http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
Click on the document image to see the full-sized document in a PDF file.
It's going to be interesting to watch the birthers respond to this...
Read the rest...
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Breaking: PresBo Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate
This is interesting. If you go over to WhiteHouse.gov, you can see an announcement that Obama has released his long-form birth certificate, as well as a link to the document.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
Click on the document image to see the full-sized document in a PDF file.
It's going to be interesting to watch the birthers respond to this...
Read the rest...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
Click on the document image to see the full-sized document in a PDF file.
It's going to be interesting to watch the birthers respond to this...
Read the rest...
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
What Is The Purpose Of A Debt Limit?
I ask this in all seriousness... What is the purpose of a debt limit? The reason I ask is that Timothy Geithner, tax cheat and Secretary of the Treasury, apparently doesn't know.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/157761-geithner-debt-ceiling-debate-ridiculous
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of having a debt limit in the first place to stop the government from going too far into debt and forcing Congress to debate whether it is appropriate to raise it? If little Timmy is right and Congress should simply rubber stamp an increase in the debt limit without any debate at all, then what's the point of having a debt limit in the first place?
I mean, isn't the point of having a debt limit to give Congress a chance to decide IF the limit should be increased? Aren't they supposed to inject some sanity into our fiscal picture when it's warranted?
But now you've got Democrats across the nation arguing that even having that debate is irresponsible and dangerous. Why won't they be completely honest with us and submit a bill that would remove the debt limit entirely? That's what they seem to want, after all, and such a bill would make clear to every voter in the nation that the drunk shopaholic chick has stolen the national credit card.
Oh, THAT'S why they don't do it... because they know the voters would respond negatively to such a blatant display of greed and political stupidity.
Little Timmy, PresBo, Mr. Reid... the debate on whether or not to raise the debt limit is proper and prudent, not irresponsible as you're trying to portray. In my opinion, rubber-stamping an increase without any discussion at all is the irresponsible move, here.
Read the rest...
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/157761-geithner-debt-ceiling-debate-ridiculous
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday slammed the debate over raising the debt ceiling as “ridiculous” and said it is “irresponsible” for policymakers to leave the impression the U.S. might not pay its bills.
Geithner also said that he was confident that lawmakers would increase the debt limit, but stressed that he would like to see that happen sooner rather than later.
The Treasury secretary said the tussle over the borrowing limit "is a ridiculous debate to have."
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of having a debt limit in the first place to stop the government from going too far into debt and forcing Congress to debate whether it is appropriate to raise it? If little Timmy is right and Congress should simply rubber stamp an increase in the debt limit without any debate at all, then what's the point of having a debt limit in the first place?
I mean, isn't the point of having a debt limit to give Congress a chance to decide IF the limit should be increased? Aren't they supposed to inject some sanity into our fiscal picture when it's warranted?
But now you've got Democrats across the nation arguing that even having that debate is irresponsible and dangerous. Why won't they be completely honest with us and submit a bill that would remove the debt limit entirely? That's what they seem to want, after all, and such a bill would make clear to every voter in the nation that the drunk shopaholic chick has stolen the national credit card.
Oh, THAT'S why they don't do it... because they know the voters would respond negatively to such a blatant display of greed and political stupidity.
Little Timmy, PresBo, Mr. Reid... the debate on whether or not to raise the debt limit is proper and prudent, not irresponsible as you're trying to portray. In my opinion, rubber-stamping an increase without any discussion at all is the irresponsible move, here.
Read the rest...
PresBo Fails To Issue Easter Proclamation
This is interesting, and illustrates quite well why so many Americans believe PresBo to be a Muslim. You see, PresBo did not issue a proclamation honoring Easter this year.
This is notable. Former president Bush, on the other hand, always issued some kind of statement on this day of remembrance of our Savior's death and resurrection... he often mentioned Christianity and focused on the meaning of the day.
PresBo, on the other hand, treated Easter quite differently in 2010. That year, he did issue an Easter proclamation, but treated it as a generic holiday by mentioning and focusing on Islam. THIS year, PresBo issued no proclamation at all.
He DID, however, remember to issue statements on Ramadan and other major Islamic holidays... with no mention at all of Christianity. And he managed to issue a statement honoring Earth Day... obviously Islam and environmentalism are more important to him than his (supposedly?) Christian religion.
With behavior like this, so obviously and blatantly promoting Islamic faith and disparaging Christianity, is it any wonder that many people believe he is Muslim?
Conclusion: the man's an idiot.
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/04/25/wh-fails-release-easter-proclamation#ixzz1KXV4dczO
Read the rest...
This is notable. Former president Bush, on the other hand, always issued some kind of statement on this day of remembrance of our Savior's death and resurrection... he often mentioned Christianity and focused on the meaning of the day.
PresBo, on the other hand, treated Easter quite differently in 2010. That year, he did issue an Easter proclamation, but treated it as a generic holiday by mentioning and focusing on Islam. THIS year, PresBo issued no proclamation at all.
He DID, however, remember to issue statements on Ramadan and other major Islamic holidays... with no mention at all of Christianity. And he managed to issue a statement honoring Earth Day... obviously Islam and environmentalism are more important to him than his (supposedly?) Christian religion.
With behavior like this, so obviously and blatantly promoting Islamic faith and disparaging Christianity, is it any wonder that many people believe he is Muslim?
Conclusion: the man's an idiot.
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/04/25/wh-fails-release-easter-proclamation#ixzz1KXV4dczO
Read the rest...
Monday, April 25, 2011
Passport, Passport, Who Has A Passport?
I ask this question, because the government is considering new rules that will make it VERY difficult for many legitimate US citizens to get US passports. And you only have until TODAY to give them any comments you might have on their proposed new questionnaire.
http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/state-dept-wants-to-make-it-harder-to-get-a-passport/
This is ridiculous. Both of my parents are, regrettably, deceased, so how exactly am I supposed to discover my mother's address before and after my birth, not to mention the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all the nurses in the delivery room when I was born?
Oh, would you like to see the proposed new questionnaire itself?
Okay, here you go.
http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ds5513-proposed.pdf
I'll be honest with you, I don't remember the name of my first supervisor once I started working... at Arby's in 1983 when I was 18 years old! Heck, that was 27 years ago, people! And if I can't remember his name, I don't have a snowball's chance in hades of finding his phone number!
If I may be so bold as to inquire, what the blue blazes does this information have to do with my citizenship status?
Do you remember your address from when you were three years old? They want that information, and if you don't supply it, then they can legally deny your application!
They even ask for any pre- and post-natal care my mother received, going so far as to ask for doctors' names and APPOINTMENT DATES!!! Are they insane? I was born more than 45 years ago... who is going to remember appointment dates from 45 years ago?
What this means is that, if adopted, I would be unable to obtain a US passport... assuming I didn't already have one issued under rules that were less asinine.
This move will make it harder to get passports, so fewer people will get them. You can bet those with hefty political connections won't be so limited... but the rest of us will.
Do you want to comment? There's not much time left, but here's the contact information.
Let's do it, people.
Read the rest...
http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/state-dept-wants-to-make-it-harder-to-get-a-passport/
The U.S. Department of State is proposing a new Biographical Questionnaire for some passport applicants: The proposed new Form DS-5513 asks for all addresses since birth; lifetime employment history including employers’ and supervisors names, addresses, and telephone numbers; personal details of all siblings; mother’s address one year prior to your birth; any “religious ceremony” around the time of birth; and a variety of other information. According to the proposed form, “failure to provide the information requested may result in … the denial of your U.S. passport application.”
The State Department estimated that the average respondent would be able to compile all this information in just 45 minutes, which is obviously absurd given the amount of research that is likely to be required to even attempt to complete the form.
This is ridiculous. Both of my parents are, regrettably, deceased, so how exactly am I supposed to discover my mother's address before and after my birth, not to mention the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all the nurses in the delivery room when I was born?
Oh, would you like to see the proposed new questionnaire itself?
Okay, here you go.
http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ds5513-proposed.pdf
I'll be honest with you, I don't remember the name of my first supervisor once I started working... at Arby's in 1983 when I was 18 years old! Heck, that was 27 years ago, people! And if I can't remember his name, I don't have a snowball's chance in hades of finding his phone number!
If I may be so bold as to inquire, what the blue blazes does this information have to do with my citizenship status?
Do you remember your address from when you were three years old? They want that information, and if you don't supply it, then they can legally deny your application!
They even ask for any pre- and post-natal care my mother received, going so far as to ask for doctors' names and APPOINTMENT DATES!!! Are they insane? I was born more than 45 years ago... who is going to remember appointment dates from 45 years ago?
What this means is that, if adopted, I would be unable to obtain a US passport... assuming I didn't already have one issued under rules that were less asinine.
This move will make it harder to get passports, so fewer people will get them. You can bet those with hefty political connections won't be so limited... but the rest of us will.
Do you want to comment? There's not much time left, but here's the contact information.
You can submit comments to the State Department online at Regulations.gov until midnight Eastern time on Monday, April 25, 2011. Go here, then click the “Submit a Comment” button at the upper right of the page. If that link doesn’t work for you, it’s probably a problem with the javascript used on the Regulations.gov website. There are alternate instructions for submitting comments by email here.
Let's do it, people.
Read the rest...
Breaking: SCOTUS Denies ObamaCare Fast-Track
This just in: the Supreme Court has denied Virginia's petition to fast-track their ObamaCare lawsuit, skipping the appeals process and leading straight to a SCOTUS review.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53655.html
This means that SCOTUS review is possible sometime in the summer of 2012, just prior to the Presidential election. When that happens, you Democrats out there, remember that the timing isn't political, it's PresBo's choice. By accepting fast-track status, he could have had this thing reviewed by SCOTUS THIS year. So blame PresBo if we end up closely following both the Presdiential campaigns AND a possible judicial overturn of PresBo's "greatest achievement."
UPDATE: I noticed this late, but the article notes that no justice recused himself (or herself) from the decision.
This is disturbing, because one of the sitting justices is already on the record for thinking the law to be perfectly constitutional. Although Obama is stone-walling on revealing EXACTLY what part Kegan played, it is clear that she reviewed ObamaCare prior to its passage, and concluded it was legal. So it looks like a judge who has pre-formed opinions about an issue will not recuse herself, as she should, when they finally hear the case.
Read the rest...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53655.html
The Supreme Court has denied Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s petition to hear Virginia's lawsuit against the health care overhaul immediately. The order was released Monday without explanation.
The denial was expected. It’s rare for the high court to take a case without letting it go through the circuit courts first.
This means that SCOTUS review is possible sometime in the summer of 2012, just prior to the Presidential election. When that happens, you Democrats out there, remember that the timing isn't political, it's PresBo's choice. By accepting fast-track status, he could have had this thing reviewed by SCOTUS THIS year. So blame PresBo if we end up closely following both the Presdiential campaigns AND a possible judicial overturn of PresBo's "greatest achievement."
UPDATE: I noticed this late, but the article notes that no justice recused himself (or herself) from the decision.
The order indicated that no justice recused himself or herself from considering whether to take up the case. The move could indicate that the justices don't anticipate any recusals if and when the court takes up one of the health lawsuits.
