Obama Meddles in Honduras « The Arizona Conservative Blog
Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass) flatly rejected the idea that funds received from banks repaying government loans be used for tax relief.
Frank characterized the taxpayer role in the TARP program as “at best, passive.” “Sure, we used taxpayers’ money to finance the thing, but we didn’t get much support from them for our efforts,” Frank recalled. “Most of the taxpayers I’ve heard from opposed the TARP program. So, why should they get any benefit from it now?”
The congressman has proposed, instead, what he calls a “TARP for Main Street” bill that would channel repaid loans into “a special fund that members of congress can tap into as needs arise.”
“Congress did the heavy work to get the TARP legislation passed,” Frank bragged. “We deserve to be rewarded. This fund will enable essential members of congress to access these resources for critical needs in their districts and states.”
Charges that the set-aside amounts to little more than a political “slush fund” were rebuffed by Frank. “The critical factor in this endeavor was congress, or rather, key members of congress,” Frank argued. “The special fund is aimed at preserving and enhancing this critical factor. You could call it an investment in America’s future.”
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
European Vacation II: The Obamas
European Vacation II: The Obamas
Why is it that the American people are told we have to hunker down and endure an economy of the government’s making, while our leader takes every opportunity to vacation on our dime, and definitely not on the cheap….
America may be in the midst of a deep recession, and the nation may be facing unprecedented deficit spending and debt, but the White House will not reveal the cost to taxpayers of the European vacation that first lady Michelle Obama and the president’s two daughters, Malia and Sasha, took last month, reports CNSNews.com White Correspondent Fred Lucas.
On four separate occasions, the White House refused to answer Lucas’ request for the cost to taxpayers of the trip – but, analysis by Lucas shows that the cost to taxpayers of just the first lady’s air travel alone for the Washington-to-Paris-to-London-Washington flight could be as much as $214,591.38.
Okay, we know The First Family needs transportation and protection, but c’mon, a little humility goes a long way.
The $214,591.38 taxpayer price tag does not even include significant costs such as:
* The separate cargo plane accompanying Air Force One
* A 20 vehicle motorcade in both Paris and London
* Secret Service and other staff expenses
Just as the White House refuses to divulge the cost of the Obamas’ travel, a Secret Service spokesman tells Lucas that, “We do not discuss the (taxpayer) cost of protection”.
Nor do we really need to know, but there must be an equivalent of a Motel 6 and McDonald’s out there that won’t cost us all quite that much. But hey, who’s counting? The Obamas surely are not.
Why is it that the American people are told we have to hunker down and endure an economy of the government’s making, while our leader takes every opportunity to vacation on our dime, and definitely not on the cheap….
America may be in the midst of a deep recession, and the nation may be facing unprecedented deficit spending and debt, but the White House will not reveal the cost to taxpayers of the European vacation that first lady Michelle Obama and the president’s two daughters, Malia and Sasha, took last month, reports CNSNews.com White Correspondent Fred Lucas.
On four separate occasions, the White House refused to answer Lucas’ request for the cost to taxpayers of the trip – but, analysis by Lucas shows that the cost to taxpayers of just the first lady’s air travel alone for the Washington-to-Paris-to-London-Washington flight could be as much as $214,591.38.
Okay, we know The First Family needs transportation and protection, but c’mon, a little humility goes a long way.
The $214,591.38 taxpayer price tag does not even include significant costs such as:
* The separate cargo plane accompanying Air Force One
* A 20 vehicle motorcade in both Paris and London
* Secret Service and other staff expenses
Just as the White House refuses to divulge the cost of the Obamas’ travel, a Secret Service spokesman tells Lucas that, “We do not discuss the (taxpayer) cost of protection”.
Nor do we really need to know, but there must be an equivalent of a Motel 6 and McDonald’s out there that won’t cost us all quite that much. But hey, who’s counting? The Obamas surely are not.
Cybercriminals Steal $415,000 From County in Kentucky - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com
Cybercriminals Steal $415,000 From County in Kentucky - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com
Sophisticated international cybercriminals stole $415,000 from a bank account belonging to Bullitt County, Ky. last month — and got two dozen regular citizens to help them.
"It's stolen just the same way as if someone had come and took a .45 [caliber] pistol and held up a teller," county attorney Walt Sholar told TV station WLKY.
A gang based in the former Soviet Union used viruses to secretly take control of computers used by county officials, including the country treasurer and a local judge, according to the Washington Post.
Then they secretly re-routed e-mails containing one-time passwords that both the treasurer and the judge would have to use to authorize wire transfers from the account, which belonged to Bullitt County Fiscal Court in Shepherdsville and was used to make payroll.
Beginning on June 22, the hackers began sending transfers, each under $10,000 so as not to alert federal watchdogs, to the bank accounts of 25 different Americans who'd been unwittingly recruited as "mules" by the Eastern European criminals.
The mules, who'd responded to ads for temporary at-home editing work on the job-placement Web site CareerBuilder.com, were instructed to keep 5 percent of the transfers as "commissions" and wire the rest of the money to accounts in Ukraine and Russia.
One mule found herself out thousands of dollars once Bullitt County got wise to what was happening and its bank started recalling the transfers.
County officials stressed that police, fire department and EMS workers would still be paid on time, and that the bank itself, First Federal Savings Bank, was never hacked into or compromised.
But the entire episode unsettled county residents.
"I'd like to find out who did it and where it went and how they're going to get it back into our county," resident Leslie Carlton told TV station WDRB Fox 41.
Sophisticated international cybercriminals stole $415,000 from a bank account belonging to Bullitt County, Ky. last month — and got two dozen regular citizens to help them.
"It's stolen just the same way as if someone had come and took a .45 [caliber] pistol and held up a teller," county attorney Walt Sholar told TV station WLKY.
A gang based in the former Soviet Union used viruses to secretly take control of computers used by county officials, including the country treasurer and a local judge, according to the Washington Post.
Then they secretly re-routed e-mails containing one-time passwords that both the treasurer and the judge would have to use to authorize wire transfers from the account, which belonged to Bullitt County Fiscal Court in Shepherdsville and was used to make payroll.
Beginning on June 22, the hackers began sending transfers, each under $10,000 so as not to alert federal watchdogs, to the bank accounts of 25 different Americans who'd been unwittingly recruited as "mules" by the Eastern European criminals.
The mules, who'd responded to ads for temporary at-home editing work on the job-placement Web site CareerBuilder.com, were instructed to keep 5 percent of the transfers as "commissions" and wire the rest of the money to accounts in Ukraine and Russia.
One mule found herself out thousands of dollars once Bullitt County got wise to what was happening and its bank started recalling the transfers.
County officials stressed that police, fire department and EMS workers would still be paid on time, and that the bank itself, First Federal Savings Bank, was never hacked into or compromised.
But the entire episode unsettled county residents.
"I'd like to find out who did it and where it went and how they're going to get it back into our county," resident Leslie Carlton told TV station WDRB Fox 41.
Pennsylvania officers discover police uniform in bomb suspect's home :: Today :: PostStar.com
Pennsylvania officers discover police uniform in bomb suspect's home :: Today :: PostStar.com
HUDSON FALLS -- The man arrested for carrying a bomb in a backpack on Saturday had a police badge and a police uniform with a Hudson Falls patch in his western Pennsylvania home when it was searched after his arrest, officials said.
Hudson Falls Police were trying Monday to determine from where the uniform came, said Police Chief Randy Diamond. The uniform was being sent to Hudson Falls by police in Washington Township, Pa., who found it in a home rented by Jason A. Babson.
The metal police badge apparently was not from the Hudson Falls Police Department, Diamond said. It's possible Babson acquired a Hudson Falls Police uniform patch (patch collecting and trading is common) and affixed it to a uniform he acquired elsewhere, Diamond said.
"It's concerning to think he had access to a police uniform," Diamond said.
Babson, 29, remained in Washington County Jail without bail on Monday, charged with felony criminal possession of a weapon in connection with a homemade explosive device that police found in a backpack he was carrying early Saturday.
Police came in contact with him at around 3 a.m. after people on Martindale Terrace called to report he was acting strangely while walking on the street. Diamond said Babson tried to run from police, who caught him.
In his backpack, officers found a can with multiple fuses and a powder inside that police believe was explosive. The State Police bomb squad took possession of it.
"This was not your run-of-the-mill bomb. It was pretty sophisticated," Diamond said.
Babson is a native of Hudson Falls and was staying at his parents' home on School Street last week. He was to return to the Middle East this week.
In light of Babson's ties to the Middle East, the FBI was notified and had his home in western Pennsylvania searched. Diamond said he had been told materials had been seized, but he was not sure of what they consisted. Diamond said FBI agents were in Hudson Falls over the weekend.
A call to the FBI's office in Albany was not returned Monday.
Witnesses indicated that Babson made comments about using a bomb at a school in Hudson Falls, but when he was questioned by Hudson Falls Police Detective Scott Gillis, he said he was planning to dispose of the bomb in the Feeder Canal.
Gillis said Babson indicated he was distraught over a family issue related to visitation of a child he had with a woman in Minnesota.
Babson is a geologist for Paul C. Rizzo Associates, an engineering and consulting firm based in western Pennsylvania. He has lived in Washington Township, Pa., in recent years but was assigned to a project at a nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates over the past year, officials said.
The arrest was not Babson's first. Police said he was arrested on misdemeanor charges of criminal possession of a weapon and unlawful possession of fireworks in 2002 while a student at SUNY-Brockport. According to a Feb. 13, 2002, report in the college newspaper, he was found to have illegally possessed a semiautomatic handgun, which was among a cache of weapons such as knives, shotgun ammunition and a machete that were seized from his dorm room and car.
Police said the records related to that arrest were sealed, and Babson later transferred to SUNY-Cortland, from which he graduated.
HUDSON FALLS -- The man arrested for carrying a bomb in a backpack on Saturday had a police badge and a police uniform with a Hudson Falls patch in his western Pennsylvania home when it was searched after his arrest, officials said.
Hudson Falls Police were trying Monday to determine from where the uniform came, said Police Chief Randy Diamond. The uniform was being sent to Hudson Falls by police in Washington Township, Pa., who found it in a home rented by Jason A. Babson.
The metal police badge apparently was not from the Hudson Falls Police Department, Diamond said. It's possible Babson acquired a Hudson Falls Police uniform patch (patch collecting and trading is common) and affixed it to a uniform he acquired elsewhere, Diamond said.
"It's concerning to think he had access to a police uniform," Diamond said.
Babson, 29, remained in Washington County Jail without bail on Monday, charged with felony criminal possession of a weapon in connection with a homemade explosive device that police found in a backpack he was carrying early Saturday.
Police came in contact with him at around 3 a.m. after people on Martindale Terrace called to report he was acting strangely while walking on the street. Diamond said Babson tried to run from police, who caught him.
In his backpack, officers found a can with multiple fuses and a powder inside that police believe was explosive. The State Police bomb squad took possession of it.
"This was not your run-of-the-mill bomb. It was pretty sophisticated," Diamond said.
Babson is a native of Hudson Falls and was staying at his parents' home on School Street last week. He was to return to the Middle East this week.
In light of Babson's ties to the Middle East, the FBI was notified and had his home in western Pennsylvania searched. Diamond said he had been told materials had been seized, but he was not sure of what they consisted. Diamond said FBI agents were in Hudson Falls over the weekend.
A call to the FBI's office in Albany was not returned Monday.
