push for the drastic spending cuts this nation needs.
So it looks like I may well be right in my prediction, but I honestly wish I wasn't.
Read the rest...
Obama: No Oil Drilling In Gulf
Last week I wrote about the Obama administration being held in contempt of court for ignoring a Federal judge's order overturning Obama's ban on oil drilling in the gulf. Obama and his minions ignored the judge, with the result that there STILL isn't any oil drilling going on.
NOW, we find out that this contempt will continue. The Department of the Interior, we are told, will not issue any new drilling permits. Not, that is, without "more details on plans to contain oil spills and runaway wells."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48900.html
Do you see the pattern, here?
The drilling ban was necessary for one reason: to close down those drilling rigs already operating in the Gulf. And it succeeded. Despite losing in court and upon appeal, the drilling rigs packed up and moved elsewhere. They're not sitting idle in the Gulf, they moved to places where they COULD drill. These rigs are portable, you know.
Now that the rigs are gone, a drilling ban isn't needed. All they have to do is not approve new drilling permits. They set out higher requirements for permits, which have been met in numerous applications, then demand extra "information" before permits will be granted. Delay, delay, delay.
The net result is that deep water drilling in the Gulf has halted, and it doesn't look likely to resume at any time during Obama's administration.
Obama may SAY he wants to help the economy, but this refusal to allow oil drilling is actively HARMING the economy! Part of the reason gas prices are so high these days is because of Obama's actions in destroying the entire Gulf oil drilling industry.
This Obama administration has no respect for the courts, no regard for the Constitution and limits on their power, and no intention of letting anybody stop them from doing something that they want to do.
In my opinion, 2012 can't come fast enough... I just hope we have a GOOD candidate opposing Obama this time.
Read the rest...
NOW, we find out that this contempt will continue. The Department of the Interior, we are told, will not issue any new drilling permits. Not, that is, without "more details on plans to contain oil spills and runaway wells."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48900.html
The Obama administration’s top offshore drilling enforcer Friday asked major oil producers operating in the Gulf of Mexico to provide more details on plans to contain oil spills and runaway wells before the federal government will issue new permits to drill there.
The letters from Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Director Michael Bromwich come amid criticism from energy producers and their congressional allies that the administration is slow-walking new offshore drilling permits in the wake of last year’s historic BP Gulf of Mexico spill.
Referencing the possibility of a new deepwater drilling permit being issued there by June, Luthi wrote, “Even if the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement meets the June deadline, the question remains: Why wait another five months? Since the Interior Department lifted the deepwater drilling moratorium in October, the industry has submitted numerous applications that meet new, more stringent requirements. Yet — nothing.”
Do you see the pattern, here?
The drilling ban was necessary for one reason: to close down those drilling rigs already operating in the Gulf. And it succeeded. Despite losing in court and upon appeal, the drilling rigs packed up and moved elsewhere. They're not sitting idle in the Gulf, they moved to places where they COULD drill. These rigs are portable, you know.
Now that the rigs are gone, a drilling ban isn't needed. All they have to do is not approve new drilling permits. They set out higher requirements for permits, which have been met in numerous applications, then demand extra "information" before permits will be granted. Delay, delay, delay.
The net result is that deep water drilling in the Gulf has halted, and it doesn't look likely to resume at any time during Obama's administration.
Obama may SAY he wants to help the economy, but this refusal to allow oil drilling is actively HARMING the economy! Part of the reason gas prices are so high these days is because of Obama's actions in destroying the entire Gulf oil drilling industry.
This Obama administration has no respect for the courts, no regard for the Constitution and limits on their power, and no intention of letting anybody stop them from doing something that they want to do.
In my opinion, 2012 can't come fast enough... I just hope we have a GOOD candidate opposing Obama this time.
Read the rest...
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Happy Birthday: PA Is Two Years Old
Well, our second year is finished, now, and we've gotten quite a lot done.
Last year I posted 922 blog entries and received approximately 32,000 page views. Feedburner estimates that I have 139 readers per day, and I have 91 regular readers either following the blog or subscribing via emails.
I would let you know what my ranking was in BlogNetNews, but sometime last June or July, BNN went out of business. Looks like they're gone for good... but I was ranking pretty highly those last few weeks.
We've tried some interesting things in the past year. We tried producing weekly audio pieces called "Counterpunch," in which Sherry Walker (from the leftist blog Left in Alabama") and I basically would take opposite sides of an issue and give one-minute arguments. While it was fun, we just never had enough listeners to justify the effort... which was considerable. So that feature passed away after 19 episodes.
I also joined Twitter this year, and my blog posts automatically produce a tweet. In less than a year, I've attracted 98 followers... so if you haven't found me on Twitter, please swing by and follow. I do occasionally tweet a one-liner or two... though I haven't done that in a while. I'll try to do so more often.
No Facebook page in the offing, yet. (grin) And I really don't want one.
For the upcoming year, I'll continue with my commentary as usual. There will be some disruptions, as I'll be auditioning for plays AND, for the first time in a few years, my wife and I will be taking a well-earned vacation... more on that later.
I have no special plans for this year, but I am open to suggestions. I WOULD like to get some other posters on board, providing content from their own point of view. I asked a few months ago, but the only respondent changed his/her mind. I AM interested in having more posters on the blog... send me an email if you'd like to participate (PoliticsAlabama@Hotmail.com).
If you have any comments on the blog so far, or if you have any recommendations or requests for something you'd like to see, please let me know. You can either email me or place it in the comments to this post.
Either way, join me in wishing Politics Alabama a rousing
Read the rest...
Last year I posted 922 blog entries and received approximately 32,000 page views. Feedburner estimates that I have 139 readers per day, and I have 91 regular readers either following the blog or subscribing via emails.
I would let you know what my ranking was in BlogNetNews, but sometime last June or July, BNN went out of business. Looks like they're gone for good... but I was ranking pretty highly those last few weeks.