This is disturbing, because one of the sitting justices is already on the record for thinking the law to be perfectly constitutional. Although Obama is stone-walling on revealing EXACTLY what part Kegan played, it is clear that she reviewed ObamaCare prior to its passage, and concluded it was legal. So it looks like a judge who has pre-formed opinions about an issue will not recuse herself, as she should, when they finally hear the case.
Read the rest...
Obama On Libya: Lies Or Incompetence?
Okay, we have a decision to make, here. Is Barack Hussein Obama a liar where Libya is concerned, or is he just plain incompetent when it comes to drafting a coherent foreign policy involving the use of force?
It's a relevant question, because Libya is turning into a quagmire and our involvement looks nothing like PresBO SWORE it would look.
PresBo said that we would be involved for days, not weeks. So far, it's been MONTHS, not days. He swore that regime change wasn't our goal... though he did incoherently argue that, despite his official position, Qadhaffi "had to go." He also swore that we wouldn't target Qadhaffi and try to kill him. Last night, NATO forces bombed a command bunker in an attempt to kill Qadhaffi. (No word yet on whether they were US planes or drones doing the bombing.) PresBo swore we wouldn't put "one boot on the ground." Now, according to a US general, we "may consider" sending ground troops into Libya.
Even his justification, his REASON why we intervened here, is making little sense. You see, there are other countries where the leaders are slaughtering civilians, and PresBo has yet to suggest that we intervene there. Syria, for example. Which raises the question as to why we REALLY started bombing the heck out of a sovereign nation... surely not just because PresBo doesn't like Qadhaffi and wants him out of power.
So far, this war is NOTHING like PresBo promised it would be, and things seem to be getting worse rather than better. So, did PresBo lie about all this, or is he merely incompetent?
Either way, we're in for a lot of trouble, both in Libya and at home, because neither alternative bodes well for us. If I had a choice, I'd rather that he be lying to us, because an incompetent President is something that can hurt far more than just us voters.
Read the rest...
It's a relevant question, because Libya is turning into a quagmire and our involvement looks nothing like PresBO SWORE it would look.
PresBo said that we would be involved for days, not weeks. So far, it's been MONTHS, not days. He swore that regime change wasn't our goal... though he did incoherently argue that, despite his official position, Qadhaffi "had to go." He also swore that we wouldn't target Qadhaffi and try to kill him. Last night, NATO forces bombed a command bunker in an attempt to kill Qadhaffi. (No word yet on whether they were US planes or drones doing the bombing.) PresBo swore we wouldn't put "one boot on the ground." Now, according to a US general, we "may consider" sending ground troops into Libya.
Even his justification, his REASON why we intervened here, is making little sense. You see, there are other countries where the leaders are slaughtering civilians, and PresBo has yet to suggest that we intervene there. Syria, for example. Which raises the question as to why we REALLY started bombing the heck out of a sovereign nation... surely not just because PresBo doesn't like Qadhaffi and wants him out of power.
So far, this war is NOTHING like PresBo promised it would be, and things seem to be getting worse rather than better. So, did PresBo lie about all this, or is he merely incompetent?
Either way, we're in for a lot of trouble, both in Libya and at home, because neither alternative bodes well for us. If I had a choice, I'd rather that he be lying to us, because an incompetent President is something that can hurt far more than just us voters.
Read the rest...
Friday, April 22, 2011
Should GOP Fight Raising The Debt Limit?
Raising the debt limit is the next big fight, with some GOP'ers vowing to vote against it unless they get concessions on spending cuts. The question is, will taking such a stance help or hurt the GOP?
According to a new poll released by CBS News/New York Times, such a stance could easily help them.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056258-503544.html
If you ask me, interest rates are going up soon, anyway. Some of those who buy US debt are already beginning to grumble about their low rate of return, and there is inflationary pressure building in the US that will likely combine to force interest rates up... probably sometime in the next year or so.
But this poll seems to indicate that the GOP stance will actually please a large percentage of the populace. So fight this battle, people, and win a LOT more than the piddling little $352 million in spending cuts that you won in the last battle.
Passing the balanced budget amendment would also be nice...
Read the rest...
According to a new poll released by CBS News/New York Times, such a stance could easily help them.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056258-503544.html
Despite Obama administration warnings that failing to do so would devastate the economy, a clear majority of Americans say they oppose raising the debt limit, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows.
Just 27 percent of Americans support raising the debt limit, while 63 percent oppose raising it.
Eighty-three percent of Republicans oppose raising the limit, along with 64 percent of independents and 48 percent of Democrats. Support for raising the debt limit is just 36 percent among Democrats, and only 14 percent among Republicans.
Seven in ten who oppose raising the debt limit stand by that position even if it means that interest rates will go up.
If you ask me, interest rates are going up soon, anyway. Some of those who buy US debt are already beginning to grumble about their low rate of return, and there is inflationary pressure building in the US that will likely combine to force interest rates up... probably sometime in the next year or so.
But this poll seems to indicate that the GOP stance will actually please a large percentage of the populace. So fight this battle, people, and win a LOT more than the piddling little $352 million in spending cuts that you won in the last battle.
Passing the balanced budget amendment would also be nice...
Read the rest...
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Obama Administration: We Know What's Best
Obama's vision of our nation is one where the federal government speaks about whatever issue it settles on, the rest of the nation listens attentively, and then we follow their oh-so-sage advice.
Today, the topic is earthquakes. Today is a "shake-out" drill, during which our federal government will "tell us how to act" if there's an earthquake.
See, that's a central tenet of Obama's world... he tells us what to do and we do it.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/157159-white-house-readies-us-shake-out-to-prepare-citizens-for-earthquakes
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against emergency preparedness, but there's something so sternly parental about the Obama administration's attitude towards the rest of us.
"Father Obama knows best, dear, now pay attention."
And what is the reason for this drill? In my opinion, it's a combination of the Japanese earthquakes and Obama's political need to look strong and effective. There's certainly no strong indication that the midwest is about to be wracked with earth-churning quakes... and no recent history of same.
So pay attention children (and Obama DOES view us as children to be led), without a benevolent Obama you wouldn't know how to survive and would be condemned to a nasty and shaky death.
Thanks, Dad.
Read the rest...
Today, the topic is earthquakes. Today is a "shake-out" drill, during which our federal government will "tell us how to act" if there's an earthquake.
See, that's a central tenet of Obama's world... he tells us what to do and we do it.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/157159-white-house-readies-us-shake-out-to-prepare-citizens-for-earthquakes
In an event called the “Great Central U.S. Shake Out,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are reaching out to areas in the Midwest that could be impacted by an earthquake along the New Madrid fault line.
According to the event’s website, more than 2.5 million people have committed to taking part in Thursday’s drill, in which participants will be told how to react in the event of an earthquake.
Participants are told to drop to the ground, take cover under something sturdy, such as a desk or a table, and hold on to it until the shaking stops.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against emergency preparedness, but there's something so sternly parental about the Obama administration's attitude towards the rest of us.
"Father Obama knows best, dear, now pay attention."
And what is the reason for this drill? In my opinion, it's a combination of the Japanese earthquakes and Obama's political need to look strong and effective. There's certainly no strong indication that the midwest is about to be wracked with earth-churning quakes... and no recent history of same.
Nearly 200 years ago, a series of earthquakes along the New Madrid fault line rippled throughout the U.S., causing a vast shadow of destruction and disrepair.
So pay attention children (and Obama DOES view us as children to be led), without a benevolent Obama you wouldn't know how to survive and would be condemned to a nasty and shaky death.
Thanks, Dad.
Read the rest...
G. W. Bush To Speak At Faulkner
For those who are interested, former President G. W. Bush will be the keynote speaker at an annual benefit dinner for Faulkner University. Tickets go on sale... well, right now, actually. Sponsorship-level ticket sales started at 8:00 AM this morning. The event will be held on October 8th at the Renaissance Montgomery Hotel & Spa at the Convention Center.
For sponsorship ticket information, call the Office of University Advancement at 386-7257 or visit faulkner.edu.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110421/NEWS01/104210330/George-W-Bush-speak-Faulkner-benefit-dinner
Read the rest...
For sponsorship ticket information, call the Office of University Advancement at 386-7257 or visit faulkner.edu.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110421/NEWS01/104210330/George-W-Bush-speak-Faulkner-benefit-dinner
Read the rest...
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Non-Existent Environmental Disasters
What is that I smell in the air? Is it spring? No, it's Earth Day!! Yes, Earth Day will shortly grace us once again with its excessive environmental preaching... this Friday, April 22, to be precise. So I thought it appropriate to share with you this little video.
You see, the environmental movement began in 1962 when Rachel Carson published her best-selling book Silent Spring. And ever since, Chicken Littles have warned us about imminent environmental disasters that ultimately didn't happen.
We all worried needlessly about acid rain, expanding deserts and global cooling, but these failed predictions weren't quite dire enough to make our list. To find out which prophecies of doom did make our list, you'll need to watch Reason.tv's "Top Five Environmental Disasters that Didn't Happen."
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67dcK5sjHsE
Remember this video the next time an environmentalist tells you how the world will be destroyed THIS week...
Read the rest...
You see, the environmental movement began in 1962 when Rachel Carson published her best-selling book Silent Spring. And ever since, Chicken Littles have warned us about imminent environmental disasters that ultimately didn't happen.
We all worried needlessly about acid rain, expanding deserts and global cooling, but these failed predictions weren't quite dire enough to make our list. To find out which prophecies of doom did make our list, you'll need to watch Reason.tv's "Top Five Environmental Disasters that Didn't Happen."
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67dcK5sjHsE
Remember this video the next time an environmentalist tells you how the world will be destroyed THIS week...
Read the rest...
Fascinating: Which GOP Candidate Can Beat Obama?
I was looking at the polling data today to determine which of the GOP candidates for President could beat Obama in the general election, and discovered a little nugget of truth. The top three candidates who would fare best against Obama in the general election are Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney... and Ron Paul.
Don't believe me? See for yourself.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
Though ALL GOP contenders trail Obama at this point, these three are the closest to Obama in the polls. Huckabee is only down by 2.2 points, Romney is down by 3.6, and Paul is down by 7.5 points.
Of the three, Huckabee hasn't announced his candidacy and, indeed, is showing some signs he may not run at all. Romney has BIG negatives with the GOP primary crowd, notably RomneyCare, the blueprint for the detested ObamaCare. Which puts Ron Paul pretty well positioned to beat Obama in the general election. He's third in line for viability... second in line, if you omit Huckabee because he hasn't announced yet.
Paul beats out other candidates in the general election, such as Daniels (-9.4), Huntsman (-10.5), Trump (-12.2), Barbour (-12.5), Pawlenty (-14.4), Palin (-15.2), Gingrich (-15.2), and Bachmann (-15).
So, if you've ever dismissed Ron Paul as "unable to win in the general election," maybe you might want to rethink that. He polls higher than all but two other possible candidates... one of whom may not even BE a candidate.
Read the rest...
Don't believe me? See for yourself.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
Though ALL GOP contenders trail Obama at this point, these three are the closest to Obama in the polls. Huckabee is only down by 2.2 points, Romney is down by 3.6, and Paul is down by 7.5 points.
Of the three, Huckabee hasn't announced his candidacy and, indeed, is showing some signs he may not run at all. Romney has BIG negatives with the GOP primary crowd, notably RomneyCare, the blueprint for the detested ObamaCare. Which puts Ron Paul pretty well positioned to beat Obama in the general election. He's third in line for viability... second in line, if you omit Huckabee because he hasn't announced yet.