Witnesses indicated that Babson made comments about using a bomb at a school in Hudson Falls, but when he was questioned by Hudson Falls Police Detective Scott Gillis, he said he was planning to dispose of the bomb in the Feeder Canal.
Gillis said Babson indicated he was distraught over a family issue related to visitation of a child he had with a woman in Minnesota.
Babson is a geologist for Paul C. Rizzo Associates, an engineering and consulting firm based in western Pennsylvania. He has lived in Washington Township, Pa., in recent years but was assigned to a project at a nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates over the past year, officials said.
The arrest was not Babson's first. Police said he was arrested on misdemeanor charges of criminal possession of a weapon and unlawful possession of fireworks in 2002 while a student at SUNY-Brockport. According to a Feb. 13, 2002, report in the college newspaper, he was found to have illegally possessed a semiautomatic handgun, which was among a cache of weapons such as knives, shotgun ammunition and a machete that were seized from his dorm room and car.
Police said the records related to that arrest were sealed, and Babson later transferred to SUNY-Cortland, from which he graduated.
25 Explosive Laden Vehicles Sneak Into Major Pak Cities
25 Explosive Laden Vehicles Sneak Into Major Pak Cities
Lahore: At least 25 explosive laden vehicles have reportedly sneaked into major cities of Pakistan, following which intelligence agencies have launched a massive search operation.
According to sources, intelligence authorities have issued a warning to all four provinces in this regard, and asked them to take every precautionary measure.
The Interior Ministry has also issued a circular stating that suicide bombers along with the vehicles have entered Peshawar, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Quetta and Karachi, The Daily Times reported.
A private television channel, giving the description about the vehicles, said that the explosive laden vehicles included a Shehzore pick-up van, an ambulance, a blue Pajero and seven Toyota Corollas besides other vehicles.
Meanwhile, Peshawar police has seized three explosive laden vehicles from Budhbeer and Lakki Marwat area of the city.
Following the seizure, security forces have beefed up security across the province and are maintaining a tight vigil on all vehicles entering or leaving Peshawar. (ANI)
Lahore: At least 25 explosive laden vehicles have reportedly sneaked into major cities of Pakistan, following which intelligence agencies have launched a massive search operation.
According to sources, intelligence authorities have issued a warning to all four provinces in this regard, and asked them to take every precautionary measure.
The Interior Ministry has also issued a circular stating that suicide bombers along with the vehicles have entered Peshawar, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Quetta and Karachi, The Daily Times reported.
A private television channel, giving the description about the vehicles, said that the explosive laden vehicles included a Shehzore pick-up van, an ambulance, a blue Pajero and seven Toyota Corollas besides other vehicles.
Meanwhile, Peshawar police has seized three explosive laden vehicles from Budhbeer and Lakki Marwat area of the city.
Following the seizure, security forces have beefed up security across the province and are maintaining a tight vigil on all vehicles entering or leaving Peshawar. (ANI)
Ousted Honduran president expected in Washington
Ousted Honduran president expected in Washington
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to meet with deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this week as the Obama administration weighs responses to his ouster.
The talks planned for Tuesday would be the administration's highest-level contact with Zelaya since he was overthrown in a coup eight days ago, coming two days after his failed attempt to return to Honduras deepened the country's political crisis.
Zelaya met with two senior U.S. diplomats in Washington on Sunday after the Organization of American States suspended Honduras for its role in the coup and before the deposed president tried to return to Honduras by plane. Zelaya got as close as several hundred feet above the Tegucigalpa airport but had to turn away because of obstacles placed on the runway on orders of the interim government.
Clashes between police and soldiers and Zelaya supporters left at least one fatality at the airport on Sunday and thousands of supporters have been marching to protest his overthrow. About 2,000 demonstrated peacefully Monday near the presidential palace.
Zelaya was in Nicaragua on Monday after a late Sunday news conference in El Salvador in which he urged world leaders to step up efforts to return him to power.
Diplomats with the United Nations, the OAS, the United States and European countries worked behind the scenes Monday to seek common ground with interim President Roberto Micheletti, who heads the government that replaced Zelaya. But Micheletti has vowed not to negotiate until "things return to normal."
One option under consideration is trying to forge a compromise between Zelaya, Micheletti and the Honduran military under which the ousted president would be allowed to return and serve out his remaining six months in office with limited and clearly defined powers, according to a senior U.S. official.
In exchange, Zelaya would pledge to drop aspirations for a possible constitutional change that could allow him to run for another term, the official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic exchanges.
The Obama administration has made few public moves since Zelaya was deposed, deferring to the OAS. The U.S. has had limited military-to-military contacts and frozen programs that directly aid the Honduran government. But it has not yet determined whether Zelaya's ouster should trigger an automatic suspension in all non-humanitarian American assistance to Honduras.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Monday that the United States "deplores the use of force against demonstrators in Tegucigalpa" and called on "the de facto regime and all actors in Honduras to refrain from all acts of violence and seek a peaceful, constitutional and lasting solution to the serious divisions in that country through dialogue."
"Our goal remains the restoration of the democratic order in Honduras and we renew our call on all political and social actors in Honduras to find a peaceful solution to this crisis," Kelly said. "We're very focused on the need for a dialogue to restore him back (to office) and restore the democratic order."
Another senior administration official expressed some frustration with Zelaya, who rejected advice from the U.S. and others not to press for the constitutional change and not to try to return to Honduras on Sunday while the situation remained volatile.
The new Honduran government that replaced Zelaya has vowed to arrest him for 18 alleged criminal acts, including treason and failing to implement more than 80 laws approved by Congress since he took office in 2006. Zelaya also refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling against his planned referendum on whether to hold an assembly to consider changing the constitution.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to meet with deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this week as the Obama administration weighs responses to his ouster.
The talks planned for Tuesday would be the administration's highest-level contact with Zelaya since he was overthrown in a coup eight days ago, coming two days after his failed attempt to return to Honduras deepened the country's political crisis.
Zelaya met with two senior U.S. diplomats in Washington on Sunday after the Organization of American States suspended Honduras for its role in the coup and before the deposed president tried to return to Honduras by plane. Zelaya got as close as several hundred feet above the Tegucigalpa airport but had to turn away because of obstacles placed on the runway on orders of the interim government.
Clashes between police and soldiers and Zelaya supporters left at least one fatality at the airport on Sunday and thousands of supporters have been marching to protest his overthrow. About 2,000 demonstrated peacefully Monday near the presidential palace.
Zelaya was in Nicaragua on Monday after a late Sunday news conference in El Salvador in which he urged world leaders to step up efforts to return him to power.
Diplomats with the United Nations, the OAS, the United States and European countries worked behind the scenes Monday to seek common ground with interim President Roberto Micheletti, who heads the government that replaced Zelaya. But Micheletti has vowed not to negotiate until "things return to normal."
One option under consideration is trying to forge a compromise between Zelaya, Micheletti and the Honduran military under which the ousted president would be allowed to return and serve out his remaining six months in office with limited and clearly defined powers, according to a senior U.S. official.
In exchange, Zelaya would pledge to drop aspirations for a possible constitutional change that could allow him to run for another term, the official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic exchanges.
The Obama administration has made few public moves since Zelaya was deposed, deferring to the OAS. The U.S. has had limited military-to-military contacts and frozen programs that directly aid the Honduran government. But it has not yet determined whether Zelaya's ouster should trigger an automatic suspension in all non-humanitarian American assistance to Honduras.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Monday that the United States "deplores the use of force against demonstrators in Tegucigalpa" and called on "the de facto regime and all actors in Honduras to refrain from all acts of violence and seek a peaceful, constitutional and lasting solution to the serious divisions in that country through dialogue."
"Our goal remains the restoration of the democratic order in Honduras and we renew our call on all political and social actors in Honduras to find a peaceful solution to this crisis," Kelly said. "We're very focused on the need for a dialogue to restore him back (to office) and restore the democratic order."
Another senior administration official expressed some frustration with Zelaya, who rejected advice from the U.S. and others not to press for the constitutional change and not to try to return to Honduras on Sunday while the situation remained volatile.
The new Honduran government that replaced Zelaya has vowed to arrest him for 18 alleged criminal acts, including treason and failing to implement more than 80 laws approved by Congress since he took office in 2006. Zelaya also refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling against his planned referendum on whether to hold an assembly to consider changing the constitution.
Central New York crowd fired up over health care - syracuse.com
Central New York crowd fired up over health care - syracuse.com
U.S. Rep. Dan Maffei had to rely on police to restore order as the two extremes in the national health care reform debate collided Monday night in a packed Syracuse school auditorium.
Minutes after Maffei's town hall meeting on health care began, a graduate student from Albany interrupted the congressman and shouted for Maffei to explain why he isn't supporting a bill that would establish a single-payer government health care system.
"I didn't come here to listen to you," another man in the crowd angrily yelled as Syracuse police escorted Peter LaVenia out of Lincoln Middle School.
For Maffei, the evening didn't get much easier.
Hecklers, opposed to expanding taxpayer-funded health programs, repeatedly drowned out a panel of New York health care experts whom Maffei asked to discuss how America should provide insurance to 47 million uninsured people and cut the cost of health care.
President Barack Obama is pressing Congress to create a public option to the private health care system that will not require anyone to give up employer-provided health insurance.
Maffei said he supports that concept. But the freshman congressman from DeWitt has not signed on as a sponsor to any bills. He said he is gathering input from constituents.
At one point, as some in the crowd tried to silence panelist Dr. Andrew Coates -- an advocate of replacing private insurance with a single-payer government system -- Maffei warned, "We will break up this meeting."
Renee Crandall, of Marcellus, and others in the crowd continued to razz and boo whenever a panelist voiced support for creating a taxpayer-funded public health care option.
"Is it so difficult to be polite?" Maffei said from the stage.
"We have a right to be heard," Crandall yelled from the front row.
After the 90-minute meeting ended, Maffei chatted with voters, taking grief from both extremes.
"Part of the challenge I have is these public forums bring out people on both sides, but don't bring out the people in the middle," Maffei said. "Half the room was vehemently for single-payer health care, which we won't get. And half was for no government involvement, which we won't get."
Doug West, of Skaneateles, didn't want to argue with Maffei. He just wanted to show him his $819 per month bill for individual health insurance. Six years ago, he said, he paid $350 per month for the same coverage.
"I don't know how anyone without huge amounts of money is going to survive," said West, a retired Welch Allyn Inc. engineer.
U.S. Rep. Dan Maffei had to rely on police to restore order as the two extremes in the national health care reform debate collided Monday night in a packed Syracuse school auditorium.
Minutes after Maffei's town hall meeting on health care began, a graduate student from Albany interrupted the congressman and shouted for Maffei to explain why he isn't supporting a bill that would establish a single-payer government health care system.
"I didn't come here to listen to you," another man in the crowd angrily yelled as Syracuse police escorted Peter LaVenia out of Lincoln Middle School.
For Maffei, the evening didn't get much easier.
Hecklers, opposed to expanding taxpayer-funded health programs, repeatedly drowned out a panel of New York health care experts whom Maffei asked to discuss how America should provide insurance to 47 million uninsured people and cut the cost of health care.
President Barack Obama is pressing Congress to create a public option to the private health care system that will not require anyone to give up employer-provided health insurance.
Maffei said he supports that concept. But the freshman congressman from DeWitt has not signed on as a sponsor to any bills. He said he is gathering input from constituents.
At one point, as some in the crowd tried to silence panelist Dr. Andrew Coates -- an advocate of replacing private insurance with a single-payer government system -- Maffei warned, "We will break up this meeting."