We've tried some interesting things in the past year. We tried producing weekly audio pieces called "Counterpunch," in which Sherry Walker (from the leftist blog Left in Alabama") and I basically would take opposite sides of an issue and give one-minute arguments. While it was fun, we just never had enough listeners to justify the effort... which was considerable. So that feature passed away after 19 episodes.
I also joined Twitter this year, and my blog posts automatically produce a tweet. In less than a year, I've attracted 98 followers... so if you haven't found me on Twitter, please swing by and follow. I do occasionally tweet a one-liner or two... though I haven't done that in a while. I'll try to do so more often.
No Facebook page in the offing, yet. (grin) And I really don't want one.
For the upcoming year, I'll continue with my commentary as usual. There will be some disruptions, as I'll be auditioning for plays AND, for the first time in a few years, my wife and I will be taking a well-earned vacation... more on that later.
I have no special plans for this year, but I am open to suggestions. I WOULD like to get some other posters on board, providing content from their own point of view. I asked a few months ago, but the only respondent changed his/her mind. I AM interested in having more posters on the blog... send me an email if you'd like to participate (PoliticsAlabama@Hotmail.com).
If you have any comments on the blog so far, or if you have any recommendations or requests for something you'd like to see, please let me know. You can either email me or place it in the comments to this post.
Either way, join me in wishing Politics Alabama a rousing
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!
Read the rest...
Friday, February 4, 2011
Lawsuit Seeks To Remove Limitations On Property Taxes
I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but you should be. A lawsuit is in progress (and has been since 2008) that seeks to remove the limitations on property tax rates that are currently contained in the Alabama Constitution. They seek to prove that these limitations are racist and discriminatory in nature, and that they prevent minority children from receiving a good education.
You can find the original complaint here:
http://knightsims.com/pdf/08_03_20/complaint_filed.pdf
The basis of their claim is this. The Alabama Constitution limits the amount of property taxes that can be levied, and also requires a vote of the people before they can be raised. They claim that this limits the amount of money that can be spent on education and discriminates against poor, black children.
If they win, all such limits disappear, and cities and counties, not to mention the state, are free to raise property taxes as they wish. No limits. No approval by the voters required. And we all get to watch our property taxes skyrocket while the quality of our education system stays exactly the same.
So, are there any questions? Yes? You in the back, with the green sweater.
Q: How can a constitutional provision that limits the amount of property taxes leveled on every Alabama resident be discriminatory to some of those residents?
A: Good question, I wish I knew the answer. Whoops.. I mean, you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking of the law instead of all those poor kids who could be better educated by all the new money in tax revenues.
Next question. Right up front here, with the glasses.
Q: What will happen to our tax rates if the constitutional limitations are lifted?
A: Good question. Some experts project that property tax rates in some areas could quickly rise to as much as 10 times what they are today.
Next question. You, with the voice-activated tape recorder.
Q: Analyses of school funding over time has shown that, as funding rises for schools, the quality of the education provided hasn't changed a bit. Why should we be happy about paying so much more in taxes for no gain?
A: I don't think you're taking this problem seriously enough. Next question?
What? No more questions? Okay, then, we'll move on to the next subject: Why has nobody bothered to start a chapter of "Overspender's Anonymous" specifically for lawmakers?
Read the rest...
You can find the original complaint here:
http://knightsims.com/pdf/08_03_20/complaint_filed.pdf
This new civil action seeks to provide an appropriate judicial forum for the claims this Court held were beyond the scope of issues properly considered in Knight v. Alabama. The sole purposes of the instant action are to obtain a declaratory judgment that the property tax restrictions in the Alabama Constitution this Court has already found to be purposefully discriminatory violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and the Constitution of the United States and to seek a prohibitory injunction against their future enforcement.
Plaintiffs do not ask this Court to oversee reform of Alabama’s property tax system, its system for raising revenue for public education, or the adequacy of its funding of the system of public education. As stated by the Alabama Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals, tax reform and the provision of adequate education funding are the responsibility of the legislative branch of government.
If this Court grants the relief requested herein, the Governor and Legislature of Alabama will be able to carry out these vital legislative functions free of the purposefully racially discriminatory barriers placed in the state constitution.
The basis of their claim is this. The Alabama Constitution limits the amount of property taxes that can be levied, and also requires a vote of the people before they can be raised. They claim that this limits the amount of money that can be spent on education and discriminates against poor, black children.
If they win, all such limits disappear, and cities and counties, not to mention the state, are free to raise property taxes as they wish. No limits. No approval by the voters required. And we all get to watch our property taxes skyrocket while the quality of our education system stays exactly the same.
So, are there any questions? Yes? You in the back, with the green sweater.
Q: How can a constitutional provision that limits the amount of property taxes leveled on every Alabama resident be discriminatory to some of those residents?
A: Good question, I wish I knew the answer. Whoops.. I mean, you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking of the law instead of all those poor kids who could be better educated by all the new money in tax revenues.
Next question. Right up front here, with the glasses.
Q: What will happen to our tax rates if the constitutional limitations are lifted?
A: Good question. Some experts project that property tax rates in some areas could quickly rise to as much as 10 times what they are today.
Next question. You, with the voice-activated tape recorder.
Q: Analyses of school funding over time has shown that, as funding rises for schools, the quality of the education provided hasn't changed a bit. Why should we be happy about paying so much more in taxes for no gain?
A: I don't think you're taking this problem seriously enough. Next question?
What? No more questions? Okay, then, we'll move on to the next subject: Why has nobody bothered to start a chapter of "Overspender's Anonymous" specifically for lawmakers?
Read the rest...
Ominous News: Unemployment Rate Drops To 9%
Okay, so the jobless report for January is out, and the results are, to say the least, ominous. Why? Because the rate dropped to 9% in January.
The unemployment rate was 9.8% in November, dropped to 9.4% in December, and again to 9.0% in January. Already you hear Democrats talking about how it's a good thing... Eric Cantor says the economy is "moving in the right direction."