Paul beats out other candidates in the general election, such as Daniels (-9.4), Huntsman (-10.5), Trump (-12.2), Barbour (-12.5), Pawlenty (-14.4), Palin (-15.2), Gingrich (-15.2), and Bachmann (-15).
So, if you've ever dismissed Ron Paul as "unable to win in the general election," maybe you might want to rethink that. He polls higher than all but two other possible candidates... one of whom may not even BE a candidate.
Read the rest...
Tax Dollars Spent On... Capes
I have engaged in many debates with big-government liberals who defend every dime of government spending. There is nothing to cut, they argue, because all of it is necessary... and they need even MORE to spend!
But is that true? Here is a situation where an organization used a government grant (which means our tax money) to hand out 6,000 superhero capes. I'm not kidding, people, taxpayer funded superhero capes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110419/ap_on_re_us/us_capes_for_the_unemployed
Can anybody, ANYBODY, provide a coherent and convincing defense of why government should be allowed to take away part of the money I worked hard to earn, only to spend it on SUPERHERO CAPES?????
The director who spent the money STILL defends it as a reasonable expenditure.
In my opinion, things like this should NEVER happen. Each time it does, some individuals and/or families lose part of their paychecks for no good reason.
This is wasted money. I guarantee you that the families that EARNED that money would have spent it in a better manner. And there is so much waste in government that our discussion on cutting spending should BEGIN there. Find every instance we can of this kind of stupidity and slash their budget so that they can never do it again. Punish those who waste OUR money.
Here's a note to those trying to find places to cut Federal spending... this "Workforce Central Florida" that thinks superhero capes are an acceptable way to spend our tax dollars is a Federally funded group that receives $24 million from the federal government.
So, I have a suggestion on how we can cut another $24 million from the budget...
Read the rest...
But is that true? Here is a situation where an organization used a government grant (which means our tax money) to hand out 6,000 superhero capes. I'm not kidding, people, taxpayer funded superhero capes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110419/ap_on_re_us/us_capes_for_the_unemployed
Florida officials are investigating an unemployment agency that spent public money to give 6,000 superhero capes to the jobless.
Workforce Central Florida spent more than $14,000 on the red capes as part of its "Cape-A-Bility Challenge" public relations campaign. The campaign featured a cartoon character, "Dr. Evil Unemployment," who needs to be vanquished.
Can anybody, ANYBODY, provide a coherent and convincing defense of why government should be allowed to take away part of the money I worked hard to earn, only to spend it on SUPERHERO CAPES?????
The director who spent the money STILL defends it as a reasonable expenditure.
Workforce Central Florida Director Gary J. Earl defends the program, saying it is part of a greater effort to connect with the community. The agency says it served 210,000 people during its last fiscal year, placing nearly 59,000 in jobs.
In my opinion, things like this should NEVER happen. Each time it does, some individuals and/or families lose part of their paychecks for no good reason.
This is wasted money. I guarantee you that the families that EARNED that money would have spent it in a better manner. And there is so much waste in government that our discussion on cutting spending should BEGIN there. Find every instance we can of this kind of stupidity and slash their budget so that they can never do it again. Punish those who waste OUR money.
Here's a note to those trying to find places to cut Federal spending... this "Workforce Central Florida" that thinks superhero capes are an acceptable way to spend our tax dollars is a Federally funded group that receives $24 million from the federal government.
So, I have a suggestion on how we can cut another $24 million from the budget...
Read the rest...
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Obama Misrepresents Reality, AGAIN!
In a speech yesterday, PresBo told a group of college students that the GOP wanted to reduce the deficit "on their backs."
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/156773-obama-warns-students-powerful-interests-want-to-reduce-deficit-on-your-backs
The problem with this is that it's the tail wagging the dog. The necessity of paying down the debt doesn't cause the hardships, the amassing of that debt does. The necessity of paying money back was created by politicians, Democrats and Republicans, heartlessly borrowing far too much money to spend on their pet projects, all the time knowing that someday WE THE PEOPLE would have to pay all of it back.
Over the past two years, Democrats have ammassed TRILLIONS of dollars in new debt. They're borrowing money at such an incredible rate that the printing presses over at the Fed are smoking. And the need to pay it back was born from that out-of-control borrowing. Blaming the Republicans for trying to clean up his mess is pure partisan politics.
Picture a college student who wears his clothes until they stink, then throws them in a hamper and never washes them. When he needs a shirt, he pulls one out of the hamper, spritzes it with some Febreeze, and wears it. When a friend finally takes his shirts down to the laundry to wash the smelly things, he blames his friend because he has no shirts to wear.
That's the situation we have here. The Democrats in charge right now have precipitated a crisis, and are trying to blame the Republicans for acting to clean up the mess.
If you want to blame somebody, blame those who caused the problem. Yes, that includes Republicans AND Democrats, as they've both been borrowing money for decades. But the Democrats in charge now have taken fiscal irresponsibility to such dizzying heights that they deserve a large share of the blame for precipitating the debt crisis we're experiencing now.
So kids, when allocating blame for the austerity measures that need to be implemented, don't forget to give PresBo the rather generous share of the blame that he earned.
Read the rest...
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/156773-obama-warns-students-powerful-interests-want-to-reduce-deficit-on-your-backs
“I can’t afford to have all of you as bystanders,” Obama told a town hall meeting at Northern Virginia Community College. “There are powerful interests in Washington…they are going to want to reduce the deficit on your backs.”
The problem with this is that it's the tail wagging the dog. The necessity of paying down the debt doesn't cause the hardships, the amassing of that debt does. The necessity of paying money back was created by politicians, Democrats and Republicans, heartlessly borrowing far too much money to spend on their pet projects, all the time knowing that someday WE THE PEOPLE would have to pay all of it back.
Over the past two years, Democrats have ammassed TRILLIONS of dollars in new debt. They're borrowing money at such an incredible rate that the printing presses over at the Fed are smoking. And the need to pay it back was born from that out-of-control borrowing. Blaming the Republicans for trying to clean up his mess is pure partisan politics.
Picture a college student who wears his clothes until they stink, then throws them in a hamper and never washes them. When he needs a shirt, he pulls one out of the hamper, spritzes it with some Febreeze, and wears it. When a friend finally takes his shirts down to the laundry to wash the smelly things, he blames his friend because he has no shirts to wear.
That's the situation we have here. The Democrats in charge right now have precipitated a crisis, and are trying to blame the Republicans for acting to clean up the mess.
If you want to blame somebody, blame those who caused the problem. Yes, that includes Republicans AND Democrats, as they've both been borrowing money for decades. But the Democrats in charge now have taken fiscal irresponsibility to such dizzying heights that they deserve a large share of the blame for precipitating the debt crisis we're experiencing now.
So kids, when allocating blame for the austerity measures that need to be implemented, don't forget to give PresBo the rather generous share of the blame that he earned.
Read the rest...
Obama Administration In Denial
If you'll recall, S&P issued a warning to the US yesterday that unless serious steps are taken to reduce our debt, they will downgrade our credit rating within the next two years or so. That would result in higher interest rates, fiscal uncertainty, and much higher debt payments on our national debt.
Obama responded with political rhetoric, and Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Timothy Geithner responded today with complete and total denial of reality.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/156747-geithner-no-risk-that-us-loses-its-top-credit-rating
I disagree totally with his overall point, but I do agree with some of his specifics... it's just that he misses the point.
I ALSO think that the chances of a bipartisan compromise are pretty good. But the odds that said agreement will be ineffective at reducing the debt are 70% or better... look at what happened with this year's budget. After promising $100 billion in spending cuts for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, the GOP delivered only $342 million.
But you see, we can't avoid an S&P downgrade of our credit rating with self-congratulatory smoke and mirrors. The only way to do that is to enact serious and significant spending cuts. Any agreement that looks good on TV but doesn't really address the problem will be ignored by S&P as the irrelevancy it is.
This illustrates quite well how divorced from reality the current President and his administration really are. They think a good speech and a nice magic trick can avoid the real-life consequences of their irresponsible behavior while in office, but the truth is that it doesn't work that way.
The message from S&P is simple, so simple that the liberal politicians in DC can't understand it. "Stop playing political games and cut spending dramatically, or bad things will happen."
PresBo's response to that so far has been to react with political games, and that doesn't instill much hope in me for our future.
Read the rest...
Obama responded with political rhetoric, and Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Timothy Geithner responded today with complete and total denial of reality.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/156747-geithner-no-risk-that-us-loses-its-top-credit-rating
There is no chance that the U.S. will lose its top credit rating, Geithner said, forcefully disputing the notion that there was any chance that S&P or other ratings services would downgrade U.S. bonds from their current AAA rating.
"No risk of that, no risk," Geithner said on the Fox Business Network.
"Washington is a hard place to read. And it's hard for people to look past the political rhetoric and try to understand whether the leadership of Washington is going to take the tough steps necessary to get ahead of this problem," the Treasury secretary explained. "I think the prospects for a bipartisan agreement are better than they've been in a long period of time. Of course, we have to turn that into action."
I disagree totally with his overall point, but I do agree with some of his specifics... it's just that he misses the point.
I ALSO think that the chances of a bipartisan compromise are pretty good. But the odds that said agreement will be ineffective at reducing the debt are 70% or better... look at what happened with this year's budget. After promising $100 billion in spending cuts for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, the GOP delivered only $342 million.
But you see, we can't avoid an S&P downgrade of our credit rating with self-congratulatory smoke and mirrors. The only way to do that is to enact serious and significant spending cuts. Any agreement that looks good on TV but doesn't really address the problem will be ignored by S&P as the irrelevancy it is.
This illustrates quite well how divorced from reality the current President and his administration really are. They think a good speech and a nice magic trick can avoid the real-life consequences of their irresponsible behavior while in office, but the truth is that it doesn't work that way.
The message from S&P is simple, so simple that the liberal politicians in DC can't understand it. "Stop playing political games and cut spending dramatically, or bad things will happen."
PresBo's response to that so far has been to react with political games, and that doesn't instill much hope in me for our future.
Read the rest...
Monday, April 18, 2011
How To Run A City, Cheaply
Have you ever heard of Sandy Springs, a city on the outskirts of Atlanta? With most cities across this nation cutting services, laying off employees, and raising taxes, they are doing none of this. They also have no debt at all.
I only bring this up because Montgomery, Prattville, and Wetumpka are all talking about tax increases of one kind or another. Maybe we could learn a little from Sandy Springs.
How are they doing it, you ask? Simple... they have outsourced virtually every aspect of their city government to private companies, who manage to provide the same services city government would have, but for half the cost. Here's a video documenting this impressive city and their model of governing.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8qFvo2qJOU
Maybe this should be a case study for all elected officials.
Read the rest...
I only bring this up because Montgomery, Prattville, and Wetumpka are all talking about tax increases of one kind or another. Maybe we could learn a little from Sandy Springs.
How are they doing it, you ask? Simple... they have outsourced virtually every aspect of their city government to private companies, who manage to provide the same services city government would have, but for half the cost. Here's a video documenting this impressive city and their model of governing.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8qFvo2qJOU
Maybe this should be a case study for all elected officials.
Read the rest...