Renee Crandall, of Marcellus, and others in the crowd continued to razz and boo whenever a panelist voiced support for creating a taxpayer-funded public health care option.
"Is it so difficult to be polite?" Maffei said from the stage.
"We have a right to be heard," Crandall yelled from the front row.
After the 90-minute meeting ended, Maffei chatted with voters, taking grief from both extremes.
"Part of the challenge I have is these public forums bring out people on both sides, but don't bring out the people in the middle," Maffei said. "Half the room was vehemently for single-payer health care, which we won't get. And half was for no government involvement, which we won't get."
Doug West, of Skaneateles, didn't want to argue with Maffei. He just wanted to show him his $819 per month bill for individual health insurance. Six years ago, he said, he paid $350 per month for the same coverage.
"I don't know how anyone without huge amounts of money is going to survive," said West, a retired Welch Allyn Inc. engineer.
Bloodthirsty mobs strike back against Uighurs in Xinjiang
Bloodthirsty mobs strike back against Uighurs in Xinjiang
Vengeance-seeking Han Chinese struck back against minority Muslim Uighurs in China's Xinjiang province on Tuesday as anger and panic ruled the capital of Urumqui.
Two days after violent clashes between the ethnic groups left 156 dead and more than 1,000 injured, thousands of Han Chinese roamed the streets armed with such improvised weapons as meat cleavers, hammers, chains and steel poles.
"They attacked us. Now it’s our turn to attack them," a Han man in the crowd told Reuters.
Police used tear gas to disperse mobs of youths chanting "Defend the Country" while trying to get to a Uighur neighborhood. Uighurs attacked Han Chinese near the Urumqui railroad station while women protested the arrest of up to a 1,000 Uighur men.
Han Chinese neighborhoods were gripped with fear as people desperately sought out lumber or shovels to
defend themselves and bought bottled water out of concern "the Uighurs might poison the water," as one resident told the Associated Press.
The continued violence and reprisals may have been worsened by Beijing's attempt to control the message.
The government had blocked or slowed down Web traffic in the region to prevent users on sites such as Twitter and YouTube from broadcasting images and stories to the world.
The state-controlled media had mostly images and clips of Uighurs attacking Han Chinese, sparking outrage among the country's ethnic majority.
Vengeance-seeking Han Chinese struck back against minority Muslim Uighurs in China's Xinjiang province on Tuesday as anger and panic ruled the capital of Urumqui.
Two days after violent clashes between the ethnic groups left 156 dead and more than 1,000 injured, thousands of Han Chinese roamed the streets armed with such improvised weapons as meat cleavers, hammers, chains and steel poles.
"They attacked us. Now it’s our turn to attack them," a Han man in the crowd told Reuters.
Police used tear gas to disperse mobs of youths chanting "Defend the Country" while trying to get to a Uighur neighborhood. Uighurs attacked Han Chinese near the Urumqui railroad station while women protested the arrest of up to a 1,000 Uighur men.
Han Chinese neighborhoods were gripped with fear as people desperately sought out lumber or shovels to
defend themselves and bought bottled water out of concern "the Uighurs might poison the water," as one resident told the Associated Press.
The continued violence and reprisals may have been worsened by Beijing's attempt to control the message.
The government had blocked or slowed down Web traffic in the region to prevent users on sites such as Twitter and YouTube from broadcasting images and stories to the world.
The state-controlled media had mostly images and clips of Uighurs attacking Han Chinese, sparking outrage among the country's ethnic majority.
Trillion-Dollar "Stimulus" Isn't Working, Yet President Says "There's Nothing We Would Have Done Differently" | Republican Leader John Boehner
Trillion-Dollar "Stimulus" Isn't Working, Yet President Says "There's Nothing We Would Have Done Differently" | Republican Leader John Boehner
Washington, Jul 7 - It’s clear the Administration’s trillion-dollar “stimulus” isn’t working to help our economy: a staggering 9.5 percent unemployment rate, Vice President Biden’s admission over the weekend that they “misread the economy,” and leading Democrats admitting the first “stimulus” isn’t working and calling for a second one. If these aren’t a collective acknowledgement that Washington Democrats’ spending binge – which was supposed to create jobs “immediately” - isn’t working, then what is?
That’s why President Obama’s assertion in an interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper this morning that “there’s nothing that we would have done differently” was so incredible. Here’s the report:
| “But the president denied that his economic prescription was wrong because the diagnosis was incomplete. ‘There’s nothing that we would have done differently,’ he said. ‘We needed a stimulus and we needed a substantial stimulus.’” |
The real tragedy is that this costly mistake is being felt most by America’s struggling middle-class families, who will be forced to pay for this massive spending binge. The sad reality is that when it comes to the economy, facts speak for themselves:
- The nation’s unemployment rate stands at 9.5 percent – the worst in 26 years – with the President himself saying that it will top 10 percent in the coming months and despite the Administration’s claim in January that with the stimulus the unemployment rate would not top eight percent if the stimulus became law.
- According to the New York Times, the U.S. economy is expected to shrink by 3.5 percent before it starts growing again.
- “Home prices may fall in more than half of the largest U.S. cities through the first quarter of 2011 as unemployment and foreclosures rise,” according to Bloomberg News.
- With the federal budget deficit reaching a staggering $1.8 trillion in 2009 and $9.1 trillion by 2019, and the national debt rising to 82 percent of GDP by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the U.S. Treasury is ramping up sales of U.S. debt to whoever’s buying to the highest level “since the Treasury Department started tracking the number in 1968.”
- Less than two months ago Vice President issued his initial report on the “stimulus,” in which he said the package was “ahead of schedule.”
- At a round table just over a month ago, the Vice President even admitted, “We know some of this money is going to be wasted… Some people are being scammed already.”
In the face of these staggering statistics – and the harsh economic realities felt by middle-class families and small businesses – is there really “Nothing we would have done differently”? House Republicans believe there are plenty of things Washington Democrats should have done differently – starting with passing the House GOP’s plan to create twice the jobs as the Administration promised at half the cost. The Republican plan would let families and small businesses keep more of what they earn to save, invest, and create jobs – a real stimulus that Washington hasn’t tried yet. With the economy shedding more jobs each month, isn’t it time for Democrats to stop going it alone and finally start working with Republicans to help create jobs and get our economy moving again?
Twitter becoming a tool for scams, bureau says - Los Angeles Times
Twitter becoming a tool for scams, bureau says - Los Angeles Times
Online predators have hit on social media site Twitter as the latest tool to lure victims into get-rich-quick and work-at-home schemes, according to the Better Business Bureau.
After tracking years of scams involving e-mail and Google, the bureau is seeing a surge in the number of companies claiming to help people turn Twitter into a virtual ATM with little effort and no risk, said spokeswoman Alison Southwick.
"Twitter is the cool thing, the bright, shiny object," she said Monday. "It's unbelievable how widespread this is. And with so many people vulnerable and looking for jobs, a scheme like this is going to have people falling for it when they can least afford to."
The messaging site allows participants to post, or "tweet," short updates that subscribers, or "followers," can read.
Recent schemes involve companies promising to pay Twitter users hundreds of dollars a day to tweet after they sign up for a free training kit, which the bureau said ends up sucking away a hefty monthly payment.
The bureau said some companies have a presence on Twitter itself, but all of them use e-mail and websites to attract customers.
Twitter Inc. did not respond to requests for comment.
The bureau, based in Washington, warns job seekers to be wary of claims that they can earn substantial paychecks simply by tweeting from home. Websites asking for money upfront for a tweeting "position" should also be avoided, the bureau said.
One company, EasyTweet Profits.com, believed to be based in Surrey, England, claims that "Twitter workers" can earn up to $873 "before you go to bed tonight."
No manager could be reached for comment.
The bureau discovered the website by linking to it through an e-mail that pledged "a large following with Twitter" and "hundreds of paying, repeat customers." The message suggests that tweeting for cash has been featured in a slew of media outlets and that the practice earned one person $390,746 in a year.
The website, which features a punchy design and variations on Twitter's blue bird logo, advertises a free weeklong trial of the company's instructional "Twitter Home Business Kit." Customers are asked to provide a credit card number to cover a nominal shipping fee for the compact disc, which presumably trains job hunters to tweet for money, the bureau said.
But the lengthy terms and conditions say that the seven-day trial includes the time it takes to ship the CD and that customers are charged $47 a month if they do not cancel within that time period. The negative-option marketing tactic, whereby the onus is on the customer to cancel a transaction to avoid being charged, is being used on most websites pushing Twitter schemes, Southwick said.
TwitterProfitHouse.com, for example, has a nearly identical look but bills customers $99.99 a month. The site is connected to a blog, Make-money-on-twitter.com, that trumpets the success of a purported practitioner.
The Better Business Bureau said such blogs tend to be phony, featuring photos of checks that have been used "countless times" on similar suspect sites and adoring testimonials in closed comment sections.
Bureau investigators also noticed that multiple Twitter accounts were posting messages with identical text, all linking to the websites, Southwick said.
Elliot Weingarten, a manager in TwitterProfitHouse.com's call center, said that once the company became aware of the bureau's concerns, it decided to stop marketing and taking orders for the CD.
"We had our terms and conditions, and we weren't scamming anybody," Weingarten said. "But we just don't want to be linked to what the bureau is saying is a scam."
The company later said that once it made sure it was "fully compliant," it hoped to relaunch its marketing campaign.
The websites first emerged in late spring, and the Better Business Bureau has not heard any complaints from customers, Southwick said. But similar scams that promised major payouts for conducting specialized Internet searches have netted about 1,000 complaints in a year, and those are "only the tip of the iceberg," she said.
Tracking the companies is nearly impossible, Southwick said. Listed addresses often route to random mailboxes, and phone numbers are usually disconnected or busy.
Barbara Ling, an entrepreneur who runs a forum about earning income online, looked into TwitterProfitHouse.com at a skeptical visitor's request.
Her conclusion: Consumers are responsible for reading terms and conditions, and it is notoriously difficult to get money back from companies that market Twitter schemes.
"These companies make it sound so seductive that you run screaming at them flinging your wallet saying, 'Take my money,' " she said. "It's very scummy, but it's not necessarily illegal."
Online predators have hit on social media site Twitter as the latest tool to lure victims into get-rich-quick and work-at-home schemes, according to the Better Business Bureau.
After tracking years of scams involving e-mail and Google, the bureau is seeing a surge in the number of companies claiming to help people turn Twitter into a virtual ATM with little effort and no risk, said spokeswoman Alison Southwick.
"Twitter is the cool thing, the bright, shiny object," she said Monday. "It's unbelievable how widespread this is. And with so many people vulnerable and looking for jobs, a scheme like this is going to have people falling for it when they can least afford to."
The messaging site allows participants to post, or "tweet," short updates that subscribers, or "followers," can read.
Recent schemes involve companies promising to pay Twitter users hundreds of dollars a day to tweet after they sign up for a free training kit, which the bureau said ends up sucking away a hefty monthly payment.
The bureau said some companies have a presence on Twitter itself, but all of them use e-mail and websites to attract customers.
Twitter Inc. did not respond to requests for comment.
The bureau, based in Washington, warns job seekers to be wary of claims that they can earn substantial paychecks simply by tweeting from home. Websites asking for money upfront for a tweeting "position" should also be avoided, the bureau said.
One company, EasyTweet Profits.com, believed to be based in Surrey, England, claims that "Twitter workers" can earn up to $873 "before you go to bed tonight."
No manager could be reached for comment.