But is it? Analysts expected January to show a net 130,000 or so jobs created; in reality, January saw only 36,000 jobs created, FAR below the number needed to maintain the unemployment rate where it is. So why did the rate DROP?
For the second month in a row, the workforce shrunk by a huge amount. In December it dropped by 600,000 or so, and in January it dropped by 500,000 or so. Think about that... in only two months, more than a MILLION people have decided to stop looking for work! That's so far from being a good thing that it's ridiculous. If the trend continues, the rate will drop to nothing and nobody will be working.
Here's the report for January.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
I cried foul last month, and I do so again this month.
Look, for two straight months more than half a million people have left the workforce. This coincides with the Democrats' desire to score something big on the economy after their drastic loss in November. I see two options here, one bad and the other worse.
The first option is that the figures are accurate, and an additional million people gave up and stopped looking for work. That's a chilling figure, and it is definitely NOT the way we want to lower the unemployment rate. Think about it... at this rate, we could lower the unemployment rate to 4% by convincing another 7 million people that it's useless to look for work! Sound like a solid economic base to you? Me neither... I'd rather we lowered the rate by ADDING JOBS rather than by SHEDDING WORKERS.
The second option is that the Obama administration is "cooking the books" by exaggerating the number of people who drop from the workforce in order to artificially lower the unemployment rate. Keep in mind, this dramatic drop in the workforce started in December... immediately AFTER the Democrats suffered their huge electoral "shellacking." If they are doing this, it's more than despicable, it's sinister. One of the underlying assumptions of this data is that political concerns don't change the facts; if the White House has disregarded this and is changing the data to make themselves look better... Well.
As I said, the second option is worse than the first. It's bad enough that Democrats are ignoring 1.1 million people who gave up on getting a job to celebrate a 9% unemployment rate! And in only TWO MONTHS!
Make no mistakes, the last two job reports are NOT hopeful for those who want this economy to recover. The combination of few jobs being created and MANY people leaving the job market can ONLY be bad for our economy. Far from being encouraged by a 0.8% drop in the unemployment rate over the past two months, I'm depressed by the implications.
Read the rest...
The unemployment rate was 9.8% in November, dropped to 9.4% in December, and again to 9.0% in January. Already you hear Democrats talking about how it's a good thing... Eric Cantor says the economy is "moving in the right direction."
But is it? Analysts expected January to show a net 130,000 or so jobs created; in reality, January saw only 36,000 jobs created, FAR below the number needed to maintain the unemployment rate where it is. So why did the rate DROP?
For the second month in a row, the workforce shrunk by a huge amount. In December it dropped by 600,000 or so, and in January it dropped by 500,000 or so. Think about that... in only two months, more than a MILLION people have decided to stop looking for work! That's so far from being a good thing that it's ridiculous. If the trend continues, the rate will drop to nothing and nobody will be working.
Here's the report for January.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
I cried foul last month, and I do so again this month.
Look, for two straight months more than half a million people have left the workforce. This coincides with the Democrats' desire to score something big on the economy after their drastic loss in November. I see two options here, one bad and the other worse.
The first option is that the figures are accurate, and an additional million people gave up and stopped looking for work. That's a chilling figure, and it is definitely NOT the way we want to lower the unemployment rate. Think about it... at this rate, we could lower the unemployment rate to 4% by convincing another 7 million people that it's useless to look for work! Sound like a solid economic base to you? Me neither... I'd rather we lowered the rate by ADDING JOBS rather than by SHEDDING WORKERS.
The second option is that the Obama administration is "cooking the books" by exaggerating the number of people who drop from the workforce in order to artificially lower the unemployment rate. Keep in mind, this dramatic drop in the workforce started in December... immediately AFTER the Democrats suffered their huge electoral "shellacking." If they are doing this, it's more than despicable, it's sinister. One of the underlying assumptions of this data is that political concerns don't change the facts; if the White House has disregarded this and is changing the data to make themselves look better... Well.
As I said, the second option is worse than the first. It's bad enough that Democrats are ignoring 1.1 million people who gave up on getting a job to celebrate a 9% unemployment rate! And in only TWO MONTHS!
Make no mistakes, the last two job reports are NOT hopeful for those who want this economy to recover. The combination of few jobs being created and MANY people leaving the job market can ONLY be bad for our economy. Far from being encouraged by a 0.8% drop in the unemployment rate over the past two months, I'm depressed by the implications.
Read the rest...
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Obama Aministration Ruled In Contempt Of Court
This is a rather amusing coincidence in timing, given my earlier posting saying that Obama is in contempt of Judge Vinson's ruling even if no such contempt ruling has been made. But judge Vinson didn't rule Obama in contempt of court, Louisiana Judge Martin Feldman did.
You remember Judge Feldman, right? He's the judge who tossed out Obama's ban on offshore drilling... which Obama promptly ignored. Well, it's taken long enough, but Judge Feldman has finally had enough and cited the Interior Department for contempt.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48745.html
If you'd like to read the entire eight page order, you can find it here:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM191_feldman.html
Isn't this just lovely?
Our Federal government ignored the order of a Federal court to the extent that a judge could clearly and without hesitation affirm their civil contempt for the court order.
Personally, I think this is FAR too late to do any good, as all the rigs have packed up and moved elsewhere. It will be a LONG time before drilling will resume in the Gulf, simply for that reason. The Obama administration wants to do things their way, and to HELL with the courts or anybody else who wants to stop them.
I wonder if Vinson will act in a more timely fashion, or if he, too, will wait months before recognizing Obama's contempt, which is quite clear to everyone else.
Read the rest...
You remember Judge Feldman, right? He's the judge who tossed out Obama's ban on offshore drilling... which Obama promptly ignored. Well, it's taken long enough, but Judge Feldman has finally had enough and cited the Interior Department for contempt.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48745.html
A federal judge in Louisiana held the Interior Department in contempt late Wednesday, citing the agency for “dismissive conduct” by blocking offshore oil drilling during last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Judge Martin Feldman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana last summer blocked the Obama administration’s first attempt to place a moratorium on offshore drilling, only to have Interior come back with a second ban.