Breaking: Roy Moore Running For President?
This announcement actually seems a bit pathetic to me, but Roy Moore has announced he is forming an Presidential exploratory committee.
http://blog.al.com/live/2011/04/roy_moore_forms_presidential_e.html
While I agree with his assessment of the country, I'm not certain if his candidacy will help things at all. He's tried twice to run for Governor of Alabama since he was ousted from his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and lost badly in the primaries both times.
Does he REALLY think that a national campaign for President will have a different result?
As to the only other reason I can think of for running for President, to bring relevant issues to the table that would otherwise be ignored, I don't think Moore is necessary. You see, the fiscal issues will be brought up by others, such as Ron Paul. And other candidates have talked about bringing up social issues, as well.
So I'm not sure what Moore would bring to the table, you know?
UPDATE: You can find Moore's webiste online, and it contains his reasoning and his announcement statement.
http://www.roymoore2012.com/
Read the rest...
http://blog.al.com/live/2011/04/roy_moore_forms_presidential_e.html
Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore announced today that he was forming a presidential exploratory committee, telling an Iowa radio station that the country “is in a moral, economic and constitutional crisis.”
While I agree with his assessment of the country, I'm not certain if his candidacy will help things at all. He's tried twice to run for Governor of Alabama since he was ousted from his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and lost badly in the primaries both times.
Does he REALLY think that a national campaign for President will have a different result?
As to the only other reason I can think of for running for President, to bring relevant issues to the table that would otherwise be ignored, I don't think Moore is necessary. You see, the fiscal issues will be brought up by others, such as Ron Paul. And other candidates have talked about bringing up social issues, as well.
So I'm not sure what Moore would bring to the table, you know?
UPDATE: You can find Moore's webiste online, and it contains his reasoning and his announcement statement.
http://www.roymoore2012.com/
Read the rest...
Alert: US Credit Downgrade imminent
The United States has a AAA credit rating with Standard & Poor's (S&P), and has had for as long as I can remember. If that were to change, the impact would be tremendous. Well, guess what. It may well soon change.
S&P downgraded their outlook for the US to negative, which signals that they may downgrade our credit rating sometime within the next two years or so.
http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-LJUNIC1A1I4H01-75G3S197SRUKS7V58HLP1GVHC1
It's coming, people. Both political parties are in denial as to the extent of the problem. The proof is that the Democrats still want to spend uncontrollably, PresBo wants fake budget cuts, and the Republicans are willing to take 20 years or so to reach a "balanced" budget.
To illustrate the extent of Obama's denial, his response to this reality was more political posturing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110418/pl_nm/us_usa_budget_outlook
And kids all across the nation believe the Easter Bunny is real. Exactly what in the recent past has happened to give the President such confidence? The Republicans came out with a budget plan that vastly under-shot on the solution front, being nowhere near enough to reasonably deal with the problem, and PresBo responded by accusing them of wanting Senior citizens and sick children to die! Far from trying to bring the parties together, PresBo is actively working to make cooperation more difficult.
I'm sorry, but neither party is showing any sign of taking this situation seriously, or making plans to effectively deal with it in a reasonable period of time. By focusing on "the deficit," they are ignoring the bigger problem... the debt. Twenty years from now is when we should be almost finished retiring our national debt, as opposed to maybe just getting started paying it down.
Balance the budget, please, and sooner rather than later. Otherwise, the first consequences will be felt shortly.
Read the rest...
S&P downgraded their outlook for the US to negative, which signals that they may downgrade our credit rating sometime within the next two years or so.
http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-LJUNIC1A1I4H01-75G3S197SRUKS7V58HLP1GVHC1
Standard & Poor’s put a “negative” outlook on the AAA credit rating of the U.S., citing a “material risk” the nation’s leaders will fail to deal with rising budget deficits and debt.
“We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policy makers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013,” New York-based S&P said today in a report. “If an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation does not begin by then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer ‘AAA’ sovereigns.”
It's coming, people. Both political parties are in denial as to the extent of the problem. The proof is that the Democrats still want to spend uncontrollably, PresBo wants fake budget cuts, and the Republicans are willing to take 20 years or so to reach a "balanced" budget.
To illustrate the extent of Obama's denial, his response to this reality was more political posturing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110418/pl_nm/us_usa_budget_outlook
"We believe S&P's negative outlook underestimates the ability of America's leaders to come together to address the difficult fiscal challenges facing the nation," said Mary Miller, Assistant Treasury Secretary for Financial Markets.
And kids all across the nation believe the Easter Bunny is real. Exactly what in the recent past has happened to give the President such confidence? The Republicans came out with a budget plan that vastly under-shot on the solution front, being nowhere near enough to reasonably deal with the problem, and PresBo responded by accusing them of wanting Senior citizens and sick children to die! Far from trying to bring the parties together, PresBo is actively working to make cooperation more difficult.
I'm sorry, but neither party is showing any sign of taking this situation seriously, or making plans to effectively deal with it in a reasonable period of time. By focusing on "the deficit," they are ignoring the bigger problem... the debt. Twenty years from now is when we should be almost finished retiring our national debt, as opposed to maybe just getting started paying it down.
Balance the budget, please, and sooner rather than later. Otherwise, the first consequences will be felt shortly.
Read the rest...
Who Cares About The Deficit? Focus On The Debt!
You know, I really get frustrated with our so-called leaders when they ignore our problems. What I'm talking about is this new-found focus on the deficit.
Republicans have been talking about deficit-reduction for a while now. And after adamantly rejecting the notion, PresBo has finally decided to "reduce the deficit" by $4 trillion over 10 years. Of course, we'd still run a cumulative $6 trillion or so in deficits over that time, so a $4 trillion "reduction" is kind of academic, but...
Anyway, all of these people miss the point. Yes, the deficit is far too high, but we don't need to merely "reduce" the deficit. If all we do is make our yearly deficit smaller, then we are still accumulating debt, adding more layers of silt on top of an already massive mountain of national debt.
We don't need to REDUCE the deficit, we need to ELIMINATE it and turn it into a surplus. Look, we're in a hole right now, a very deep hole of our own making, and we need a solution to get us OUT of that hole. The Democrats sincerely want to ask for more people to come down with shovels so they can dig faster... I guess they're like the Dodo, claiming that by digging faster they'll eventually come out in China, and that's the way to get out of the hole. Republicans want to get us out of the hole by digging more slowly... a fallacy that should need no further explanation. What we need to do is STOP DIGGING. Then maybe we can start filling that hole back in.
Has anybody ever consulted a debt counselor? For those deep in credit card debt and wanting to get out, the FIRST piece of advice that a counselor will offer is to STOP USING YOUR CREDIT CARDS. Stop accumulating debt. Once you do that, then they'll tell you to establish a realistic budget that lets you live within your means. The United States Federal Government, and by that I mean Congress, needs to follow this advice.
We do NOT need to keep spending at current levels, and we CERTAINLY don't need to spend even MORE money that we don't have. And we really can't afford to wait almost 20 years to hit a balanced budget... especially since subsequent Congresses will certainly tinker with that plan, and we'd be unlikely to EVER see a blanced budget that way.
No, what we NEED to do is focus on debt ELIMINATION in a short period of time... say, one or two years.
By spreading out the "deficit reduction" over a period of decades, politicians try to make it easier on themselves, and leave most of the blame to those in office decades later. What they ignore is that those politicians won't want to get blamed, either, so they're unlikely to let the later-year austerity kick in as planned.
The ONLY way to make this work is to make the hard choices and reduce spending drastically TODAY. Now. Immediately. In the next budget year. Now, by how MUCH should we reduce spending? To answer that question, I'll ask you one. How high is the deficit?
We need to plan our next yearly budget so that we spend no more money than we expect to collect in taxes. No "except for the military or social security" exemptions. The entire budget must come in under... well, under budget. If we do not balance the budget in the near term, it will never happen. Multi-decade plans simply won't work as our politicians claim they will, because they ignore the reality that later politicans will change the plans.
It surely can't be any more painful to subtract $1.2 trillion in spending in a year or two than it was to ADD $1.2 trillion in spending over the same period.
Anybody who tells you different isn't really serious about tackling this problem.
Read the rest...
Republicans have been talking about deficit-reduction for a while now. And after adamantly rejecting the notion, PresBo has finally decided to "reduce the deficit" by $4 trillion over 10 years. Of course, we'd still run a cumulative $6 trillion or so in deficits over that time, so a $4 trillion "reduction" is kind of academic, but...
Anyway, all of these people miss the point. Yes, the deficit is far too high, but we don't need to merely "reduce" the deficit. If all we do is make our yearly deficit smaller, then we are still accumulating debt, adding more layers of silt on top of an already massive mountain of national debt.
We don't need to REDUCE the deficit, we need to ELIMINATE it and turn it into a surplus. Look, we're in a hole right now, a very deep hole of our own making, and we need a solution to get us OUT of that hole. The Democrats sincerely want to ask for more people to come down with shovels so they can dig faster... I guess they're like the Dodo, claiming that by digging faster they'll eventually come out in China, and that's the way to get out of the hole. Republicans want to get us out of the hole by digging more slowly... a fallacy that should need no further explanation. What we need to do is STOP DIGGING. Then maybe we can start filling that hole back in.
Has anybody ever consulted a debt counselor? For those deep in credit card debt and wanting to get out, the FIRST piece of advice that a counselor will offer is to STOP USING YOUR CREDIT CARDS. Stop accumulating debt. Once you do that, then they'll tell you to establish a realistic budget that lets you live within your means. The United States Federal Government, and by that I mean Congress, needs to follow this advice.
We do NOT need to keep spending at current levels, and we CERTAINLY don't need to spend even MORE money that we don't have. And we really can't afford to wait almost 20 years to hit a balanced budget... especially since subsequent Congresses will certainly tinker with that plan, and we'd be unlikely to EVER see a blanced budget that way.
No, what we NEED to do is focus on debt ELIMINATION in a short period of time... say, one or two years.
By spreading out the "deficit reduction" over a period of decades, politicians try to make it easier on themselves, and leave most of the blame to those in office decades later. What they ignore is that those politicians won't want to get blamed, either, so they're unlikely to let the later-year austerity kick in as planned.
The ONLY way to make this work is to make the hard choices and reduce spending drastically TODAY. Now. Immediately. In the next budget year. Now, by how MUCH should we reduce spending? To answer that question, I'll ask you one. How high is the deficit?
We need to plan our next yearly budget so that we spend no more money than we expect to collect in taxes. No "except for the military or social security" exemptions. The entire budget must come in under... well, under budget. If we do not balance the budget in the near term, it will never happen. Multi-decade plans simply won't work as our politicians claim they will, because they ignore the reality that later politicans will change the plans.
It surely can't be any more painful to subtract $1.2 trillion in spending in a year or two than it was to ADD $1.2 trillion in spending over the same period.
Anybody who tells you different isn't really serious about tackling this problem.
Read the rest...
Obama Signs New Law, Ignores It Immediately
What would you think of a President who signs a bill into a law, while at the same time announcing to all who listen that he wasn't going to abide by it? That's what PresBo did with the new budget CR.