The bureau discovered the website by linking to it through an e-mail that pledged "a large following with Twitter" and "hundreds of paying, repeat customers." The message suggests that tweeting for cash has been featured in a slew of media outlets and that the practice earned one person $390,746 in a year.
The website, which features a punchy design and variations on Twitter's blue bird logo, advertises a free weeklong trial of the company's instructional "Twitter Home Business Kit." Customers are asked to provide a credit card number to cover a nominal shipping fee for the compact disc, which presumably trains job hunters to tweet for money, the bureau said.
But the lengthy terms and conditions say that the seven-day trial includes the time it takes to ship the CD and that customers are charged $47 a month if they do not cancel within that time period. The negative-option marketing tactic, whereby the onus is on the customer to cancel a transaction to avoid being charged, is being used on most websites pushing Twitter schemes, Southwick said.
TwitterProfitHouse.com, for example, has a nearly identical look but bills customers $99.99 a month. The site is connected to a blog, Make-money-on-twitter.com, that trumpets the success of a purported practitioner.
The Better Business Bureau said such blogs tend to be phony, featuring photos of checks that have been used "countless times" on similar suspect sites and adoring testimonials in closed comment sections.
Bureau investigators also noticed that multiple Twitter accounts were posting messages with identical text, all linking to the websites, Southwick said.
Elliot Weingarten, a manager in TwitterProfitHouse.com's call center, said that once the company became aware of the bureau's concerns, it decided to stop marketing and taking orders for the CD.
"We had our terms and conditions, and we weren't scamming anybody," Weingarten said. "But we just don't want to be linked to what the bureau is saying is a scam."
The company later said that once it made sure it was "fully compliant," it hoped to relaunch its marketing campaign.
The websites first emerged in late spring, and the Better Business Bureau has not heard any complaints from customers, Southwick said. But similar scams that promised major payouts for conducting specialized Internet searches have netted about 1,000 complaints in a year, and those are "only the tip of the iceberg," she said.
Tracking the companies is nearly impossible, Southwick said. Listed addresses often route to random mailboxes, and phone numbers are usually disconnected or busy.
Barbara Ling, an entrepreneur who runs a forum about earning income online, looked into TwitterProfitHouse.com at a skeptical visitor's request.
Her conclusion: Consumers are responsible for reading terms and conditions, and it is notoriously difficult to get money back from companies that market Twitter schemes.
"These companies make it sound so seductive that you run screaming at them flinging your wallet saying, 'Take my money,' " she said. "It's very scummy, but it's not necessarily illegal."
Former figure skating champ Bobek charged in NJ with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine - 7/6/2009 7:54:40 PM | Newser
Former figure skating champ Bobek charged in NJ with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine - 7/6/2009 7:54:40 PM | Newser
Former U.S. figure skating champion Nicole Bobek has been charged with being part of a northern New Jersey drug ring.
The 31-year-old Bobek made her first court appearance Monday by video from the Hudson County Jail. Bobek, who has homes in New York and Jupiter, Florida, was arrested in Florida last week. She is charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Hudson County.
Attorney Sam DeLuca entered a not guilty plea for Bobek. She was held on $200,000 bail and faces up to 10 years in prison if she's convicted. A telephone call to DeLuca's office rang unanswered Monday afternoon.
Prosecutor Edward DeFazio says 20 people have been arrested in connection with the ring.
Bobek won the women's U.S. figure skating title in 1995.
Former U.S. figure skating champion Nicole Bobek has been charged with being part of a northern New Jersey drug ring.
The 31-year-old Bobek made her first court appearance Monday by video from the Hudson County Jail. Bobek, who has homes in New York and Jupiter, Florida, was arrested in Florida last week. She is charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Hudson County.
Attorney Sam DeLuca entered a not guilty plea for Bobek. She was held on $200,000 bail and faces up to 10 years in prison if she's convicted. A telephone call to DeLuca's office rang unanswered Monday afternoon.
Prosecutor Edward DeFazio says 20 people have been arrested in connection with the ring.
Bobek won the women's U.S. figure skating title in 1995.
CANADA SEES BOOM IN PRIVATE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS
CANADA SEES BOOM IN PRIVATE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS
Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system. Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment, says FoxNews.com.
As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model. But the Canadian system is not without its problems, says FoxNes.com.
Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment. Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters:
* Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others.
* Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.
* But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.
"I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.
Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the United States. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing, says FoxNews.com.
Source: Molly Line, "Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business," FoxNews.com, June 30, 2009.
For text:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews
Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.
Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.
"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.
As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.
But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment.
"No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.
Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.
Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.
But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.
"I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.
Yet advocates looking to preserve fairness claim that private clinics undermine the very foundation of the country's healthcare system.
"Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services," said Natalie Mehra, member of the Ontario Health Coalition.
Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the U.S. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing.
"One can understand that this is evolving and a mix of private and public seems to be favorable in some context. On the other hand, we need to be really careful that we're not treating health care the way we treat a value meal at McDonalds," Dr. Michael Orsini from the University of Ottawa told FOX News.
Provincial governments now face the difficult job of finding a balance in meeting the country's health care needs -- reducing wait times and maintaining fair access without redefining the universal ideals at the core of Canada's health care system.
Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system. Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment, says FoxNews.com.
As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model. But the Canadian system is not without its problems, says FoxNes.com.
Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment. Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters:
* Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others.
* Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.
* But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.
"I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.
Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the United States. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing, says FoxNews.com.
Source: Molly Line, "Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business," FoxNews.com, June 30, 2009.
For text:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews
Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.
Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.
"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.
As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.
But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment.
"No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.
Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.
Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.
But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.
"I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.
Yet advocates looking to preserve fairness claim that private clinics undermine the very foundation of the country's healthcare system.
"Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services," said Natalie Mehra, member of the Ontario Health Coalition.
Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the U.S. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing.
"One can understand that this is evolving and a mix of private and public seems to be favorable in some context. On the other hand, we need to be really careful that we're not treating health care the way we treat a value meal at McDonalds," Dr. Michael Orsini from the University of Ottawa told FOX News.
Provincial governments now face the difficult job of finding a balance in meeting the country's health care needs -- reducing wait times and maintaining fair access without redefining the universal ideals at the core of Canada's health care system.
WHY IT'S EASY TO STEAL FROM MEDICARE
WHY IT'S EASY TO STEAL FROM MEDICARE
The White House made a big show last week about "turning the heat up" on Medicare fraud. The dragnet resulted in 53 indictments in Detroit for a $50 million scheme to submit bills for HIV drugs and physical therapy that were never provided, as well as busting up a Miami ring that used fake storefronts to steal some $100 million. As welcome as this is, the larger issue, according to the Wall Street Journal, is what such plots say about President Obama's plans for a new government-run insurance program?
For example:
* One of the purported benefits of nationalized health care is that it will be more efficient than private insurers since it would lack the profit motive and have lower administrative expenses, like Medicare.
* But one reason entitlement programs are so easy to defraud is precisely because they don't have those overhead costs -- they automatically pay whatever bills roll in with valid claims numbers.
By contrast:
* Private insurers try to manage care, and that takes money. Not only does administrative spending go toward screening for waste and fraud -- logical, given the return-on-investment incentives -- they also go toward building networks of (honest) doctors and other providers.
* Medicare doesn't pay for this legwork, so it simply counts fraud losses as more spending.
* Generally private insurers also attempt to pay for other things that consumers find valuable, such as high quality, while Medicare and Medicaid are forbidden by law from excluding substandard providers, unless they're criminals.
Dead doctors, fake patients, high-school dropouts, fly-by-night businesses and the rest will continue to swindle our sclerotic entitlement system, no matter how far the government turns up the after-the-fact heat. The arrests in Detroit and Miami are another argument against importing to the rest of the health economy the model that enabled these scams, says the Journal.
Source: Editorial, "Why It's Easy to Steal From Medicare," Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2009.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649425934283347.html
The White House made a big show last week about "turning the heat up" on Medicare fraud. The dragnet resulted in 53 indictments in Detroit for a $50 million scheme to submit bills for HIV drugs and physical therapy that were never provided, as well as busting up a Miami ring that used fake storefronts to steal some $100 million. As welcome as this is, the larger issue, according to the Wall Street Journal, is what such plots say about President Obama's plans for a new government-run insurance program?
For example:
* One of the purported benefits of nationalized health care is that it will be more efficient than private insurers since it would lack the profit motive and have lower administrative expenses, like Medicare.
* But one reason entitlement programs are so easy to defraud is precisely because they don't have those overhead costs -- they automatically pay whatever bills roll in with valid claims numbers.
By contrast:
* Private insurers try to manage care, and that takes money. Not only does administrative spending go toward screening for waste and fraud -- logical, given the return-on-investment incentives -- they also go toward building networks of (honest) doctors and other providers.
* Medicare doesn't pay for this legwork, so it simply counts fraud losses as more spending.
* Generally private insurers also attempt to pay for other things that consumers find valuable, such as high quality, while Medicare and Medicaid are forbidden by law from excluding substandard providers, unless they're criminals.
Dead doctors, fake patients, high-school dropouts, fly-by-night businesses and the rest will continue to swindle our sclerotic entitlement system, no matter how far the government turns up the after-the-fact heat. The arrests in Detroit and Miami are another argument against importing to the rest of the health economy the model that enabled these scams, says the Journal.
Source: Editorial, "Why It's Easy to Steal From Medicare," Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2009.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649425934283347.html
WILL HEALTH CARE REFORM REALLY PAY OFF?
WILL HEALTH CARE REFORM REALLY PAY OFF?
Health care reform, if enacted, is going to be expensive -- estimates range from around $1 trillion for a plan introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to $1.6 trillion or more for other proposals -- so the Obama Administration has come up with a list of $948 billion in savings it believes can be obtained by enacting such changes, with the goal of making any health care reform legislation pay for itself, says FoxBusiness.com.
The proposed savings include:
* Some $309 billion in reduced costs from the Medicare and Medicaid programs and $326 billion in additional revenue that will come from such things as raising taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year.
* The Medicare and Medicaid savings include such things as assumed improvements in patient care and reduced hospitalization rates, as well as reduced Medicare payments to private insurers and improved "payment accuracy."
* The Administration added to that an estimate of $313 billion more it feels can be saved through such things as productivity adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid, reduced hospital subsidies and by paying lower prices in Medicare Part D, the prescription-drug program.
* It also includes cuts in waste, fraud and abuse.
The trillion-dollar question is whether a government program would help promote efficient, quality care, thus realizing these savings estimates and perhaps more -- or whether it would simply be a giant mess of bureaucracy and inefficiency, possibly saving very little or even costing taxpayers billions of dollars more, says FoxBusiness.com?
John C. Goodman, President, CEO and the Kellye Wright Fellow of the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote in a recent blog post: "Because this is a complex system, it is very hard to predict how all this new spending will affect the system as a whole. But we can be fairly confident total spending will rise -- and probably by a lot… No matter what else happens, if I and my doctors don't change what we are doing for me and you and your doctors don't change what is being done for you….. and so forth….. aggregate spending will not change."
Source: Joanna Ossinger, "Will Health Care Reform Really Pay Off?" FOXBusiness.com, June 30, 2009.
For text:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/health-care-reform-really-pay/
Health care reform, if enacted, is going to be expensive -- estimates range from around $1 trillion for a plan introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to $1.6 trillion or more for other proposals -- so the Obama Administration has come up with a list of $948 billion in savings it believes can be obtained by enacting such changes, with the goal of making any health care reform legislation pay for itself, says FoxBusiness.com.