That didn’t go over well with Feldman, who Wednesday also ordered Interior to pay attorneys’ fees for oil companies challenging the drilling ban.
“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this Court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this Court’s preliminary injunction order,” Feldman wrote in his eight-page order.
If you'd like to read the entire eight page order, you can find it here:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM191_feldman.html
Isn't this just lovely?
Our Federal government ignored the order of a Federal court to the extent that a judge could clearly and without hesitation affirm their civil contempt for the court order.
Personally, I think this is FAR too late to do any good, as all the rigs have packed up and moved elsewhere. It will be a LONG time before drilling will resume in the Gulf, simply for that reason. The Obama administration wants to do things their way, and to HELL with the courts or anybody else who wants to stop them.
I wonder if Vinson will act in a more timely fashion, or if he, too, will wait months before recognizing Obama's contempt, which is quite clear to everyone else.
Read the rest...
Obama Showing Contempt For Courts
Obama is in the process of showing his contempt for our judicial system, not to mention trying to exercise the limitless power that he apparently believes he has. What am I talking about? I'm talking about ObamaCare and judge Vinson's ruling on Monday.
You see, Judge Vinson threw out ObamaCare, ruled it unconstitutional. That means that until a higher court rules otherwise or a temporary injunction is granted, the law is null and void and implementation of it MUST STOP.
But it hasn't stopped. In fact, the White House has said several times since the ruling that that it changes nothing and implementation of the law will continue. In other words, he's defying a court order.
Let's take a look at what happened.
Vinson made three rulings that bear on this subject. The first was that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. The second was that the mandate wasn't severable, and that therefore the entire law must be pitched. The third was AGAINST the plaintiffs, when he denied their request for injunctive relief.
Essentially, they had asked that the judge issue a special injunction that stopped the administration from continuing to implement ObamaCare. Vinson declined, but he did so because he clearly viewed his ruling as injunction enough, and expected the administration to comply with it.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html
As you can see, he CLEARLY believed that Obama would comply with his ruling, and he CLEARLY believed that his ruling constituted an injunction against continuing to apply and enforce the law.
But Obama isn't complying with the Federal Court. It will be interesting to see how quickly the plaintiffs act to bring a separate request for a special injunction against Obama's White House before Judge Vinson.
But you know, this is nothing new. Obama has displayed such disregard for courts before. Remember the off-shore drilling ban that was tossed out by the judge? Obama responded by re-issuing the ban and essentially ignoring the court. Heck, it worked then, so why not continue to try what worked?
Even though no ruling has been made to that effect, in the matter of Judge Vinson's ruling, the Obama White House is now in contempt of court. He is ignoring the judicial branch's exercise of the very power that forms part of our system's checks and balances, and he is trying to assert for himself limitless power to do what he wants. In simpler terms, he wants the power of a dictator.
Are we SURE we want a lawless President in power?
Read the rest...
You see, Judge Vinson threw out ObamaCare, ruled it unconstitutional. That means that until a higher court rules otherwise or a temporary injunction is granted, the law is null and void and implementation of it MUST STOP.
But it hasn't stopped. In fact, the White House has said several times since the ruling that that it changes nothing and implementation of the law will continue. In other words, he's defying a court order.
Let's take a look at what happened.
Vinson made three rulings that bear on this subject. The first was that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. The second was that the mandate wasn't severable, and that therefore the entire law must be pitched. The third was AGAINST the plaintiffs, when he denied their request for injunctive relief.
Essentially, they had asked that the judge issue a special injunction that stopped the administration from continuing to implement ObamaCare. Vinson declined, but he did so because he clearly viewed his ruling as injunction enough, and expected the administration to comply with it.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction... since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).
There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
As you can see, he CLEARLY believed that Obama would comply with his ruling, and he CLEARLY believed that his ruling constituted an injunction against continuing to apply and enforce the law.
But Obama isn't complying with the Federal Court. It will be interesting to see how quickly the plaintiffs act to bring a separate request for a special injunction against Obama's White House before Judge Vinson.
But you know, this is nothing new. Obama has displayed such disregard for courts before. Remember the off-shore drilling ban that was tossed out by the judge? Obama responded by re-issuing the ban and essentially ignoring the court. Heck, it worked then, so why not continue to try what worked?
Even though no ruling has been made to that effect, in the matter of Judge Vinson's ruling, the Obama White House is now in contempt of court. He is ignoring the judicial branch's exercise of the very power that forms part of our system's checks and balances, and he is trying to assert for himself limitless power to do what he wants. In simpler terms, he wants the power of a dictator.
Are we SURE we want a lawless President in power?
Read the rest...
ObamaCare Repeal Fails In Senate
This should surprise nobody, but the attempt to add to a bill an amendment that repeals ObamaCare failed in the Senate last night. The vote was 47 to 51, with all Republicans and no Democrats voting in favor.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030462-503544.html
Is anybody surprised, here? Democrats have nothing to gain by voting in favor of repeal, even if they should.
Think about it.
So far, 28 states have filed suit in court against ObamaCare... that's a majority of states involved in the legal fight. And Monday, Federal court judge Roger Vinson ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional... so all those Democrats just voted to retain an unconstitutional law!
It's quite funny... the largest legal case against ObamaCare results in the best researched ruling, and ObamaCare is ruled null and void. Scant days later, Democrats renew their support for the legislation... not to mention their contempt for the Constitution.
Have these "distinguished gentlemen" no honor at all?
Read the rest...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030462-503544.html
The Democratic majority in the Senate late Wednesday voted down a GOP measure to repeal the health care law. The vote was 47-51, largely along party lines.
In classic Senate fashion, the vote on the repeal measure was anything but straightforward. The repeal measure was actually in the form of an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, and the vote was actually on a "budget point of order" and needed 60 votes for passage.
Is anybody surprised, here? Democrats have nothing to gain by voting in favor of repeal, even if they should.