You see, one of the things that the GOP attached to it and got approved by both houses of Congress was a section that essentially abolished four of Obama's "Czar" positions. When Obama signed this bill, he added a "signing statement" that said he fully planned to ignore that provision in the new law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/us/politics/17spend.html?_r=1
For those that don't know, a "signing statement" is a dubious thing that Presidents do when they don't like a provision of a new law, so they write up a bit about what THEY think the law means, and then they treat their own interpretation as the law itself.
So, what do you think of this?
Read the rest...
You see, one of the things that the GOP attached to it and got approved by both houses of Congress was a section that essentially abolished four of Obama's "Czar" positions. When Obama signed this bill, he added a "signing statement" that said he fully planned to ignore that provision in the new law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/us/politics/17spend.html?_r=1
President Obama issued a signing statement on Friday night saying that he could bypass a provision in the new budget that would prevent him from appointing White House “czars” to oversee major policy initiatives.
In a statement accompanying his signing of the short-term budget agreement that passed Congress just in time to avert a government shutdown, Mr. Obama objected to the provision that would eliminate money for four czars handling health care, climate change, the auto industry and urban affairs.
For those that don't know, a "signing statement" is a dubious thing that Presidents do when they don't like a provision of a new law, so they write up a bit about what THEY think the law means, and then they treat their own interpretation as the law itself.
So, what do you think of this?
Read the rest...
Friday, April 15, 2011
Tax Hikes Can't Balance Budget
As promised in my earlier post, let's discuss why tax increases can't realistically balance the budget.
In 2010, tax revenues pulled in $2.2 trillion, some $900 billion of which came from income taxes. We spent $3.5 trillion, meaning we ran a $1.3 trillion deficit. If Congress wanted to raise that missing $1.3 trillion via income taxes, they would have to increase the tax rates for ALL BRACKETS by 145%. That's right, they'd have to more than double our tax rates.
And what would that mean for our tax bills?
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/04/15/morning-bell-hiding-future-tax-hikes-on-tax-day-2011/
And that would mean our economy would take a HUGE hit. And do you think that Congress would respond by cutting spending? Or would they simply keep spending what they already are... and maybe a wee bit more?
I'm sorry, but the problem here isn't one of revenue, it's a problem of fiscal discipline and irresponsibly high levels of spending. The only way to SOLVE this problem is through spending cuts, not through tax increases.
Trying to solve our spending-caused budget problems with tax increases would be like a doctor ignoring an open, bleeding wound and treating the blood loss with transfusions. While I admit it makes no sense to let a wound bleed while pumping new blood into a patient, it makes just as little sense to raise taxes and keep spending levels at their current, unsustainable rate.
Our budget problems MUST be solved via spending reductions, not via tax increases.
Read the rest...
In 2010, tax revenues pulled in $2.2 trillion, some $900 billion of which came from income taxes. We spent $3.5 trillion, meaning we ran a $1.3 trillion deficit. If Congress wanted to raise that missing $1.3 trillion via income taxes, they would have to increase the tax rates for ALL BRACKETS by 145%. That's right, they'd have to more than double our tax rates.
And what would that mean for our tax bills?
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/04/15/morning-bell-hiding-future-tax-hikes-on-tax-day-2011/
For a family of four earning $50,000 that takes the standard deduction, its current tax bill of $766 would increase by almost $4,000. A similar family of four that earned $75,000 a year would see its tax liability of $4,500 increase by over $9,000 a year. If the same family earned $100,000, it would pay more than $15,600 above the $8,800 it actually paid in 2010.
The top rate in this depressing scenario would be 85 percent! A top tax rate at that level would grind economic activity to a halt.
And that would mean our economy would take a HUGE hit. And do you think that Congress would respond by cutting spending? Or would they simply keep spending what they already are... and maybe a wee bit more?
I'm sorry, but the problem here isn't one of revenue, it's a problem of fiscal discipline and irresponsibly high levels of spending. The only way to SOLVE this problem is through spending cuts, not through tax increases.
Trying to solve our spending-caused budget problems with tax increases would be like a doctor ignoring an open, bleeding wound and treating the blood loss with transfusions. While I admit it makes no sense to let a wound bleed while pumping new blood into a patient, it makes just as little sense to raise taxes and keep spending levels at their current, unsustainable rate.
Our budget problems MUST be solved via spending reductions, not via tax increases.
Read the rest...
PresBo Plans Automatic Tax Increases
I want to make this perfectly clear to everybody, PresBo wants to raise your taxes. If he can't get the votes on Congress to do it, he wants an automatic "trigger" to do it for him.
The White House fact sheet for PresBo's speech on Wednesday said:
What do they mean by "spending reductions" through the tax code? I mean, the tax code deals with revenues, not spending!
The answer lies in a twisted viewpoint of how things work. Our tax code has tax rates based upon income levels for both individuals and corporations. It ALSO has a long and convoluted series of exemptions and tax credits. PresBo views the money NOT collected because of those exemptions and credits to be government spending... essentially, they're spending that money by not making you pay it in the first place.
So, one way to cut "government spending," using this viewpoint, is to eliminate exemptions and credits... in other words, to raise taxes.
PresBo wants a trigger in place that will, if Congress doesn't discipline themselves and rein in spending... something they show little sign of actually doing... then the citizens of this country will be automatically punished with tax increases.
And that's what PresBo thinks of us. He wants our money, and is willing to think, say, or do anything it takes to get it.
I'll deal with this in a later post, but tax increases cannot realistically be used to balance our budget, but it's basically all that the President is proposing.
UPDATE: Somebody else noticed the little "tax exemptions = government spending" thinking. Here's an article that deals with it in a little more depth.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42921
Read the rest...
The White House fact sheet for PresBo's speech on Wednesday said:
“[a] debt failsafe will ensure that our nation’s debt is on a declining path as a share of our economy. If by 2014, budget projections do not show that the debt-to-GDP ratio has stabilized and is declining in the second half of the decade, the failsafe will trigger an across the board spending reduction, including on spending through the tax code.”
What do they mean by "spending reductions" through the tax code? I mean, the tax code deals with revenues, not spending!
The answer lies in a twisted viewpoint of how things work. Our tax code has tax rates based upon income levels for both individuals and corporations. It ALSO has a long and convoluted series of exemptions and tax credits. PresBo views the money NOT collected because of those exemptions and credits to be government spending... essentially, they're spending that money by not making you pay it in the first place.
So, one way to cut "government spending," using this viewpoint, is to eliminate exemptions and credits... in other words, to raise taxes.
PresBo wants a trigger in place that will, if Congress doesn't discipline themselves and rein in spending... something they show little sign of actually doing... then the citizens of this country will be automatically punished with tax increases.
And that's what PresBo thinks of us. He wants our money, and is willing to think, say, or do anything it takes to get it.
I'll deal with this in a later post, but tax increases cannot realistically be used to balance our budget, but it's basically all that the President is proposing.
UPDATE: Somebody else noticed the little "tax exemptions = government spending" thinking. Here's an article that deals with it in a little more depth.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42921
Let’s apply a little Obama logic. If the government is the rightful owner of all resources, then every dollar retained by private citizens is a dollar the State “gives” them. That’s why socialists describe tax cuts as a “gift” or “expense.”
The game was conclusively given away when Obama declared, “There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”
There’s our trillion dollars in “spending” cut from the tax code! If tax cuts equal spending, then tax increases equal spending cuts. That’s the kind of spending cut this hopelessly out-of-touch President can eagerly get behind.
Read the rest...
Thursday, April 14, 2011
GOP Cuts $352 Million This Year... That's It
Believe it or not, the recently-struck "spending cut" deal doesn't do much this year. In fact, they only managed to cut $352 million in spending for the current fiscal year. That's certainly a far cry from what we WANTED to see...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20053879-503544.html
Wow. Aren't we glad that these wonderful Republicans are so darned fiscally responsible?
How can we balance the budget and pay down the national debt by spending more money? And how can we believe anything they say after they increased overall spending and told us that they cut it?
Here are your realistic choices. Vote Republican and they will lie to your face, claim to reduce the budget, and instead increase spending. Vote Democrat and you'll get even MORE irresponsible spending, but they'll be more up front and honest about it.
Oh, and for the record, do you know what Boehner just finished saying about this budget deal they vote on today?
Read the rest...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20053879-503544.html
A study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms that the legislation does indeed cut that much from what federal agencies are authorized to spend this year -- but the study reveals that it will only amount to a reduction of $352 million in non-war government spending for the rest of this fiscal year. That's in part because a significant portion of the cuts come from authorized funds that won't be spent immediately, such as water-and-sewer grants.
The budget makes about $8 billion in immediate cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid, but those are offset by defense spending increases. On top of that, when war funding is considered, federal spending will actually increase by $3.3 billion compared with current levels.
Wow. Aren't we glad that these wonderful Republicans are so darned fiscally responsible?
How can we balance the budget and pay down the national debt by spending more money? And how can we believe anything they say after they increased overall spending and told us that they cut it?
Here are your realistic choices. Vote Republican and they will lie to your face, claim to reduce the budget, and instead increase spending. Vote Democrat and you'll get even MORE irresponsible spending, but they'll be more up front and honest about it.
Oh, and for the record, do you know what Boehner just finished saying about this budget deal they vote on today?
"This is real money and real cuts."
Read the rest...
Obama's Re-election Speech From Yesterday
Obama delivered what he wanted us to believe was a serious speech aimed at charting this nation's course to "reduce the deficit." Let's ignore the fact that the deficit doesn't need to be reduced, it needs to be eliminated and turned into a surplus so we can begin paying down the debt.
So, what did the President say?
The thing he did the most was bash the Republicans. He trashed their plans and insulted them on numerous occasions, and it's not surprising that few Republicans are now in a mood to cooperate with Obama. I mean, beating your opponents with a rather large verbal stick isn't a good way to win their support.
Then he presented his "plan." I put the word "plan" in quotes, because it really wasn't a plan. It was more like a few ideas that could, with a lot of hard work, be turned INTO a plan. It lacked very many details. He CLAIMED he wanted $4 trillion of cuts in 12 years, but didn't provide any specifics as to how he would accomplish that.
The other part of the "plan" that he presented, and this one seemed pretty well thought out, was tax increases. Yes, he wants to raise taxes on the hated and despised "rich" people in our country. That one was a given, really. But he ALSO wants to eliminate deductions and credits, something he referred to as "tax expenditures." Here's the strange thing... he counted these "tax expenditures" as "spending cuts"... when, in reality, they are tax increases.
Here's how he rationalizes this.
What we're dealing with is tax deductions and tax credits that companies and individuals currently have access to in order to reduce their overall tax burden. The White House views these exemptions, that otherwise would be collected as tax revenues, to be government expenditures. By eliminating them, his opinion is that they have reduced government spending. The fact that many people would pay higher taxes doesn't seem to bother him. It's an amazingly dextrous piece of fiscal gymnastics.
The reality is that he has two tax increases as the centerpiece of his "plan." Well, that's not quite accurate. He has three.
You see, his idea is that, instead of putting spending caps in place, we let Congress do what it will and, if the deficit isn't decreasing by 2014, then that would trigger an automatic tax increase. How about that idea, folks? If Congress doesn't behave themselves, WE get punished for it? I don't think so.
The President decried the Republicans for pursuing their "extremist agenda"... an action I think is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Obama has been pursuing an extremist agenda since he took office. Opposing that agenda isn't, in and of itself, extreme.