The proposed savings include:
* Some $309 billion in reduced costs from the Medicare and Medicaid programs and $326 billion in additional revenue that will come from such things as raising taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year.
* The Medicare and Medicaid savings include such things as assumed improvements in patient care and reduced hospitalization rates, as well as reduced Medicare payments to private insurers and improved "payment accuracy."
* The Administration added to that an estimate of $313 billion more it feels can be saved through such things as productivity adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid, reduced hospital subsidies and by paying lower prices in Medicare Part D, the prescription-drug program.
* It also includes cuts in waste, fraud and abuse.
The trillion-dollar question is whether a government program would help promote efficient, quality care, thus realizing these savings estimates and perhaps more -- or whether it would simply be a giant mess of bureaucracy and inefficiency, possibly saving very little or even costing taxpayers billions of dollars more, says FoxBusiness.com?
John C. Goodman, President, CEO and the Kellye Wright Fellow of the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote in a recent blog post: "Because this is a complex system, it is very hard to predict how all this new spending will affect the system as a whole. But we can be fairly confident total spending will rise -- and probably by a lot… No matter what else happens, if I and my doctors don't change what we are doing for me and you and your doctors don't change what is being done for you….. and so forth….. aggregate spending will not change."
Source: Joanna Ossinger, "Will Health Care Reform Really Pay Off?" FOXBusiness.com, June 30, 2009.
For text:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/health-care-reform-really-pay/
U.S. House May Include Surtax on Wealthy in Health-Care Package - Bloomberg.com
U.S. House May Include Surtax on Wealthy in Health-Care Package - Bloomberg.com
July 7 (Bloomberg) -- House Ways and Means Committee members are likely to propose a surtax on high-income Americans to help pay for an overhaul of the health-care system, according to people familiar with the plan.
July 7 (Bloomberg) -- House Ways and Means Committee members are likely to propose a surtax on high-income Americans to help pay for an overhaul of the health-care system, according to people familiar with the plan.
The tax would be similar to, yet much smaller than, a surtax proposed in 2007 by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a person familiar with the committee’s talks said. That plan would have added at least a 4 percent levy on incomes exceeding $200,000, and was projected to reap as much as $832 billion over 10 years.
Two people familiar with closed-door talks by committee Democrats said a House bill probably will include a surtax on incomes exceeding $250,000, as Congress seeks ways to pay for changes to a health-care system that accounts for almost 18 percent of the U.S. economy. By targeting wealthier Americans, a surtax may hold more appeal for House Democrats than a Senate proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits.
“The surtax is obviously more attractive to Democrats in the House because it’s more progressive, which they find attractive in and of itself,” said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on policies affecting low- and moderate-income families.
Supporters on the Ways and Means Committee include Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat who backs including a surtax among revenue-raising measures in a health- care package, Doggett spokeswoman Sarah Dohl said.
Republicans in Congress, and some Senate Democrats, are likely to fight moves to increase tax rates, said Clinton Stretch, who analyzes tax legislation at Deloitte Tax LLP, a Washington consulting firm.
Republican Opposition
“This will be a point of discomfort for moderate or conservative Democrats” in the Senate, he said. “It will be an anathema for Republicans.”
The possibility of raising taxes on top earners surfaced last month as a revenue option for members of Rangel’s committee, and the people familiar with the talks cautioned that no agreement has been reached. A Senate plan to tax the value of employee benefits that exceed coverage for federal workers may generate as much as $418.5 billion over 10 years, though talks are focused on proposals that would raise considerably less.
Rangel’s 2007 plan would have added a 4 percent tax on incomes exceeding $200,000 and an extra 0.6 percent levy on those making more than $500,000. A House plan this year may include lower rates and higher income thresholds, a person familiar with the plan said.
Tax Increase
A surtax proposal would force President Barack Obama to decide whether he is willing to add the levy on top of higher income-tax rates for top earners that he wants to take effect in 2011. Obama has promised that he won’t increase taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 and said he will delay increases for high-income earners until 2011.
Obama hasn’t commented on the possibility of a surtax, and the White House had no comment on specific proposals. The president has proposed limiting itemized deductions for high- income taxpayers.
Obama has said he doesn’t want to tax health-insurance benefits, while refusing to rule out that possibility if it helps seal approval for an overall health package.
Congressional Democrats have said they may need to raise taxes by at least half a trillion dollars to pay for the health- care revamp, in addition to savings of almost as much through steps such as reducing Medicare subsidies and cutting prices the elderly pay for medications.
‘Everything’ on Table
Matthew Beck, a spokesman for the Ways and Means Committee, declined to comment about the surtax option, saying only that “everything’s on the table.”
Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, the chamber’s top-ranking Republican, said his party would oppose a surtax because it would “disproportionately” affect small businesses, whose owners often include business income in amounts taxed on their individual returns.
“With unemployment nearing double digits, we need to help small businesses grow and create jobs, not squeeze the life out of them with even higher taxes,” Steel said.
According to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, about 4.3 million of 150 million U.S. households filing tax returns will earn more than $200,000 this year.
A surtax would be levied on adjusted gross income, before deductions for items such as mortgage interest and charitable gifts. Regular income taxes are assessed after such write-offs.
Different Objectives
Eugene Steuerle, vice president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a non-profit federal budget watchdog group, said the surtax and a levy on benefits reflect “very different objectives.” A surtax would make the tax code more progressive, and cutting tax incentives for employer-provided insurance is intended to discourage unnecessary use of medical services, he said.
Mark Weinberger, vice chairman of New York-based Ernst & Young LLP, said that while Republicans won’t back higher tax rates, House Democrats at this point don’t need bipartisan support.
“Strategically, what Democrats have to do is just move the ball forward,” Weinberger said. “Whatever revenue raisers they have in the House or Senate bills will change throughout the process.”
Column: Avoiding an American ambush | Columnists | Jerusalem Post
Column: Avoiding an American ambush | Columnists | Jerusalem Post
It works out that US President Barack Obama is a man of heartfelt, long-held principles. It also works out that his principles are divorced from reality and unresponsive to any facts that contradict them.
Children play with water to...
Children play with water to refresh from the hot weather at the fountain in front of the Bell Park in Jerusalem [illustrative].
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski
This much was made clear by a New York Times report on Sunday which discussed a recently "rediscovered" 1983 article Obama published in a student magazine on the subject of nuclear disarmament when he was an undergraduate at Columbia University
Obama's article, "Breaking the war mentality," was ostensibly a feature story showcasing two student organizations that advocated a freeze in the US's nuclear arsenal. But the young Obama didn't hesitate to use his platform to make his own, even more radical views known to his readers. As he put it: "The narrow focus of the Freeze movement, as well as academic discussion of first- versus second-strike capabilities, suit the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion-dollar erector sets."
Citing a Rastafarian reggae musician as his foreign policy authority, Obama ruminated, "When Peter Tosh sings that 'everybody's asking for peace, but nobody's asking for justice,' one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem, instead of the disease itself."
As one of the freeze advocates explained gently, contending with "the disease itself" was an unachievable goal since "you're not going to get rid of the military in the near future."
THERE IS NOTHING shocking about Obama's embrace of radical politics as a college student. Particularly at Columbia, adopting such positions was the most conformist move a student could make. What is disturbing is that these views have endured over time, although they were overtaken by events 20 years ago.
Just six years after Obama penned his little manifesto, the Iron Curtain came crashing down. The Soviet empire fell not because radicals like Obama called for the US to destroy its nuclear arsenal, it fell because president Ronald Reagan ignored them and vastly expanded the US's nuclear arsenal while deploying short-range nuclear warheads in Europe and launching the US's missile defense program while renouncing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
On Monday Obama arrived in Moscow for a round of disarmament talks with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. According to most accounts, while in Moscow Obama plans to abandon US allies Ukraine and Georgia and agree to deep cuts in US missile defense programs. In exchange, Moscow is expected to consider joining Washington in cutting back on its nuclear arsenal just as the likes of Iran and North Korea build up theirs.
Of course, even if Russia doesn't agree to scale back its nuclear arsenal, Obama has already ensured that the US will slash the size of its own by refusing to fund its modernization. In short, Obama is working to implement the precise policy he laid out as an unoriginal student conformist 26 years ago.
BY NOW of course, none of this is particularly surprising. Since entering office seven long months ago, Obama has demonstrated that his guiding philosophy for foreign affairs is that the US and its allies are to blame for their adversaries' hostility toward them. All that needs to happen for peace to break out throughout the world is for the US and its allies to quit clinging to their guns and religions and start apologizing for their rudeness. In furtherance of this goal, Obama has devoted himself to putting the screws on US allies, slashing America's defense budget and embarking on a worldwide tour apologizing to US adversaries.
The basic reality that the US is being led by a radical ideologue who clings to his views in the face of overwhelming proof of their falsity is the most fundamental fact that world leaders must reckon with today as they formulate policies to contend with the Obama administration. This is first and foremost the case for Israel.
Since the Netanyahu government took office three months ago, the Obama administration has placed inordinate pressure on Jerusalem in a bid to coerce it into making massive concessions to the Palestinians. These concessions are demanded not for peace, but simply for the sake of placing pressure on Israel. Obama wishes to pressure it to show his good intentions to the Arabs and Iran.
TO DATE, Obama's loudest demand has been to officially prohibit all Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Although the demand is intrinsically bigoted, illegal and immoral, and although the consequences of the expulsion of all Jews from Gaza in 2005 shows that Israeli land giveaways and ethnic cleansing bring war not peace, the Netanyahu government has opted not to get into an open confrontation with the administration on the issue.
Instead, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his government have sought to treat Obama's offensive as a routine disagreement between otherwise close allies. Rather than defending the principles of Jewish national, legal and human rights and the country's right to security, Netanyahu has sought to reach an accommodation with Obama by reducing the discussion to a conversation about the inevitable natural growth of Jewish communities due to expanding families.
But what Obama's slavish devotion to his radical world view shows is that Netanyahu's decision to seek an accommodation is not simply an exercise in futility, it is a recipe for disaster. Obama and his advisers do not care that Jewish fertility rates are the fastest rising in the world. They do not care that by arguing for a complete halt in "natural" growth, they are effectively adopting a eugenics argument the likes of which no US policy-maker has dared to advance since before the Holocaust. They are looking to fight because they believe that the US is best served by fighting with its allies - particularly with Israel. Any concession Netanyahu makes will just form the basis for the next round of demands.
Far from seeking an agreement with Obama, Netanyahu should realize that given the president's ideological rigidity, there is no agreement to be had. Instead of trying to resolve the issue, Netanyahu's goal should be to prolong discussions until Obama finds someone else to pick on.
Rather than making wrongheaded concessions to Obama on Jewish population growth in the vain hope of mollifying him, Israel should go on the offensive on issues where it has something to gain from a confrontation. Two specific issues - aside from Iran's nuclear program - should be raised in this regard.
FIRST, IN recent months the Obama administration has applied massive pressure on Israel to remove its military forces from Judea and Samaria, curtail its counterterror operations and allow US-trained, anti-Israel Palestinian military forces to deploy in the towns and cities. Rather than openly oppose these demands, in the interests of cultivating good relations, the Netanyahu government has gone along with the program. This it has done in spite of the fact that the Palestinian forces now deploying throughout the areas have a history of participating in and supporting terror attacks against Israel as well as terrorizing their own people.
Last week the government quietly announced that the IDF is pulling out of most Palestinian population centers and turning the keys over to these hostile US-trained forces. This was a mistake.