Think about it.
So far, 28 states have filed suit in court against ObamaCare... that's a majority of states involved in the legal fight. And Monday, Federal court judge Roger Vinson ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional... so all those Democrats just voted to retain an unconstitutional law!
It's quite funny... the largest legal case against ObamaCare results in the best researched ruling, and ObamaCare is ruled null and void. Scant days later, Democrats renew their support for the legislation... not to mention their contempt for the Constitution.
Have these "distinguished gentlemen" no honor at all?
Read the rest...
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Breaking: Senate Approves Amendment To Repeal Part Of ObamaCare
The Senate just approved an amendment that would remove the 1099 reporting requirement that was enacted as part of ObamaCare. The "lost revenue" would be paid for using money allocated for other purposes but never spent.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48726.html
So, let's see how the rest of the repeal efforts go.
Read the rest...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48726.html
The Senate voted Wednesday for the first time to repeal a piece of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, rolling back a new tax reporting requirement that’s been universally panned by business owners.
The amendment to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement passed 81-17 with broad bipartisan support.
So, let's see how the rest of the repeal efforts go.
Read the rest...
Al Gore: Snowstorms Caused By Global Warming
It's not often that I start a blog post by saying "I swear I'm not making this up," but this time I feel that I have to do so.
I SWEAR I'm not making this up!
Al Gore is saying what, in all truth, global warming wackos have been saying for a long time: Man-caused global warming is responsible for severe snowstorms.
http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html
Hotter temperatures cause more snowfall?
This is the problem with the global warming theory, actually. In their fervent efforts to make the theory "work" with real-life results, they have made it into a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Don't know what that is? Allow me to elucidate.
A non-falsifiable hypothesis is one that predicts such a wide range of results that the hypothesis itself becomes meaningless and ANYTHING can be viewed as proof. Don't think global warming qualifies? Let's see.
In the past, global warming advocates have told us that global warming can cause hotter and colder temperatures, droughts and floods, too much and too little snowfall, and both rising and falling sea levels.
I kid you not, they actually claim that global warming causes LOWER temperatures!
At this point, the "theory" of man-caused global warming is useless, because no matter what weather we see, advocates can claim it was caused by global warming. This means the theory cannot be disproved... and that's sort of the underlying test of any REAL scientific theory.
The "theory" cannot be disproved, simply because it has been stretched to show that ANY weather result, no matter what it is, is caused by global warming. At this point, it is non-falsifiable, and therefore worthless.
It IS entertaining, though, to hear these guys try to tell us that "global warming" causes terrible snowstorms, isn't it? One wonders how they can keep a straight face telling us that water is actually quite dry.
UPDATE: Below is a link to the MANY things that global warning believers have blamed on global warming. That list includes, but is not limited to: acne, antarctic ice shrinks, antarctic ice grows, asteroid strike risk, asthma, Atlantic ocean more salty, Atlantic ocean less salty, beer tasting better, beer tasting worse, and the beginning of a new ice age. I'm not kidding with the last, they've actually claimed that GLOBAL WARMING may cause a new ICE AGE.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Read the rest...
I SWEAR I'm not making this up!
Al Gore is saying what, in all truth, global warming wackos have been saying for a long time: Man-caused global warming is responsible for severe snowstorms.
http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html
"As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming."
Hotter temperatures cause more snowfall?
This is the problem with the global warming theory, actually. In their fervent efforts to make the theory "work" with real-life results, they have made it into a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Don't know what that is? Allow me to elucidate.
A non-falsifiable hypothesis is one that predicts such a wide range of results that the hypothesis itself becomes meaningless and ANYTHING can be viewed as proof. Don't think global warming qualifies? Let's see.
In the past, global warming advocates have told us that global warming can cause hotter and colder temperatures, droughts and floods, too much and too little snowfall, and both rising and falling sea levels.
I kid you not, they actually claim that global warming causes LOWER temperatures!
At this point, the "theory" of man-caused global warming is useless, because no matter what weather we see, advocates can claim it was caused by global warming. This means the theory cannot be disproved... and that's sort of the underlying test of any REAL scientific theory.
The "theory" cannot be disproved, simply because it has been stretched to show that ANY weather result, no matter what it is, is caused by global warming. At this point, it is non-falsifiable, and therefore worthless.
It IS entertaining, though, to hear these guys try to tell us that "global warming" causes terrible snowstorms, isn't it? One wonders how they can keep a straight face telling us that water is actually quite dry.
UPDATE: Below is a link to the MANY things that global warning believers have blamed on global warming. That list includes, but is not limited to: acne, antarctic ice shrinks, antarctic ice grows, asteroid strike risk, asthma, Atlantic ocean more salty, Atlantic ocean less salty, beer tasting better, beer tasting worse, and the beginning of a new ice age. I'm not kidding with the last, they've actually claimed that GLOBAL WARMING may cause a new ICE AGE.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Read the rest...
Does Judge Vinson's Ruling Constitute "Judicial Activism"?
As you all know, a judge in Florida (Roger Vinson) ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional but not severable, and he tossed out the entire law. We're hearing predictable things on both sides, but what I want to deal with right now is those on the left saying that this is a bad example of judicial activism.
But is it? To find out, I suggest that you read the ruling. I know it's a long one, around 80 pages, but it is necessary. Here's a link:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html
As you read it, notice how he deals with each issue. Whether it's original intent, the commerce clause, or anything else, he delves pretty deeply into what it means AND previous court precedent on the subject. In my opinion, it's the most complete and researched opinion to date.
But is it judicial activism? Keep in mind that one of the INTENDED FUNCTIONS of the judiciary is to police the limits on legislative and executive actions. It's part of the checks and balances in the system for the courts to rule this or that unconstitutional. That it happens as rarely as it does says something about our society.
You see, the mere fact that a law is declared unconstitutional doesn't make the ruling "judicial activism"... doing so is a legitimate function of the judiciary.