In my own, humble opinion, this wasn't a policy speech as much as it was an election speech. The purpose was to re-energize his base.
There has been a lot of talk lately about Obama's movement to the "center" of the political spectrum. With this speech he destroys that fantasy and shows that he has, in fact, doubled-down on the same liberal economic and fiscal policies that have never worked once to encourage economic growth and prosperity.
So, take this away with you. Obama thinks Republicans are villains, wants to raise your taxes REALLY badly, and wants you to believe he actually wants to cut spending. That's basically what you can gather from this speech.
Read the rest...
So, what did the President say?
The thing he did the most was bash the Republicans. He trashed their plans and insulted them on numerous occasions, and it's not surprising that few Republicans are now in a mood to cooperate with Obama. I mean, beating your opponents with a rather large verbal stick isn't a good way to win their support.
Then he presented his "plan." I put the word "plan" in quotes, because it really wasn't a plan. It was more like a few ideas that could, with a lot of hard work, be turned INTO a plan. It lacked very many details. He CLAIMED he wanted $4 trillion of cuts in 12 years, but didn't provide any specifics as to how he would accomplish that.
The other part of the "plan" that he presented, and this one seemed pretty well thought out, was tax increases. Yes, he wants to raise taxes on the hated and despised "rich" people in our country. That one was a given, really. But he ALSO wants to eliminate deductions and credits, something he referred to as "tax expenditures." Here's the strange thing... he counted these "tax expenditures" as "spending cuts"... when, in reality, they are tax increases.
Here's how he rationalizes this.
What we're dealing with is tax deductions and tax credits that companies and individuals currently have access to in order to reduce their overall tax burden. The White House views these exemptions, that otherwise would be collected as tax revenues, to be government expenditures. By eliminating them, his opinion is that they have reduced government spending. The fact that many people would pay higher taxes doesn't seem to bother him. It's an amazingly dextrous piece of fiscal gymnastics.
The reality is that he has two tax increases as the centerpiece of his "plan." Well, that's not quite accurate. He has three.
You see, his idea is that, instead of putting spending caps in place, we let Congress do what it will and, if the deficit isn't decreasing by 2014, then that would trigger an automatic tax increase. How about that idea, folks? If Congress doesn't behave themselves, WE get punished for it? I don't think so.
The President decried the Republicans for pursuing their "extremist agenda"... an action I think is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Obama has been pursuing an extremist agenda since he took office. Opposing that agenda isn't, in and of itself, extreme.
In my own, humble opinion, this wasn't a policy speech as much as it was an election speech. The purpose was to re-energize his base.
There has been a lot of talk lately about Obama's movement to the "center" of the political spectrum. With this speech he destroys that fantasy and shows that he has, in fact, doubled-down on the same liberal economic and fiscal policies that have never worked once to encourage economic growth and prosperity.
So, take this away with you. Obama thinks Republicans are villains, wants to raise your taxes REALLY badly, and wants you to believe he actually wants to cut spending. That's basically what you can gather from this speech.
Read the rest...
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Is GOP Control REALLY A "Change"?
The narrative is that the Democrats are fiscal idiots (most seem to be) and that the GOP will save us from their drunken-sailor spending spree. Really? Sure, we are HOPING that Republicans are serious, this time, about returning to a smaller, limited government.
But are they, really?
Let's look in on Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). He wants the federal government to spend $40,000 on a study about deepening the port of Charleston. He wanted this funding in the CR that funded the government through the end of the current fiscal year, but he didn't get it. Now, Graham says he'll prevent the Senate from getting any work at all done until HIS pork project is funded to his satisfaction. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/155781-graham-vows-to-bring-senate-to-standstill-over-40000-project
This is fiscal responsibility? This is grown-up, mature behavior? THIS is the kind of people we think will help return us to a small, limited government? Keep dreaming, folks.
THIS is the problem with our federal government: politicians who are willing to do ANYTHING to get the money they believe is theirs.
I mean, really, the city of Charleston could fund this study with their own tax revenue. Or they could ask the state to do it. But no, they're asking people from Montana and Wyoming to fund their study concerning a local development project.
Graham said he would keep pitching his third-grade hissy fit until "the matter is resolved." As far as I can see, the matter IS resolved. They don't get the money.
What Graham MEANT to say is that he'll keep acting like a spoiled brat until he gets his way. Can we REALLY have any faith in this party? I mean, REALLY?
Read the rest...
But are they, really?
Let's look in on Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). He wants the federal government to spend $40,000 on a study about deepening the port of Charleston. He wanted this funding in the CR that funded the government through the end of the current fiscal year, but he didn't get it. Now, Graham says he'll prevent the Senate from getting any work at all done until HIS pork project is funded to his satisfaction. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/155781-graham-vows-to-bring-senate-to-standstill-over-40000-project
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has vowed to bring the Senate to a standstill unless congressional leaders agree to allocated $40,000 for a federal study on deepening the Port of Charleston.
Graham said he will not block the budget agreement to keep the government funded through the end of September but he will hold up all other business until the matter is resolved.
This is fiscal responsibility? This is grown-up, mature behavior? THIS is the kind of people we think will help return us to a small, limited government? Keep dreaming, folks.
THIS is the problem with our federal government: politicians who are willing to do ANYTHING to get the money they believe is theirs.
I mean, really, the city of Charleston could fund this study with their own tax revenue. Or they could ask the state to do it. But no, they're asking people from Montana and Wyoming to fund their study concerning a local development project.
Graham said he would keep pitching his third-grade hissy fit until "the matter is resolved." As far as I can see, the matter IS resolved. They don't get the money.
What Graham MEANT to say is that he'll keep acting like a spoiled brat until he gets his way. Can we REALLY have any faith in this party? I mean, REALLY?
Read the rest...
TSA Commits Child Abuse
Here we have a 6-year old girl flying with her parents and who is selected for a TSA pat-down. Her parents tried to get them not to grope their little girl, but TSA agents were adamant. So the girl was subjected to a full-blown groping session in the middle of a busy airport. TSA says that their agent "followed proper current screening procedures."
Of course she did. However, the point is that those screening procedures are invasive and border on sexual assault. Here, watch the video and judge for yourself.
If the player doesn't work, try this player:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba030UmbkCo
Would you want your 6-year-old child treated in this manner?
If this had happened in a public park, that woman would be in jail right now. I'm sorry, but lacking any indicators that the girl was involved in a criminal act, this is an unacceptable way to treat ANYBODY, much less a child.
Read the rest...
Of course she did. However, the point is that those screening procedures are invasive and border on sexual assault. Here, watch the video and judge for yourself.
If the player doesn't work, try this player:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba030UmbkCo
Would you want your 6-year-old child treated in this manner?
If this had happened in a public park, that woman would be in jail right now. I'm sorry, but lacking any indicators that the girl was involved in a criminal act, this is an unacceptable way to treat ANYBODY, much less a child.
Read the rest...
Prattville Presents: Steel Magnolias
The Prattville Way Off Broadway Theater has just finished casting and will soon begin rehearsing a production of Steel Magnolias. The reason this is important to me is that my beloved wife, Michon, has been cast as Ouizzer Boudreaux and will be appearing in the show. If you're interested, the show will run most weekends in June, and you can get tickets by calling 334-358-0297.
Hope to see you guys there!
Read the rest...
Hope to see you guys there!
Read the rest...
Pelosi: "Elections Shouldn't Matter"
Remember right after Obama won the election and Democrats took control of both houses of Congress? We heard Obama dismiss Republican input with the phrase: "I won!" Democrats in DC said, time and time again, "elections have consequences" in order to counsel Republicans to go along with their extreme, ideological agenda. Now that the intervening 2010 elections have changed things a bit, Pelosi is singing a slightly different tune.
Basically, what Pelosi is saying is that she wants a world where we don't matter. Where it doesn't matter who we vote for, because our "choice" is illusory and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda will be advanced no matter who is elected.
Pelosi wants Republicans to be like Democrats... which, given the mentatlities of many in the GOP, isn't that much of a stretch.
Face it... the only thing that gives us any hope at all is that our vote DOES matter, and individuals who are NOT beholden to a party can run for office and govern responsibly instead of governing to enact an ideological agenda.
So, Pelosi is laying it on the line. If you want to live in her world of bland sameness and ideological conformity, if you want to relinquish any say you might have in the political direction of our country, then vote for Pelosi and her ilk in the upcoming elections.
I'm not painting Republicans as saints or saviors... they are hardly that. Many of them are more likely to share Pelosi's opinions than not, after all. But they seem, for the moment, marginally better than the folks we have in charge. Of course, if Romney wins the GOP nomination, I'll be counseling you to not cast a vote for President at ALL.
Time will tell...
Read the rest...
To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. Because there are so many things at risk right now -- perhaps in another question I'll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn't matter as much as they do...But when it comes to a place where there doesn't seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now.
Basically, what Pelosi is saying is that she wants a world where we don't matter. Where it doesn't matter who we vote for, because our "choice" is illusory and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda will be advanced no matter who is elected.
Pelosi wants Republicans to be like Democrats... which, given the mentatlities of many in the GOP, isn't that much of a stretch.
Face it... the only thing that gives us any hope at all is that our vote DOES matter, and individuals who are NOT beholden to a party can run for office and govern responsibly instead of governing to enact an ideological agenda.
So, Pelosi is laying it on the line. If you want to live in her world of bland sameness and ideological conformity, if you want to relinquish any say you might have in the political direction of our country, then vote for Pelosi and her ilk in the upcoming elections.
I'm not painting Republicans as saints or saviors... they are hardly that. Many of them are more likely to share Pelosi's opinions than not, after all. But they seem, for the moment, marginally better than the folks we have in charge. Of course, if Romney wins the GOP nomination, I'll be counseling you to not cast a vote for President at ALL.
Time will tell...
Read the rest...
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
An Evening With Braxton Shuffert
Just letting you know of a show this Friday that you might want to see. Braxton Shuffert has been in the country music biz for a VERY long time, having played for a time with Hank Williams. He will put on a benefit concert at 7:00 PM on Friday night for the Prataugan musuem. The concert will be in the format of an old-time live radio show, and some of the Way Off Broadway Players will be performing the musical ads. I will be serving as MC for the event.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110412/NEWS01/104120329/-Country-legend-help-raise-funds-Prattville-museum?odyssey=modnewswelltextFrontpagep
So come on out Friday evening and have a good time.
Read the rest...
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110412/NEWS01/104120329/-Country-legend-help-raise-funds-Prattville-museum?odyssey=modnewswelltextFrontpagep
Schuffert, 95, has had a long music career, including being one of the original "Drifting Cowboys" who performed with county music icon Hank Williams. Schuffert came up with the idea of the fundraising performance.
"I was down at the museum and saw where it needed some paint here and the wood needed replacing there," he said. "Prattville has such an important history. I can't believe we let the museum get in that shape. I told them I wanted to help out. Hopefully, we can raise a little money and have a good time."
So come on out Friday evening and have a good time.
Read the rest...
"Atlas Shrugged, Part 1": In Montgomery!
For those of you who want to see Atlas Shrugged in theaters when it opens, I have glad tidings. Apparently, a single movie theater in Montgomery will be showing the movie! To check for yourself, go to the following page:
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/theaters
Under Montgomery, Alabama, you'll find the following information:
So, ladies and gentlemen... will I see you there?