In the weeks to come, the government should bluntly and publicly discuss and protest Fatah political and military leaders' continued support for terrorists and terrorist attacks against Israel. Netanyahu and his government should also detail human-rights abuses Fatah personnel routinely carry out against Palestinian journalists, businessmen and other civilians. The administration should be forced to defend its decision to empower these corrupt, terror-supporting brutes at the expense of Israel's security, and to force US taxpayers to foot the bill for its cockamamie priorities.
THE SECOND ISSUE is US military aid. For years Israel's detractors have pointed to this aid as "proof" that it is a strategic burden for America. But in recent years, and particularly since the Obama administration took office, it is becoming increasingly clear that US military assistance may be a greater burden for Israel than for the US.
On Sunday The Jerusalem Post reported that the Pentagon has forced Israel Aerospace Industries to back out of a joint partnership with a Swedish aerospace company to compete in a multibillion dollar tender to sell new multirole fighters to the Indian air force. And as the Post reported, this is the second major deal the Pentagon has forced Israel to withdraw from in the past year. Last summer it was forced to bow out of a $500 million tender to supply the Turkish army with a new main battle tank. In both cases, US firms were competing in the tenders and the Pentagon threatened that Israeli participation would risk continued US-Israeli cooperation.
Today Israel faces the prospect of not having a new-generation fighter. The Pentagon has placed so many draconian restrictions on its purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and raised the price so high, that it makes little strategic or economic sense to purchase it. So too, last week the navy announced it has decided to explore the option of building its own warships rather than buy one of two competing US naval platforms as planned because the US contractors' costs have gone up so high. The navy is also taking into consideration the fact that by building domestic platforms, it will provide needed employment to shipyard workers.
All in all, both in terms of pure economics and in terms of the massive and constantly escalating restrictions the Obama administration is now placing on Israeli use of US technologies and munitions, maintaining US military assistance makes less and less sense with each passing day.
Were Israel to initiate a conversation about cutting back on this assistance, it would be able to ensure that the talks take place on its terms. Moreover, given the fact that Israel may indeed be best served by simply ending its military assistance package, the risk involved in such discussions would not be particularly earth shattering. Finally, by making clear that it is not dependent on Obama's kindness, it would be expanding its maneuvering room on other issues as well.
What Obama's radicalism tells us is that he is not a man who is moved by rational discourse. He is not a man who is willing to be convinced that he is mistaken. But even in these dire circumstances, Israel is not without good options for securing its interests vis-Ã -vis Washington.
To do so, Jerusalem must first understand that it gains nothing from making concessions to a president bent on picking a fight with it. Then it must recognize that there are issues where a confrontation with Obama can serve its interests. Finally it must pursue those issues with energy and passion.
It works out that US President Barack Obama is a man of heartfelt, long-held principles. It also works out that his principles are divorced from reality and unresponsive to any facts that contradict them.
Children play with water to...
Children play with water to refresh from the hot weather at the fountain in front of the Bell Park in Jerusalem [illustrative].
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski
This much was made clear by a New York Times report on Sunday which discussed a recently "rediscovered" 1983 article Obama published in a student magazine on the subject of nuclear disarmament when he was an undergraduate at Columbia University
Obama's article, "Breaking the war mentality," was ostensibly a feature story showcasing two student organizations that advocated a freeze in the US's nuclear arsenal. But the young Obama didn't hesitate to use his platform to make his own, even more radical views known to his readers. As he put it: "The narrow focus of the Freeze movement, as well as academic discussion of first- versus second-strike capabilities, suit the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion-dollar erector sets."
Citing a Rastafarian reggae musician as his foreign policy authority, Obama ruminated, "When Peter Tosh sings that 'everybody's asking for peace, but nobody's asking for justice,' one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem, instead of the disease itself."
As one of the freeze advocates explained gently, contending with "the disease itself" was an unachievable goal since "you're not going to get rid of the military in the near future."
THERE IS NOTHING shocking about Obama's embrace of radical politics as a college student. Particularly at Columbia, adopting such positions was the most conformist move a student could make. What is disturbing is that these views have endured over time, although they were overtaken by events 20 years ago.
Just six years after Obama penned his little manifesto, the Iron Curtain came crashing down. The Soviet empire fell not because radicals like Obama called for the US to destroy its nuclear arsenal, it fell because president Ronald Reagan ignored them and vastly expanded the US's nuclear arsenal while deploying short-range nuclear warheads in Europe and launching the US's missile defense program while renouncing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
On Monday Obama arrived in Moscow for a round of disarmament talks with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. According to most accounts, while in Moscow Obama plans to abandon US allies Ukraine and Georgia and agree to deep cuts in US missile defense programs. In exchange, Moscow is expected to consider joining Washington in cutting back on its nuclear arsenal just as the likes of Iran and North Korea build up theirs.
Of course, even if Russia doesn't agree to scale back its nuclear arsenal, Obama has already ensured that the US will slash the size of its own by refusing to fund its modernization. In short, Obama is working to implement the precise policy he laid out as an unoriginal student conformist 26 years ago.
BY NOW of course, none of this is particularly surprising. Since entering office seven long months ago, Obama has demonstrated that his guiding philosophy for foreign affairs is that the US and its allies are to blame for their adversaries' hostility toward them. All that needs to happen for peace to break out throughout the world is for the US and its allies to quit clinging to their guns and religions and start apologizing for their rudeness. In furtherance of this goal, Obama has devoted himself to putting the screws on US allies, slashing America's defense budget and embarking on a worldwide tour apologizing to US adversaries.
The basic reality that the US is being led by a radical ideologue who clings to his views in the face of overwhelming proof of their falsity is the most fundamental fact that world leaders must reckon with today as they formulate policies to contend with the Obama administration. This is first and foremost the case for Israel.
Since the Netanyahu government took office three months ago, the Obama administration has placed inordinate pressure on Jerusalem in a bid to coerce it into making massive concessions to the Palestinians. These concessions are demanded not for peace, but simply for the sake of placing pressure on Israel. Obama wishes to pressure it to show his good intentions to the Arabs and Iran.
TO DATE, Obama's loudest demand has been to officially prohibit all Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Although the demand is intrinsically bigoted, illegal and immoral, and although the consequences of the expulsion of all Jews from Gaza in 2005 shows that Israeli land giveaways and ethnic cleansing bring war not peace, the Netanyahu government has opted not to get into an open confrontation with the administration on the issue.
Instead, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his government have sought to treat Obama's offensive as a routine disagreement between otherwise close allies. Rather than defending the principles of Jewish national, legal and human rights and the country's right to security, Netanyahu has sought to reach an accommodation with Obama by reducing the discussion to a conversation about the inevitable natural growth of Jewish communities due to expanding families.
But what Obama's slavish devotion to his radical world view shows is that Netanyahu's decision to seek an accommodation is not simply an exercise in futility, it is a recipe for disaster. Obama and his advisers do not care that Jewish fertility rates are the fastest rising in the world. They do not care that by arguing for a complete halt in "natural" growth, they are effectively adopting a eugenics argument the likes of which no US policy-maker has dared to advance since before the Holocaust. They are looking to fight because they believe that the US is best served by fighting with its allies - particularly with Israel. Any concession Netanyahu makes will just form the basis for the next round of demands.
Far from seeking an agreement with Obama, Netanyahu should realize that given the president's ideological rigidity, there is no agreement to be had. Instead of trying to resolve the issue, Netanyahu's goal should be to prolong discussions until Obama finds someone else to pick on.
Rather than making wrongheaded concessions to Obama on Jewish population growth in the vain hope of mollifying him, Israel should go on the offensive on issues where it has something to gain from a confrontation. Two specific issues - aside from Iran's nuclear program - should be raised in this regard.
FIRST, IN recent months the Obama administration has applied massive pressure on Israel to remove its military forces from Judea and Samaria, curtail its counterterror operations and allow US-trained, anti-Israel Palestinian military forces to deploy in the towns and cities. Rather than openly oppose these demands, in the interests of cultivating good relations, the Netanyahu government has gone along with the program. This it has done in spite of the fact that the Palestinian forces now deploying throughout the areas have a history of participating in and supporting terror attacks against Israel as well as terrorizing their own people.
Last week the government quietly announced that the IDF is pulling out of most Palestinian population centers and turning the keys over to these hostile US-trained forces. This was a mistake.
In the weeks to come, the government should bluntly and publicly discuss and protest Fatah political and military leaders' continued support for terrorists and terrorist attacks against Israel. Netanyahu and his government should also detail human-rights abuses Fatah personnel routinely carry out against Palestinian journalists, businessmen and other civilians. The administration should be forced to defend its decision to empower these corrupt, terror-supporting brutes at the expense of Israel's security, and to force US taxpayers to foot the bill for its cockamamie priorities.
THE SECOND ISSUE is US military aid. For years Israel's detractors have pointed to this aid as "proof" that it is a strategic burden for America. But in recent years, and particularly since the Obama administration took office, it is becoming increasingly clear that US military assistance may be a greater burden for Israel than for the US.
On Sunday The Jerusalem Post reported that the Pentagon has forced Israel Aerospace Industries to back out of a joint partnership with a Swedish aerospace company to compete in a multibillion dollar tender to sell new multirole fighters to the Indian air force. And as the Post reported, this is the second major deal the Pentagon has forced Israel to withdraw from in the past year. Last summer it was forced to bow out of a $500 million tender to supply the Turkish army with a new main battle tank. In both cases, US firms were competing in the tenders and the Pentagon threatened that Israeli participation would risk continued US-Israeli cooperation.
Today Israel faces the prospect of not having a new-generation fighter. The Pentagon has placed so many draconian restrictions on its purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and raised the price so high, that it makes little strategic or economic sense to purchase it. So too, last week the navy announced it has decided to explore the option of building its own warships rather than buy one of two competing US naval platforms as planned because the US contractors' costs have gone up so high. The navy is also taking into consideration the fact that by building domestic platforms, it will provide needed employment to shipyard workers.
All in all, both in terms of pure economics and in terms of the massive and constantly escalating restrictions the Obama administration is now placing on Israeli use of US technologies and munitions, maintaining US military assistance makes less and less sense with each passing day.
Were Israel to initiate a conversation about cutting back on this assistance, it would be able to ensure that the talks take place on its terms. Moreover, given the fact that Israel may indeed be best served by simply ending its military assistance package, the risk involved in such discussions would not be particularly earth shattering. Finally, by making clear that it is not dependent on Obama's kindness, it would be expanding its maneuvering room on other issues as well.
What Obama's radicalism tells us is that he is not a man who is moved by rational discourse. He is not a man who is willing to be convinced that he is mistaken. But even in these dire circumstances, Israel is not without good options for securing its interests vis-Ã -vis Washington.
To do so, Jerusalem must first understand that it gains nothing from making concessions to a president bent on picking a fight with it. Then it must recognize that there are issues where a confrontation with Obama can serve its interests. Finally it must pursue those issues with energy and passion.
CNSNews.com - Unemployment Worse with Stimulus than Without
CNSNews.com - Unemployment Worse with Stimulus than Without
Unemployment Worse with Stimulus than Without
(CNSNews.com) – Unemployment hit 9.5 percent in June, according to the Department of Labor, putting the figure 2.5 percent higher than the White House had predicted it would be if a government stimulus spending program went into place. Moreover, the new figure is nearly one percent higher than where the White House said it would be without any stimulus spending at all.
In fact, the White House never predicted that unemployment would rise above nine percent regardless of whether Congress spent the nearly $800 billion in so-called economic stimulus spending it recommended at the time.