So maybe we should start by asking WHAT IS judicial activism. That's a good place to start, and here's your answer:
The first part I want to look at is "social change." Is what the judge ruled social change? Arguably, but only arguably. In one sense, the decision serves to PREVENT the law from enacting social change. So... maybe.
Next, let's look at "interpret the constitution." In my opinion, courts do that on a regular basis... the Constitution is clear on many elements and debatable on others. Try finding "separation of church and state" or a "right to privacy" in the Constitution. You can't, because they are not there.
So move on to the third: "by deviating from legal precedent." That's the element upon which the question hangs. Did Vinson "deviate from legal precedent?"
If you read his decision you'll find that, in large part, Vinson FOLLOWED legal precedent in making his decision. Where court precedents were contradictory or unclear, he reverted back to the writings of the Founders, who wrote the Constitution in the first place.
Look at the section where he decides the law isn't severable, for example. He uses existing precedent every step of the way to determine that, if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the entire law must go.
I think that a fair look at his ruling MUST conclude that Vinson did not rule "by deviating from legal precedent." No, he ruled instead by FOLLOWING legal precedent and original intent. Therefore, I must conclude that his ruling does NOT constitute judicial activism.
Read the rest...
But is it? To find out, I suggest that you read the ruling. I know it's a long one, around 80 pages, but it is necessary. Here's a link:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html
As you read it, notice how he deals with each issue. Whether it's original intent, the commerce clause, or anything else, he delves pretty deeply into what it means AND previous court precedent on the subject. In my opinion, it's the most complete and researched opinion to date.
But is it judicial activism? Keep in mind that one of the INTENDED FUNCTIONS of the judiciary is to police the limits on legislative and executive actions. It's part of the checks and balances in the system for the courts to rule this or that unconstitutional. That it happens as rarely as it does says something about our society.
You see, the mere fact that a law is declared unconstitutional doesn't make the ruling "judicial activism"... doing so is a legitimate function of the judiciary.
So maybe we should start by asking WHAT IS judicial activism. That's a good place to start, and here's your answer:
Judicial activism: social change effected by judicial decree: the doctrine that the judicial branch, especially the federal courts, may interpret the Constitution by deviating from legal precedent as a means of effecting legal and social change
The first part I want to look at is "social change." Is what the judge ruled social change? Arguably, but only arguably. In one sense, the decision serves to PREVENT the law from enacting social change. So... maybe.
Next, let's look at "interpret the constitution." In my opinion, courts do that on a regular basis... the Constitution is clear on many elements and debatable on others. Try finding "separation of church and state" or a "right to privacy" in the Constitution. You can't, because they are not there.
So move on to the third: "by deviating from legal precedent." That's the element upon which the question hangs. Did Vinson "deviate from legal precedent?"
If you read his decision you'll find that, in large part, Vinson FOLLOWED legal precedent in making his decision. Where court precedents were contradictory or unclear, he reverted back to the writings of the Founders, who wrote the Constitution in the first place.
Look at the section where he decides the law isn't severable, for example. He uses existing precedent every step of the way to determine that, if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the entire law must go.
I think that a fair look at his ruling MUST conclude that Vinson did not rule "by deviating from legal precedent." No, he ruled instead by FOLLOWING legal precedent and original intent. Therefore, I must conclude that his ruling does NOT constitute judicial activism.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
New GOP Legislature Hiding, Ignoring Voters
Okay, what kind of "change" did you expect when the GOP took charge? More transparency? Legislators actually paying attention to their constituents?
Sorry, that's not what you're getting. No, what you're getting is something even more repulsive: The Legislature wants the public, their constituents, to have LESS access to Legislators. Not more access, LESS access. Don't believe me? They're PROUD of this new initiative.
http://tinyurl.com/4qex9zy
The EXCUSE they are using is that they need increased security because of the Tucson shootings. Huh. So, one wacko shoots a politician in another state and this justifies hiding from constituents? I'm not aware of any solid basis for a fear of constituents, here... there is no credible threat to Legislators that I am aware of. Certainly none that would survive the mandatory metal detector at the front entrance.
Using the shooting in Tucson as an excuse to avoid your constituents is despicable!
Here's the deal. Even though you have to pass through a metal detector in order to enter the building, you will no longer be allowed near Legislators' offices on Legislative days. You'll still be allowed there on committee meeting days... until their new rooms get finished, and then you'll be banned on those days, too.
Effectively, walk-ins will not be allowed near Legislative offices on any day that Legislators will actually be there. Does ANYBODY else find this objectionable?
In other words, you are not welcome to visit your Legislator without an appointment. So much for transparency and a respect for individual freedom, eh?
In my opinion, this is nothing more than an avoidance strategy. You see, the GOP was elected to a majority by large voting blocs that expected a certain type of behavior from them. Fiscal responsibility, a respect for individual freedom, that kind of thing. And it's an agenda that the GOP apparently isn't very interested in.
They'd rather just do whatever they see fit without having to bother with minor things like listening to their constituents. We're an annoyance to them right now, as they prepare to govern, and we will REMAIN an annoyance until they need our votes again.
Elections matter, and the results of this election may be worse than leaving the Democrats in charge would have been. So far, it's not looking good. Nope, it's not looking good at all.
Read the rest...
Sorry, that's not what you're getting. No, what you're getting is something even more repulsive: The Legislature wants the public, their constituents, to have LESS access to Legislators. Not more access, LESS access. Don't believe me? They're PROUD of this new initiative.
http://tinyurl.com/4qex9zy
The EXCUSE they are using is that they need increased security because of the Tucson shootings. Huh. So, one wacko shoots a politician in another state and this justifies hiding from constituents? I'm not aware of any solid basis for a fear of constituents, here... there is no credible threat to Legislators that I am aware of. Certainly none that would survive the mandatory metal detector at the front entrance.
Using the shooting in Tucson as an excuse to avoid your constituents is despicable!