Read the rest...
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/theaters
Under Montgomery, Alabama, you'll find the following information:
Montgomery
Rave Motion Pictures Festival 16
7925 Vaughn Road, Montgomery, AL 36116
So, ladies and gentlemen... will I see you there?
Read the rest...
Details: Budget Deal
The GOP is trumpeting victory because they reached a "budget deal" with the Democrats to cut some $38 billion in spending. However, many of the details had yet to be hashed out last weekend, and the final product wasn't actually revealed until about 2:00 AM this morning. Votes are scheduled for Thursday.
So, what's in the deal? First off, you have to realize that all the hype of another $38 billion in cuts... is a lie. Yup. That $38 billion figure includes the $12 billion in cuts already signed into law from early, short-term CR's. And this means that this new budget only secured an additional $26 billion in spending cuts... about a quarter of the $100 billion originally promised.
What else? Well, the budget deal included a rider that axed four of Obama's "czars": Gone are the czars for health care, climate change, autos and "Urban Affairs."
Another rider repeals two parts of ObamaCare: the Consumer Operated & Oriented Plan and the Free Choice Voucher program.
For complete details on this plan, visit the following two links.
For summaries of the funding levels:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/04/12/budget-deal-fine-print/
For details on what was cut and from where:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/04/12/cutbacks-in-budget-deal/
Enjoy the disappointment of a GOP-led House...
Read the rest...
So, what's in the deal? First off, you have to realize that all the hype of another $38 billion in cuts... is a lie. Yup. That $38 billion figure includes the $12 billion in cuts already signed into law from early, short-term CR's. And this means that this new budget only secured an additional $26 billion in spending cuts... about a quarter of the $100 billion originally promised.
What else? Well, the budget deal included a rider that axed four of Obama's "czars": Gone are the czars for health care, climate change, autos and "Urban Affairs."
Another rider repeals two parts of ObamaCare: the Consumer Operated & Oriented Plan and the Free Choice Voucher program.
For complete details on this plan, visit the following two links.
For summaries of the funding levels:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/04/12/budget-deal-fine-print/
For details on what was cut and from where:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/04/12/cutbacks-in-budget-deal/
Enjoy the disappointment of a GOP-led House...
Read the rest...
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Montgomery Exploring City-Run Schools
I think the folks up at City Hall have been smoking something again. A city councilman wants to explore creating a city-run school system, hoping that we could save money by doing it.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011104060323
Really? He wants to take over running all public schools in the city limits, and he thinks they can do it without raising taxes? The city would have to replicate ALL of the funding that the County currently spends on those schools... and just how are they going to do that?
Make no mistake, if the city decides to do this, it will cost a lot of money, and they will have to increase taxes to pay for it. As for those county taxes that currently fund the schools, I wouldn't expect the County to lower those. No, they'll use that money elsewhere. The result will be a higher tax bill for all city residents, as well as the creation of a new, city-level beuracracy to run the new school system. Lots of things would have to happen legally, including the creation of a city school board, among other things.
This is a bad idea. If the councilman in question has problems with the existing school system, then he should work with the government entity currently in charge of the schools.
I could hope that this experience would enlighten some elected officials as to why we ordinary mortals are so fed up with government, but I doubt they'll learn that lesson from this. If the city council can be infuriated by the ineptitude of a government agency, they should also understand we experience a lot more of this kind of thing than they do.
Read the rest...
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011104060323
A Montgomery City Councilman is proposing that the city look into the possibility of taking over the public schools in the city limits and creating a separate city-run school system. Frustrated with the direction of Montgomery Public Schools, Councilman Glen Pruitt wants the city to study whether it can legally run the schools and, if so, if the city can do it better without raising taxes.
Really? He wants to take over running all public schools in the city limits, and he thinks they can do it without raising taxes? The city would have to replicate ALL of the funding that the County currently spends on those schools... and just how are they going to do that?
Make no mistake, if the city decides to do this, it will cost a lot of money, and they will have to increase taxes to pay for it. As for those county taxes that currently fund the schools, I wouldn't expect the County to lower those. No, they'll use that money elsewhere. The result will be a higher tax bill for all city residents, as well as the creation of a new, city-level beuracracy to run the new school system. Lots of things would have to happen legally, including the creation of a city school board, among other things.
This is a bad idea. If the councilman in question has problems with the existing school system, then he should work with the government entity currently in charge of the schools.
I could hope that this experience would enlighten some elected officials as to why we ordinary mortals are so fed up with government, but I doubt they'll learn that lesson from this. If the city council can be infuriated by the ineptitude of a government agency, they should also understand we experience a lot more of this kind of thing than they do.
Read the rest...
AL Legislator Wants To Castrate Pedophiles
There is a bill in the Legislature, introduced by Rep Steve Hurst (R-Talladega), that would mandate surgical castration for convicted pedophiles in some circumstances.
http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/12644488/article-Local-legislator-wants-pedophiles-castrated?instance=breakingnews&sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d9c58731d2b4220,0
Okay, the problems with this bill are legion. Let me begin with the two most obvious.
The argument in favor of it is that 75% of pedophiles re-offend, so removing their ability to commit the crime would reduce recidivism. Here's a question, though. How is this proposal different from cutting off the hand of a thief with multiple convictions? Same principle, so why do most people who might support the first consider the second barbaric? The two are no different, and neither is acceptable.
Secondly, Hurst believes that the motivation for pedophilic rape is sexual in nature, but that's not true. Rape is a crime of violence and control... the primary motivation is rarely sexual. Removing a person's sex drive won't do anything to reduce their motivation for control. Now let's look at more aspects of this.
When considering any proposed law, I ask three major questions. The first question I ask is "is it just?" The second is "will it work?" And the third is "is it constitutional?"
Is it just?
Well, if 75% of pedophiles re-offend (which studies show they do), and if the surgical castration is mandatory (which it is, under certain conditions), then that means that 25% of those castrated would not have re-offended. In those cases, the procedure doesn't reduce recidivism, so it's merely a vindictive punishment. Can we say that a method that wrongfully punishes 25% of those it is administered to is just? I say no.
Will it work?
Most of the studies conducted on this issue involve chemical castration, because no state in the nation uses surgical castration as a punishment, so I'll have to use this data. The data shows, however, that it IS possible for chemically castrated rapists to re-offend with a pedophilic rape. It has happened, and it will happen again. So the treatment is NOT 100% effective, though I have yet to find a study that quantifies HOW effective it is. So, with little information to go on as to how effective this treatment is, I'd have to say it MAY work, but it won't be totally effective.
Is it constitutional?
The test of constitutionality is "cruel and unusual punishment." Since no other state in the nation uses surgical castration, and only eight other states use CHEMICAL castration (Georgia, California, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin), I'd have to say that the proposed punishment is, in fact, unusual. As to cruel... what could be more cruel than forcibly removing a portion of a person's anatonmy? Be it a hand or anything else, surgical removal of body parts would have to be regarded as cruel. Based upon those conclusions, this proposed law fails the constitutionality test, as the punishment is both cruel and unusual.
I understand WHY Hurst proposed this bill, and his goal is a laudable one, but this is a bad bill that should not be approved by the new Republican majority in the Legislature.
Read the rest...
http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/12644488/article-Local-legislator-wants-pedophiles-castrated?instance=breakingnews&sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d9c58731d2b4220,0
Hurst, a Republican from Talladega, has proposed a bill that would require convicted child molesters to be surgically castrated under certain conditions. Specifically, the bill states that anyone more than 21 years old convicted of certain sex offenses against a child 12 years old or younger must be surgically castrated before being released from the state Department of Corrections.
Okay, the problems with this bill are legion. Let me begin with the two most obvious.
The argument in favor of it is that 75% of pedophiles re-offend, so removing their ability to commit the crime would reduce recidivism. Here's a question, though. How is this proposal different from cutting off the hand of a thief with multiple convictions? Same principle, so why do most people who might support the first consider the second barbaric? The two are no different, and neither is acceptable.
Secondly, Hurst believes that the motivation for pedophilic rape is sexual in nature, but that's not true. Rape is a crime of violence and control... the primary motivation is rarely sexual. Removing a person's sex drive won't do anything to reduce their motivation for control. Now let's look at more aspects of this.
When considering any proposed law, I ask three major questions. The first question I ask is "is it just?" The second is "will it work?" And the third is "is it constitutional?"
Is it just?
Well, if 75% of pedophiles re-offend (which studies show they do), and if the surgical castration is mandatory (which it is, under certain conditions), then that means that 25% of those castrated would not have re-offended. In those cases, the procedure doesn't reduce recidivism, so it's merely a vindictive punishment. Can we say that a method that wrongfully punishes 25% of those it is administered to is just? I say no.
Will it work?
Most of the studies conducted on this issue involve chemical castration, because no state in the nation uses surgical castration as a punishment, so I'll have to use this data. The data shows, however, that it IS possible for chemically castrated rapists to re-offend with a pedophilic rape. It has happened, and it will happen again. So the treatment is NOT 100% effective, though I have yet to find a study that quantifies HOW effective it is. So, with little information to go on as to how effective this treatment is, I'd have to say it MAY work, but it won't be totally effective.
Is it constitutional?
The test of constitutionality is "cruel and unusual punishment." Since no other state in the nation uses surgical castration, and only eight other states use CHEMICAL castration (Georgia, California, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin), I'd have to say that the proposed punishment is, in fact, unusual. As to cruel... what could be more cruel than forcibly removing a portion of a person's anatonmy? Be it a hand or anything else, surgical removal of body parts would have to be regarded as cruel. Based upon those conclusions, this proposed law fails the constitutionality test, as the punishment is both cruel and unusual.
I understand WHY Hurst proposed this bill, and his goal is a laudable one, but this is a bad bill that should not be approved by the new Republican majority in the Legislature.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Did Obama Lie About Libya?
Remember how Bush used "weapons of mass destruction" to justify moving into Iraq? And do you remember all the cries of "Bush lied!" later, as those claims proved to be at most technically true? I wonder if any of those people will behave similarly today?
You see, Obama claimed that Gadhafi would be slaughtering civilians, essentially another genocide. But this claim doesn't fit the observed facts.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/04/obamas-war-of-choice
So, Obama's claims are wrong. Did he lie in order to start a war, or was he just plain wrong? And will anti-war liberals be honest and fair, or will they ignore their own hypocrisy (not to mention Obama's actions) and proclaim that everything is hunky-dory?
I ask merely for information...
Read the rest...
You see, Obama claimed that Gadhafi would be slaughtering civilians, essentially another genocide. But this claim doesn't fit the observed facts.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/04/obamas-war-of-choice
In his March 26 radio address, Obama said the United States acted because Gadhafi threatened "a bloodbath." Two days later, he asserted, "We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi—a city nearly the size of Charlotte—could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
Really? Obama implied that, absent our intervention, Gadhafi might have killed nearly 700,000 people, putting it in a class with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. White House adviser Dennis Ross was only slightly less alarmist when he reportedly cited "the real or imminent possibility that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred."
But these are outlandish scenarios that go beyond any reasonable interpretation of Gadhafi's words. He said, "We will have no mercy on them"—but by "them," he plainly was referring to armed rebels ("traitors") who stand and fight, not all the city's inhabitants.
"We have left the way open to them," he said. "Escape. Let those who escape go forever." He pledged that "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected."