The predictions came from a Jan. 10, 2009, report issued by Christina Romer, now chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, and Jared Bernstein, currently Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economist. The administration used the report as both a blueprint and a justification for the $787-billion spending package Obama signed in February.
“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that I will sign today, a plan that meets the principles I laid out in January, is the most sweeping economic recovery package in our history,” Obama said at the bill’s Denver signing.
“What makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3½ million jobs over the next two years, including nearly 60,000 in Colorado. It's that we are putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done,” he said.
That January outline predicted that with a stimulus bill, unemployment would be less than eight percent by the end of June 2009. Without the stimulus spending, unemployment was projected to rise to about 8.3 percent by June.
June’s unemployment numbers show that Obama’s estimates of how successful the stimulus would be were inaccurate and overestimated the effect that billions of federal dollars would have on employment. Under the estimate, the stimulus plan would have kept unemployment below eight percent, driving unemployment down by October 2009.
“[E]ven with the large prototypical [stimulus] package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan,” the report states.
In fact, Obama’s own estimate shows that the economy might have fared better without any stimulus spending at all. Romer and Bernstein’s projections show that without a stimulus package, unemployment would rise to just above nine percent in December 2009, staying there through most of 2010 before falling off in early 2011.
June’s unemployment numbers are well above what even the Obama administration said they would be if Congress didn’t enact a stimulus plan. In selling the massive new spending, Obama said that economic conditions without the plan would be intolerable.
“If we do not move swiftly to sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe," Obama said on Feb. 5.
Now, the president is predicting unemployment will rise to 10 percent, saying in his own defense that his administration’s previous reports were issued before they really knew what the recession looked like.
“At that point, nobody understood what the depths of this recession were going to look like,” Obama said June 21. “And so it's not surprising, then, that we missed the mark in terms of our estimates of where unemployment would go.
“[I]t’s pretty clear now that unemployment will end up going over 10 percent,” he said.
Obama then claimed that the key to turning the economy around was to spend more of the stimulus money faster.
“We've got to get our Recovery Act money out faster,” he said.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said that the record high unemployment was a sign that Obama’s signature legislation had been a failure and added that more spending was not the answer to a deepening economic crisis.
“At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, the rising unemployment rate is further evidence that we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy,” Pence said in a statement.
“More than four months after the economic stimulus was signed into law, our country still faces the highest unemployment in almost three decades,” he said.
Unemployment Worse with Stimulus than Without
(CNSNews.com) – Unemployment hit 9.5 percent in June, according to the Department of Labor, putting the figure 2.5 percent higher than the White House had predicted it would be if a government stimulus spending program went into place. Moreover, the new figure is nearly one percent higher than where the White House said it would be without any stimulus spending at all.
In fact, the White House never predicted that unemployment would rise above nine percent regardless of whether Congress spent the nearly $800 billion in so-called economic stimulus spending it recommended at the time.
The predictions came from a Jan. 10, 2009, report issued by Christina Romer, now chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, and Jared Bernstein, currently Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economist. The administration used the report as both a blueprint and a justification for the $787-billion spending package Obama signed in February.
“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that I will sign today, a plan that meets the principles I laid out in January, is the most sweeping economic recovery package in our history,” Obama said at the bill’s Denver signing.
“What makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3½ million jobs over the next two years, including nearly 60,000 in Colorado. It's that we are putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done,” he said.
That January outline predicted that with a stimulus bill, unemployment would be less than eight percent by the end of June 2009. Without the stimulus spending, unemployment was projected to rise to about 8.3 percent by June.
June’s unemployment numbers show that Obama’s estimates of how successful the stimulus would be were inaccurate and overestimated the effect that billions of federal dollars would have on employment. Under the estimate, the stimulus plan would have kept unemployment below eight percent, driving unemployment down by October 2009.
“[E]ven with the large prototypical [stimulus] package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan,” the report states.
In fact, Obama’s own estimate shows that the economy might have fared better without any stimulus spending at all. Romer and Bernstein’s projections show that without a stimulus package, unemployment would rise to just above nine percent in December 2009, staying there through most of 2010 before falling off in early 2011.
June’s unemployment numbers are well above what even the Obama administration said they would be if Congress didn’t enact a stimulus plan. In selling the massive new spending, Obama said that economic conditions without the plan would be intolerable.
“If we do not move swiftly to sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe," Obama said on Feb. 5.
Now, the president is predicting unemployment will rise to 10 percent, saying in his own defense that his administration’s previous reports were issued before they really knew what the recession looked like.
“At that point, nobody understood what the depths of this recession were going to look like,” Obama said June 21. “And so it's not surprising, then, that we missed the mark in terms of our estimates of where unemployment would go.
“[I]t’s pretty clear now that unemployment will end up going over 10 percent,” he said.
Obama then claimed that the key to turning the economy around was to spend more of the stimulus money faster.
“We've got to get our Recovery Act money out faster,” he said.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said that the record high unemployment was a sign that Obama’s signature legislation had been a failure and added that more spending was not the answer to a deepening economic crisis.
“At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, the rising unemployment rate is further evidence that we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy,” Pence said in a statement.
“More than four months after the economic stimulus was signed into law, our country still faces the highest unemployment in almost three decades,” he said.
Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' | Climate Depot
Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' | Climate Depot
June 2009 saw another drop in global temps.
The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.
June 2009 saw another drop in global temps.
The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.
According to the latest global satellite data courtesy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and made into an easy to read graph by algorelied.com: "For the record, this month's Al Gore / 'An Inconvenient Truth' Index indicates that global temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since Gore's film was released," noted algorelied.com. (See satellite temperature chart here with key dates noted, courtesy of www.Algorelied.com - Also see: 8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps)
Gore -- who is fond of saying the Earth has a "fever" -- has not yet addressed the simple fact that global temperatures have dropped since the release of his global warming film. (Gore has also not addressed this: Another Moonwalker Defies Gore: NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears: 'Climate has been changing for billions of years' - Moonwalkers Defy Gore's Claim That Climate Skeptics Are Akin To Those Who Believe Moon Landing was 'Staged')
A record cool summer has descended upon many parts of the U.S. after predictions of the "year without a summer." There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. (Also see: Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: 'Earth has been cooling for ten years' - 'Present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them' - July 1, 2009)
In addition, New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 - And See: 'Global temps have flat lined since 2001...This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950...Cooling trend could last for up to 30 years' - June 22, 2009 )
This means that today's high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor's Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the "pipeline" have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. 'There is no warming in the pipeline' )
Sampling of Recent Cold:
California's June temps well under average
New York City has 'coolest June since 1958'
Cool weather dampens U.S. June retail sales...'coldest in 27 years' in Northeast
Scientists: Mediterranean Sea 'Not Warming'
Another new record low set at Bryce Canyon
'Antelope numbers are down in South Dakota -- harsh winter is to blame'
Early summer chill in Illinois hurts beach attendance
Long cold spell is to blame for lack of shellfish
Arizona has longest stretch of days below 100 degrees since 1913
'Winterkill': 'One the snowiest and coldest seasons on record' in Iowa continues to hang around'
Report: Arctic Sweden temps see 'coldest June in 150 years!'
'Average arctic temp still not above 32F--Latest date in 50 years of record keeping'
South Africa: Cold a killer for homeless
March 2009 U.S. Senate Report: 700 Plus Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Warming Claims
Americans continue to arm themselves | SmallGovTimes.com
Americans continue to arm themselves | SmallGovTimes.com
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Americans say gun sales are up in the United States because of a fear of increased government restriction on gun ownership.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 23% say gun sales have risen because of a fear of increased crime. Twenty-one percent (21%) are not sure.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of men say the threat of more gun control is behind increased sales, compared to 51% of women. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of whites agree, while African-Americans are more closely divided on the question.
You may read the entire article from Rasmussen here.
It is good to know that 75% of Americans believe the constitution guarantees the right to own a gun. A whopping 92% of Republicans say the Constitution guarantees their right to own a gun, compared to 64% of Democrats and 71% of adults not affiliated with either of the major political parties.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.
Gun control advocates have argued that the Second Amendment refers to the arming of a militia for the common defense and is not a guarantee of an individual’s right to own a gun. The National Rifle Association and numerous political leaders, both Democrat and Republican, among others, disagree.
Now we have Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated for the US Supreme Court by President Obama, with a record on the 2nd Amendment which is troublesome to gun owners – and that is putting it mildly. US Senators are being urged by their constituents to carefully question Judge Sotomayor about her position and her rulings on cases having to do with the second amendment.
Take a look a portion of Sotomayor’s record on gun rights:
Sotomayor ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
She was part of a three-judge panel, earlier this year, which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
Fox News reported back in May (2009) that in her senior thesis at Princeton University, Sotomayor wrote that America has a “deadly obsession” with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership.
I ran across an interesting article on a site called “The Patriot’s Mind” a few days ago. The title of the piece is: “What the Media won’t tell you about Judge Sotomayor.” You will find it HERE.
(And we must not forget the new Obama Attorney General, Eric Holder, who is reportedly not, shall we say, a keen supporter of gun rights.)
Americans continue to practically run to gun shops to purchase weapons. They are buying ammunition, semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, and handguns, and shotguns. (Shotguns are a bit easier to employ for the beginner. You just point it in the general direction of your target and pull the trigger. There’s a pretty good chance you’ll get a piece of your intended target.)
The plain truth is – Americans are afraid this new government is going to disregard the constitution and take away their guns and/or make it nearly impossible for them to purchase ammunition for their weapons. That is one reason Americans are buying guns. The other is, or should be, self-explanatory.
Words from the mouth of, quite likely, the 20th century’s worst dictator, Adolph Hitler, is the most important reason Americans should never give up their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Here is what Hitler said:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
– Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
Now compare that to what Thomas Jefferson said to John Cartwright in 1824. Jefferson said:
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
When Americans survey the political landscape in Washington, DC today, one cannot escape the feeling that powers are gathering to strip Americans of a cherished right – the right to keep and bear arms.
Americans have almost instinctively understood that it was the gun that secured our freedom from Great Britain and it has been the gun that has kept us free ever since.
James Madison had this to say in The Federalist Papers, No. 46 about American’s gun rights:
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
And finally, Patrick Henry, that fiery Founding Father, had some strong words about the people resisting the abuse of power by their government. Henry said this:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
Through lips curled into a sneer Patrick Henry said this:
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all?”
Americans must, must, remember, that without the right guaranteed us by our Founding Fathers, in the 2nd Amendment, we would have NO WAY to secure all the other rights. Somewhere, along the way, over the past 233 years, we seem to have forgotten that.
We would remind all Americans that with our guns we are citizens. Without them, we will, fairly quickly, become slaves.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Americans say gun sales are up in the United States because of a fear of increased government restriction on gun ownership.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 23% say gun sales have risen because of a fear of increased crime. Twenty-one percent (21%) are not sure.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of men say the threat of more gun control is behind increased sales, compared to 51% of women. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of whites agree, while African-Americans are more closely divided on the question.
You may read the entire article from Rasmussen here.
It is good to know that 75% of Americans believe the constitution guarantees the right to own a gun. A whopping 92% of Republicans say the Constitution guarantees their right to own a gun, compared to 64% of Democrats and 71% of adults not affiliated with either of the major political parties.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.
Gun control advocates have argued that the Second Amendment refers to the arming of a militia for the common defense and is not a guarantee of an individual’s right to own a gun. The National Rifle Association and numerous political leaders, both Democrat and Republican, among others, disagree.