Here's the deal. Even though you have to pass through a metal detector in order to enter the building, you will no longer be allowed near Legislators' offices on Legislative days. You'll still be allowed there on committee meeting days... until their new rooms get finished, and then you'll be banned on those days, too.
Effectively, walk-ins will not be allowed near Legislative offices on any day that Legislators will actually be there. Does ANYBODY else find this objectionable?
In other words, you are not welcome to visit your Legislator without an appointment. So much for transparency and a respect for individual freedom, eh?
In my opinion, this is nothing more than an avoidance strategy. You see, the GOP was elected to a majority by large voting blocs that expected a certain type of behavior from them. Fiscal responsibility, a respect for individual freedom, that kind of thing. And it's an agenda that the GOP apparently isn't very interested in.
They'd rather just do whatever they see fit without having to bother with minor things like listening to their constituents. We're an annoyance to them right now, as they prepare to govern, and we will REMAIN an annoyance until they need our votes again.
Elections matter, and the results of this election may be worse than leaving the Democrats in charge would have been. So far, it's not looking good. Nope, it's not looking good at all.
Read the rest...
Fiscal Situation Worsens, Obama Urges Caution
Here we are, with a rapidly mounting debt and many other problems, and what does Obama want us to do? He wants us to "exercise caution" with spending cuts.
http://tinyurl.com/6ka5rw4
The problem is that we have a YEARLY deficit of $1.5 trillion, about a third of our overall budget. We have to get rid of that deficit, and that means reducing spending by AT LEAST $1.5 trillion a year. We can't get that with an overly cautious "scalpel" approach. When Congress is increasing spending by the dump truck load, shoveling our way out won't help much.
And here's another thought. He wants us to "exercise caution" when looking at budget cuts? Why don't they ever exercise caution when INCREASING spending? Obama and his cronies have been pretty reckless about spending a LOT of money that we just don't have. Our government can't survive when Congress spends money recklessly and exercises fiscal discipline only reluctantly and timidly.
Obama doesn't want to cut spending, no matter how bad our situation is. And with Social Security now in a permanent deficit, we have a lot of problems looming over us.
Oh, didn't you hear about that? The CBO released a report saying that Social Security is in a permanent deficit situation NOW. Not ten years from now, but NOW.
http://tinyurl.com/6kzrxkd
For many years, it has been the practice to "borrow" money from the Social Security "trust fund" and spend it on whatever Congress wanted to spend it on. Instead of having $2.5 trillion actual dollars, Social Security has $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the Treasury. What happens now is that the Treasury will have to borrow money to funnel into Social Security so it can meet its obligations. With this additional problem, our debt situation will only get worse over time.
And bailouts are still in the future. Yes, I know they passed "financial reform" specifically to stop future bailouts, but now we "discover" that the "reforms" will do no such thing.
http://tinyurl.com/642f9nd
So remind me... WHY was it so critical to pass financial reform, again? If we have another crisis, the Feds will borrow MORE money to bail them out... AGAIN. All the so-called "reforms" did was to give the government more control over the financial sector. It didn't solve any problems. It just allowed Obama to grow the government.
Obama is in denial about this. His spending over the past two years, coupled with all the money he wants to spend in the future, are poised to swamp us with massive amounts of debt payments. Those will skyrocket very high as inflation tightens its grip on us, as it soon will. As the recovery takes hold, interest rates will rise. And as they do, making payments on the debt will become more and more expensive.
And what does Obama think we should do? Well, one thing he DOESN'T think we should do is reduce spending to sustainable levels. After all, we must "exercise caution" with spending cuts... even though he and his ilk exercised no caution at all with their spending INCREASES.
Read the rest...
http://tinyurl.com/6ka5rw4
The president said it was important to be careful in determining which programs would face the chopping block, especially as Republicans in the House have expressed eagerness at rolling back spending levels and eliminating government programs.
"We want to cut with a scalpel as opposed to a chainsaw," Obama cautioned in an interview with YouTube, broadcast live on the White House's website.
The problem is that we have a YEARLY deficit of $1.5 trillion, about a third of our overall budget. We have to get rid of that deficit, and that means reducing spending by AT LEAST $1.5 trillion a year. We can't get that with an overly cautious "scalpel" approach. When Congress is increasing spending by the dump truck load, shoveling our way out won't help much.
And here's another thought. He wants us to "exercise caution" when looking at budget cuts? Why don't they ever exercise caution when INCREASING spending? Obama and his cronies have been pretty reckless about spending a LOT of money that we just don't have. Our government can't survive when Congress spends money recklessly and exercises fiscal discipline only reluctantly and timidly.
Obama doesn't want to cut spending, no matter how bad our situation is. And with Social Security now in a permanent deficit, we have a lot of problems looming over us.
Oh, didn't you hear about that? The CBO released a report saying that Social Security is in a permanent deficit situation NOW. Not ten years from now, but NOW.
http://tinyurl.com/6kzrxkd
But CBO has some really, really bad news about Social Security: It’s officially broke. The CBO’s revenue/expenditure estimates now place the program in permanent deficit. There had been some hope that payroll taxes would recover sufficiently post-recession to put the program back into the black (the theoretical black) for at least a few more years, putting off the day of reckoning for an election cycle or more. No more: The new CBO estimates put Social Security in the red for as far as the eye can see.
For many years, it has been the practice to "borrow" money from the Social Security "trust fund" and spend it on whatever Congress wanted to spend it on. Instead of having $2.5 trillion actual dollars, Social Security has $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the Treasury. What happens now is that the Treasury will have to borrow money to funnel into Social Security so it can meet its obligations. With this additional problem, our debt situation will only get worse over time.
And bailouts are still in the future. Yes, I know they passed "financial reform" specifically to stop future bailouts, but now we "discover" that the "reforms" will do no such thing.
http://tinyurl.com/642f9nd
The Obama administration touted its overhaul of financial rules as a prescription to end future financial bailouts. The law gives regulators the ability to police any financial company whose failure would be felt throughout the system, and to shutter institutions that pose a threat.