So, Obama's claims are wrong. Did he lie in order to start a war, or was he just plain wrong? And will anti-war liberals be honest and fair, or will they ignore their own hypocrisy (not to mention Obama's actions) and proclaim that everything is hunky-dory?
I ask merely for information...
Read the rest...
More ObamaCare Waivers Issued... To Unions
One of the more controversial aspects of ObamaCare's implementation has been the issuance of "waivers" for compliance with the "minimum coverage" requirements.
When last I reported, the administration had issued some 1,039 such waivers. The Obama administration hasn't slowed down any, though, despite the controversy that at least 40% of those waivers went to political supporters of his, i.e. unions. Now they've issued another 129 waivers, almost half of which went to unions.
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2011/apr/02/new-health-law-waivers/
Of COURSE ObamaCare is flawed... we've seen numerous examples. From the unconstitutional individual mandate to the 1099 provision to these numerous "necessary" waivers, "fixes" to this massively unwieldy monstrosity are absolutely mandatory... assuming we don't just repeal it.
There are two aspects to the waivers. The first is as Jamie Dupree observes, without exempting millions of Americans from the law, the impact of that law would harm each and every one of them. The second is that these waivers may well be issued on a political basis, with Democrat supporters receiving the lion's share of them. Face it, half of this latest round of waivers went to unions, which almost exclusively support Democrats for office.
So the Obama administration is continuing with its practice of politicizing our health care for their own benefit.
Gee, I didn't know "change we can believe in" would hurt so badly when it hit.
Read the rest...
When last I reported, the administration had issued some 1,039 such waivers. The Obama administration hasn't slowed down any, though, despite the controversy that at least 40% of those waivers went to political supporters of his, i.e. unions. Now they've issued another 129 waivers, almost half of which went to unions.
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2011/apr/02/new-health-law-waivers/
The Obama Administration has rolled out another 129 waivers to one provision of the new health reform law, with almost half of those new exemptions going to various union groups.
Almost half of the new round of waivers were given to union health benefit programs, a fact that is sure spur new complaints from health law critics in the Congress, who see these waivers as evidence that the Obama health plan is flawed.
Of COURSE ObamaCare is flawed... we've seen numerous examples. From the unconstitutional individual mandate to the 1099 provision to these numerous "necessary" waivers, "fixes" to this massively unwieldy monstrosity are absolutely mandatory... assuming we don't just repeal it.
There are two aspects to the waivers. The first is as Jamie Dupree observes, without exempting millions of Americans from the law, the impact of that law would harm each and every one of them. The second is that these waivers may well be issued on a political basis, with Democrat supporters receiving the lion's share of them. Face it, half of this latest round of waivers went to unions, which almost exclusively support Democrats for office.
So the Obama administration is continuing with its practice of politicizing our health care for their own benefit.
Gee, I didn't know "change we can believe in" would hurt so badly when it hit.
Read the rest...
Monday, April 4, 2011
Gov Bentley Likes Toll Roads
I am going to rail against another Republican-led bad idea, here. The bad idea is the State government using toll roads to raise revenue to build and maintain roads.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110403/NEWS02/104030317/1002/SPORTS/Governor-looking-toll-roads-meet-state-s-highway-needs-?odyssey=nav|head
Look, we ALREADY pay taxes for road/highway maintenance and construction. Using toll roads just makes us pay FOREVER for those roads.
There are good ways to raise revenue and bad ways to raise revenue. Letting the government go into business for itself running toll roads, and forcing us to pay over and over again to travel on public roads is, trust me, a bad idea.
I mean, really... is the Alabama State Government REALLY telling us that they can't even provide us with what most everyone agrees is an essential public service: public roads? If they can't, then it's time to strip funding from other, non-essential areas to make ends meet. If you can't even keep the roads open to the public who paid for them in the first place, then you might as well hang it up and find a different job, Governor.
Raising revenue won't do anything to balance the budget... if the Legislature HAS that money, they'll find SOMETHING to spend it on. It's time to look closely at HOW we spend that money, instead of trying to bilk more money out of an already over-taxed populace.
I guess this is the GOP version of Change You Can Believe In... but wouldn't choose for yourself in a million years.
Read the rest...
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110403/NEWS02/104030317/1002/SPORTS/Governor-looking-toll-roads-meet-state-s-highway-needs-?odyssey=nav|head
Bentley has charged the state highway department with looking at an alternative to meet the needs here.
"I think selected toll roads is something I want to look at," the governor said.
Bentley, a Republican, said toll roads would add to the state's highway infrastructure and create jobs.
He said the state not only needs money to build roads and bridges, but also there is a need for funding for future maintenance.
Look, we ALREADY pay taxes for road/highway maintenance and construction. Using toll roads just makes us pay FOREVER for those roads.
There are good ways to raise revenue and bad ways to raise revenue. Letting the government go into business for itself running toll roads, and forcing us to pay over and over again to travel on public roads is, trust me, a bad idea.
I mean, really... is the Alabama State Government REALLY telling us that they can't even provide us with what most everyone agrees is an essential public service: public roads? If they can't, then it's time to strip funding from other, non-essential areas to make ends meet. If you can't even keep the roads open to the public who paid for them in the first place, then you might as well hang it up and find a different job, Governor.
Raising revenue won't do anything to balance the budget... if the Legislature HAS that money, they'll find SOMETHING to spend it on. It's time to look closely at HOW we spend that money, instead of trying to bilk more money out of an already over-taxed populace.
I guess this is the GOP version of Change You Can Believe In... but wouldn't choose for yourself in a million years.
Read the rest...
We're Spending $600K For WHAT???
I know this sounds like an April Fool's Day joke, but as far as I can tell it isn't. The stories on this started in late March, and are still appearing after April 1 has disappeared into the past. The timing is a BIT suspect, being so close to April Fool's Day, but as far as I can discover at this time, it isn't a hoax.
What am I talking about? Let me tell you...
Would you believe the the DOD wants to spend $600,000 on a sculpture of a 10-foot tall fairy riding a giant toad? This sculpture will be displayed in a new DOD building, and seen daily by pretty much the same collection of 2,500 Federal employees.
Here's a picture of the scale model...
I know that $600,000 isn't, in the context of annual Federal expenditures, a huge sum, but if we can't stop spending this kind of money for this kind of stupidity, then what hope do we have?
Honestly, I don't see how ANYONE can defend this kind of thing and still retain a SHRED of credibility.
I have long argued against government funding of "the arts," and this kind of project is a perfect example of what's wrong with it. A fairy riding a toad???
Please...
UPDATE: It seems that I neglected to include links to some of the stories on this... including, heaven help us, one from the Huffington Post DEFENDING this kind of spending. So, here you are.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/31/pentagon-art-600000-gurgling-toad-sculpture?s_cid=rss:washington-whispers:pentagon-art-600000-gurgling-toad-sculpture
http://www.alexandrianews.org/2011/04/moran-responds-to-proposed-public-art-at-brac-facility/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/02/measuring-enrichment-why-_n_844054.html
Read the rest...
What am I talking about? Let me tell you...
Would you believe the the DOD wants to spend $600,000 on a sculpture of a 10-foot tall fairy riding a giant toad? This sculpture will be displayed in a new DOD building, and seen daily by pretty much the same collection of 2,500 Federal employees.
Here's a picture of the scale model...
I know that $600,000 isn't, in the context of annual Federal expenditures, a huge sum, but if we can't stop spending this kind of money for this kind of stupidity, then what hope do we have?
Honestly, I don't see how ANYONE can defend this kind of thing and still retain a SHRED of credibility.
I have long argued against government funding of "the arts," and this kind of project is a perfect example of what's wrong with it. A fairy riding a toad???
Please...
UPDATE: It seems that I neglected to include links to some of the stories on this... including, heaven help us, one from the Huffington Post DEFENDING this kind of spending. So, here you are.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/31/pentagon-art-600000-gurgling-toad-sculpture?s_cid=rss:washington-whispers:pentagon-art-600000-gurgling-toad-sculpture
http://www.alexandrianews.org/2011/04/moran-responds-to-proposed-public-art-at-brac-facility/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/02/measuring-enrichment-why-_n_844054.html
Read the rest...
Shocker: Obama Announces Re-election Bid
When deciding what is and isn't news, the old saw goes, "dog bites man" isn't news because it happens so often that we expect it to happen again. "Man bites dog," on the other hand...
I think this falls into the "dog bites man" category... not really news. I mean, really, who amongst us expected Obama NOT to run for re-election? We all knew he would, so why is every major news outlet carrying this story? Some outlets are even carrying MULTIPLE stories on this piece of "news."
Look, this is not news. Everybody knew he would do it, he was expected to do it, and now he's done it. Mention it once on page C7, below the fold, and be done with it.
Now, if Obama had announced he was NOT running for re-election, THAT would be news! But this? It's just more hero-worship on the part of the mainstream media.
If you want to read some of these pieces, here are a few:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42410894/ns/politics-white_house
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52457.html
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/04/obama.re.election.launch/index.html?hpt=T1
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/04/president-obamas-re-election-campaign-officially-starts
In my opinion, that's an awful lot of coverage for an event that surprises nobody.
Read the rest...
I think this falls into the "dog bites man" category... not really news. I mean, really, who amongst us expected Obama NOT to run for re-election? We all knew he would, so why is every major news outlet carrying this story? Some outlets are even carrying MULTIPLE stories on this piece of "news."
Look, this is not news. Everybody knew he would do it, he was expected to do it, and now he's done it. Mention it once on page C7, below the fold, and be done with it.
Now, if Obama had announced he was NOT running for re-election, THAT would be news! But this? It's just more hero-worship on the part of the mainstream media.
If you want to read some of these pieces, here are a few:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42410894/ns/politics-white_house
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52457.html
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/04/obama.re.election.launch/index.html?hpt=T1
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/04/president-obamas-re-election-campaign-officially-starts
In my opinion, that's an awful lot of coverage for an event that surprises nobody.
Read the rest...
Friday, April 1, 2011
Breaking: New Candidate Announces
I have to tell you, this is a fascinating development in American politics. This morning, Carlo Elyas, the Superintendent of the Capitol building in Washington DC, announced he was running for a seat in the US Senate.
Elyas announced his candidacy this morning in a press conference held on the steps of the capitol building. When asked which party he was running with, he grinned.
When asked whether he could really handle the job, Elyas responded energetically.
Elyas has already started his fundraising campaign, collecting $15.73 from his cousin, and an in-kind contribution of half a dozen cinnamon rolls from his mother. Stay tuned for further developments...
Read the rest...
"I've been here for a long time, and I've watched some of the people elected to the Senate. And I thought... yeah, I could do that."
Elyas announced his candidacy this morning in a press conference held on the steps of the capitol building. When asked which party he was running with, he grinned.
"That's the problem with the folks already here, you know? All they care about is the party. Either it's their political party, or whichever shin-dig is being thrown by lobbyists this week. So I won't run under ANY party."
When asked whether he could really handle the job, Elyas responded energetically.
"I've seen so many bozos walking these halls... if THEY can do it, then I certainly can."
Elyas has already started his fundraising campaign, collecting $15.73 from his cousin, and an in-kind contribution of half a dozen cinnamon rolls from his mother. Stay tuned for further developments...
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)