Now we have Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated for the US Supreme Court by President Obama, with a record on the 2nd Amendment which is troublesome to gun owners – and that is putting it mildly. US Senators are being urged by their constituents to carefully question Judge Sotomayor about her position and her rulings on cases having to do with the second amendment.
Take a look a portion of Sotomayor’s record on gun rights:
Sotomayor ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
She was part of a three-judge panel, earlier this year, which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
Fox News reported back in May (2009) that in her senior thesis at Princeton University, Sotomayor wrote that America has a “deadly obsession” with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership.
I ran across an interesting article on a site called “The Patriot’s Mind” a few days ago. The title of the piece is: “What the Media won’t tell you about Judge Sotomayor.” You will find it HERE.
(And we must not forget the new Obama Attorney General, Eric Holder, who is reportedly not, shall we say, a keen supporter of gun rights.)
Americans continue to practically run to gun shops to purchase weapons. They are buying ammunition, semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, and handguns, and shotguns. (Shotguns are a bit easier to employ for the beginner. You just point it in the general direction of your target and pull the trigger. There’s a pretty good chance you’ll get a piece of your intended target.)
The plain truth is – Americans are afraid this new government is going to disregard the constitution and take away their guns and/or make it nearly impossible for them to purchase ammunition for their weapons. That is one reason Americans are buying guns. The other is, or should be, self-explanatory.
Words from the mouth of, quite likely, the 20th century’s worst dictator, Adolph Hitler, is the most important reason Americans should never give up their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Here is what Hitler said:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
– Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
Now compare that to what Thomas Jefferson said to John Cartwright in 1824. Jefferson said:
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
When Americans survey the political landscape in Washington, DC today, one cannot escape the feeling that powers are gathering to strip Americans of a cherished right – the right to keep and bear arms.
Americans have almost instinctively understood that it was the gun that secured our freedom from Great Britain and it has been the gun that has kept us free ever since.
James Madison had this to say in The Federalist Papers, No. 46 about American’s gun rights:
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
And finally, Patrick Henry, that fiery Founding Father, had some strong words about the people resisting the abuse of power by their government. Henry said this:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
Through lips curled into a sneer Patrick Henry said this:
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all?”
Americans must, must, remember, that without the right guaranteed us by our Founding Fathers, in the 2nd Amendment, we would have NO WAY to secure all the other rights. Somewhere, along the way, over the past 233 years, we seem to have forgotten that.
We would remind all Americans that with our guns we are citizens. Without them, we will, fairly quickly, become slaves.
YouTube - Obama Health Reform and Wait Times Visualization (In Lego!)
YouTube - Obama Health Reform and Wait Times Visualization (In Lego!)
Obama Health Reform and Wait Times Visualization (In Lego!)
Video 2:10
Obama Health Reform and Wait Times Visualization (In Lego!)
Video 2:10
American Thinker: Cap Taxes, Trade Congress
American Thinker: Cap Taxes, Trade Congress
I'm all for cap ‘n trade; it's a nifty idea. Simply splendid. Positively stupendous. Brilliant beyond brilliant.
I just have a different take on the whole notion. I prefer very stringent caps on taxes and spending, coupled with a 2010 trade-in of the entire U.S. Congress.
What in holy tarnation do those people think they're getting paid to do?
While these Roman throwbacks attempt to save the planet, pagan style, so they can set up their Darwinian nirvana on earth, the rest of us have enough sense not to try to make the state our church.
While we, in the other America, use reason to guide our decisions, Nancy Pelosi actually seems to think she's the reincarnation of some pagan goddess on a mission to save the planet. She's in the service of a president she says was sent to us at this time by God, a god who she apparently likens to Zeus. If she were referring to the real, one, eternal, all-powerful God, she would know that stealing the liberties of Americans under utterly false pretences are two of the real God's Big No-nos, and would have enough fear and trembling to stay clear of this pure abomination: Waxman-Markey.
But no, no, no, Imperious Nancy serves the climate gods and their chief priest, Al Gore.
Shortly after she took over as Speaker of the House, Imperious Nancy presided over passage of an energy bill, that was itself pure abomination. Tucked into the fine print was the liberty-stealing tribute to the climate gods, the phasing out of the 125 year-old incandescent light bulb. This little tidbit from the Business and Media Institute's analysis:
The Financial Post reported in April that a broken CFL bulb cost a Maine woman more than $2,000 to clean when the state Department of Environmental Protection referred her to a cleanup company. At $5 in energy savings per bulb per month (as Davidson reported), one broken bulb could eat up 33 years' worth of savings!
Why all the fuss over a single broken light bulb? It's the poisonous mercury inside, a substance all reasonable people -- who read their 4th grade science books -- know full well is dangerous to people and their pets. But Imperious Nancy, purchaser of at least one too many face lifts, was too busy redecorating her new office, converting the House cafeteria to organic health food, ordering flower bouquets and flying back and forth to San Francisco on government private jets to bother with real science.
Judging from the looks of Henry Waxman, it's doubtful that plastic surgery has had any ill-effects upon his brain. Waxman's senses have no doubt fallen victim to 34 straight years in the United States Congress. Having been serially elected by nincompoops from now-broke California, Waxman has been held to the accountability of a slug. But, as all wise Americans know, elections do have consequences and this entire Nation is about to reap the bad seeds sown for 3-1/2 decades by those witless Californians.
As if to underscore his own pagan godhood, Henry Waxman sat in a committee hearing in May and declared to the people of these United States that he didn't even know what was in his own bill.
"Well, I certainly don't claim to know everything that's in this bill. I know that we left it to, that we relied very heavily on the scientists, the IPCC and others, and the consensus that they have that there is a problem of Global Warming, that's having an impact and that uh that we need to try to reduce it by the amounts that they think we need to achieve in order to avoid some of the consequences. That's what I know, but I don't know the details."
If this guy were a Republican, that admission would have evoked a media frenzy the likes of which haven't been seen since Butterfield dropped the Nixon-tape bomb in the Watergate Hearings.
Never, in all my born days, would I have believed that a bunch of so-called public servants in this grand republic would have the unmitigated gall to pass thousand-page bills, with enormous ramifications for every man, woman and child in America - without even so much as reading them.
These Democrat legislators are the very same folks, who decried with vociferous vengeance, mortgage contracts that were not fully spelled out and easily decipherable by a 2nd grader. Yet, they shamelessly proffer bills, with far more intricacies than any mortgage contract, for instant passage. They might as well declare that a cabal of lobbyists wrote their legislation.
While other western countries are dumping this fraudulent Global Warming scam as fast as they can, in an attempt to undo the grievous economic harm done by their own versions of Cap ‘n Trade, our Congress jumps on the climate-god bandwagon with pious pretense and brains of pure mush. Meanwhile, New England has just reported the coldest June on record, while the Global Warming hoax is revealed as a pile of pure poppycock by more real scientists every single day. This Congress and their pagan-god delusions have got to go.
Has ever a more witless group reigned from on high in such vainglorious fashion?
A simple question for us in this summer of our discontent: Which is the largest special interest group in this whole Country, with absolutely no representation in the United States Congress?
If you answered, "the American taxpayer," and you are one, then you know what must be done.
That's right.
All together now:
Throw all the bums out?
Yes, we can!
I'm all for cap ‘n trade; it's a nifty idea. Simply splendid. Positively stupendous. Brilliant beyond brilliant.
I just have a different take on the whole notion. I prefer very stringent caps on taxes and spending, coupled with a 2010 trade-in of the entire U.S. Congress.
What in holy tarnation do those people think they're getting paid to do?
While these Roman throwbacks attempt to save the planet, pagan style, so they can set up their Darwinian nirvana on earth, the rest of us have enough sense not to try to make the state our church.
While we, in the other America, use reason to guide our decisions, Nancy Pelosi actually seems to think she's the reincarnation of some pagan goddess on a mission to save the planet. She's in the service of a president she says was sent to us at this time by God, a god who she apparently likens to Zeus. If she were referring to the real, one, eternal, all-powerful God, she would know that stealing the liberties of Americans under utterly false pretences are two of the real God's Big No-nos, and would have enough fear and trembling to stay clear of this pure abomination: Waxman-Markey.
But no, no, no, Imperious Nancy serves the climate gods and their chief priest, Al Gore.
Shortly after she took over as Speaker of the House, Imperious Nancy presided over passage of an energy bill, that was itself pure abomination. Tucked into the fine print was the liberty-stealing tribute to the climate gods, the phasing out of the 125 year-old incandescent light bulb. This little tidbit from the Business and Media Institute's analysis:
The Financial Post reported in April that a broken CFL bulb cost a Maine woman more than $2,000 to clean when the state Department of Environmental Protection referred her to a cleanup company. At $5 in energy savings per bulb per month (as Davidson reported), one broken bulb could eat up 33 years' worth of savings!
Why all the fuss over a single broken light bulb? It's the poisonous mercury inside, a substance all reasonable people -- who read their 4th grade science books -- know full well is dangerous to people and their pets. But Imperious Nancy, purchaser of at least one too many face lifts, was too busy redecorating her new office, converting the House cafeteria to organic health food, ordering flower bouquets and flying back and forth to San Francisco on government private jets to bother with real science.
Judging from the looks of Henry Waxman, it's doubtful that plastic surgery has had any ill-effects upon his brain. Waxman's senses have no doubt fallen victim to 34 straight years in the United States Congress. Having been serially elected by nincompoops from now-broke California, Waxman has been held to the accountability of a slug. But, as all wise Americans know, elections do have consequences and this entire Nation is about to reap the bad seeds sown for 3-1/2 decades by those witless Californians.
As if to underscore his own pagan godhood, Henry Waxman sat in a committee hearing in May and declared to the people of these United States that he didn't even know what was in his own bill.
"Well, I certainly don't claim to know everything that's in this bill. I know that we left it to, that we relied very heavily on the scientists, the IPCC and others, and the consensus that they have that there is a problem of Global Warming, that's having an impact and that uh that we need to try to reduce it by the amounts that they think we need to achieve in order to avoid some of the consequences. That's what I know, but I don't know the details."
If this guy were a Republican, that admission would have evoked a media frenzy the likes of which haven't been seen since Butterfield dropped the Nixon-tape bomb in the Watergate Hearings.
Never, in all my born days, would I have believed that a bunch of so-called public servants in this grand republic would have the unmitigated gall to pass thousand-page bills, with enormous ramifications for every man, woman and child in America - without even so much as reading them.
These Democrat legislators are the very same folks, who decried with vociferous vengeance, mortgage contracts that were not fully spelled out and easily decipherable by a 2nd grader. Yet, they shamelessly proffer bills, with far more intricacies than any mortgage contract, for instant passage. They might as well declare that a cabal of lobbyists wrote their legislation.
While other western countries are dumping this fraudulent Global Warming scam as fast as they can, in an attempt to undo the grievous economic harm done by their own versions of Cap ‘n Trade, our Congress jumps on the climate-god bandwagon with pious pretense and brains of pure mush. Meanwhile, New England has just reported the coldest June on record, while the Global Warming hoax is revealed as a pile of pure poppycock by more real scientists every single day. This Congress and their pagan-god delusions have got to go.
Has ever a more witless group reigned from on high in such vainglorious fashion?
A simple question for us in this summer of our discontent: Which is the largest special interest group in this whole Country, with absolutely no representation in the United States Congress?
If you answered, "the American taxpayer," and you are one, then you know what must be done.
That's right.
All together now:
Throw all the bums out?
Yes, we can!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)