Bank regulators acknowledge that those tools might not be enough to avoid a bailout, Barofsky notes. He says the law depends heavily on decisions by many of the same regulators who failed to prevent the recent crisis.
So remind me... WHY was it so critical to pass financial reform, again? If we have another crisis, the Feds will borrow MORE money to bail them out... AGAIN. All the so-called "reforms" did was to give the government more control over the financial sector. It didn't solve any problems. It just allowed Obama to grow the government.
Obama is in denial about this. His spending over the past two years, coupled with all the money he wants to spend in the future, are poised to swamp us with massive amounts of debt payments. Those will skyrocket very high as inflation tightens its grip on us, as it soon will. As the recovery takes hold, interest rates will rise. And as they do, making payments on the debt will become more and more expensive.
And what does Obama think we should do? Well, one thing he DOESN'T think we should do is reduce spending to sustainable levels. After all, we must "exercise caution" with spending cuts... even though he and his ilk exercised no caution at all with their spending INCREASES.
Read the rest...
Congressman Flunks Constitution Quiz
I don't know if you remember, but a while back I posted a piece showing how elected officials don't understand the Constitution. A study showed that elected officials scored a 49% (average) on a ten question quiz on the Constitution. I love how life works, for now we have a concrete example of this.
One of the questions was to name the three branches of government, and only 49% of elected officials got it right. I don't think Chuck Schumer (D) took that test, but he definitely would have missed this one. The correct answer is: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. But that's NOT what Schumer thinks.
If the player doesn't work, try thie link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbw1JQbe-_E
Do NOT believe your Congressman when he tells you something is Constitutional, because odds are he doesn't understand the Constitution in the first place!
Thanks, Mr. Schumer, for proving how clueless you politicians really are about the very document you swore to uphold and defend.
This is depressing, actually. It's one thing to read survey results, but it's another to actually SEE this kind of ignorance in elected officials.
Read the rest...
One of the questions was to name the three branches of government, and only 49% of elected officials got it right. I don't think Chuck Schumer (D) took that test, but he definitely would have missed this one. The correct answer is: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. But that's NOT what Schumer thinks.
If the player doesn't work, try thie link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbw1JQbe-_E
Do NOT believe your Congressman when he tells you something is Constitutional, because odds are he doesn't understand the Constitution in the first place!
Thanks, Mr. Schumer, for proving how clueless you politicians really are about the very document you swore to uphold and defend.
This is depressing, actually. It's one thing to read survey results, but it's another to actually SEE this kind of ignorance in elected officials.
Read the rest...
ObamaCare: NOT For Everyone, After All
ObamaCare was pitched to us as the needed "reform" that would fix our health care problems and make the world a better place. What we're finding out now is that's only true conditionally. While most of us have to comply with the new law, quite a few people are getting exemptions.
The biggest stumbling block right now is the requirement for businesses to offer a minimum level of insurance to their employees. But employers like McDonald's offer very minimal insurance to their part-time employees that doesn't meet the government-imposed requirements. If forced to comply with the law, they would have to drop insurance coverage altogether for their part-time workers. But all they had to do was ask, apparently, and now they are the proud owner of a bouncing baby "waiver" that exempts them from having to comply with the law in this respect.
And McDonald's isn't alone... At this point in time, more than 700 such waivers have been issued. Uh... 733, to be precise... though that may change quite quickly.
My first question is this: If the law is so great, shouldn't it apply to everyone equally? And if all these businesses find it necessary to get waivers, then maybe we can all admit that the law isn't that great.
But what's even MORE interesting is the list of waivers issued.
Topping the list are none other than a laundry list of unions. The Service Employee International Union (SEIU) is exempt from complying with the law. I wonder if that has anything to do with Andy Stern, former President of the SEIU, and his $27 million contributions to Obama in 2008?
Altogether, more than 40 unions are exempt from ObamaCare. So are a short list of states: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee.
The point is that if ObamaCare is a bad deal for these States, unions, and companies, why do we believe it's all skittles and beer for the rest of us? If that many companies need waivers from this one regulation, what other regulations are hiding out there that will require a similar flood of waivers?
This law was not well thought out and was not designed very well. In their haste to pass a law that had been a liberal goal for decades, they slapped together a monolithic and labyrinthine program that few will ever fully understand. The bad effects will outnumber the good ones, and waivers will be the new gold-standard: a government permission slip to remain in business a little while longer.
Read the rest...
The biggest stumbling block right now is the requirement for businesses to offer a minimum level of insurance to their employees. But employers like McDonald's offer very minimal insurance to their part-time employees that doesn't meet the government-imposed requirements. If forced to comply with the law, they would have to drop insurance coverage altogether for their part-time workers. But all they had to do was ask, apparently, and now they are the proud owner of a bouncing baby "waiver" that exempts them from having to comply with the law in this respect.
And McDonald's isn't alone... At this point in time, more than 700 such waivers have been issued. Uh... 733, to be precise... though that may change quite quickly.
My first question is this: If the law is so great, shouldn't it apply to everyone equally? And if all these businesses find it necessary to get waivers, then maybe we can all admit that the law isn't that great.
But what's even MORE interesting is the list of waivers issued.
Topping the list are none other than a laundry list of unions. The Service Employee International Union (SEIU) is exempt from complying with the law. I wonder if that has anything to do with Andy Stern, former President of the SEIU, and his $27 million contributions to Obama in 2008?
Altogether, more than 40 unions are exempt from ObamaCare. So are a short list of states: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee.
The point is that if ObamaCare is a bad deal for these States, unions, and companies, why do we believe it's all skittles and beer for the rest of us? If that many companies need waivers from this one regulation, what other regulations are hiding out there that will require a similar flood of waivers?
This law was not well thought out and was not designed very well. In their haste to pass a law that had been a liberal goal for decades, they slapped together a monolithic and labyrinthine program that few will ever fully understand. The bad effects will outnumber the good ones, and waivers will be the new gold-standard: a government permission slip to remain in business a little while longer.
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)