A frequent argument for nationalized healthcare is the comparison to auto insurance. Obamacare advocates reason that since government requires people to purchase auto insurance government can also require people to purchase health insurance. The flaws in that argument are numerous.
Compulsory auto insurance coverage is a state issue. Each state establishes minimum bodily injury and property damage liability coverage requirements as it deems appropriate. However, liability insurance provides no benefits to the policyholder beyond the transfer of risk. The auto insurance requirement serves to protect the public from catastrophic losses the insured may cause.
While auto liability is compulsory, drivers aren't required to purchase coverage that protects personal interests. The state isn't concerned with how someone replaces their vehicle or pays personal medical expenses that result from their actions.
Antagonists may counter that banks require collision coverage. But the banks aren't government. Banks are lien holders with vested interests in the collateral. Thus borrowers are required to protect their vehicles. Once loans are repaid banks have no interest in the vehicles and the insurance requirement disappears.
Whether liability or collision, the government healthcare advocate still argues that auto insurance is government mandated. This is a half truth. States require drivers to carry liability insurance as a condition of using the public roads. However, there is no actual demand on anyone to buy auto insurance. If a person chooses not to drive a motorized vehicle on the public roadways the auto insurance requirement is inapplicable.
Federally imposed health insurance isn't comparable to a state's auto liability insurance mandate. First, the federal government is forcing us--under threat of fine or possible imprisonment--to buy personal insurance from a private company. Second, you have no viable option to avoid the federal government's imposition. Everyone will be required to carry personal health insurance. Third, congress has no legitimate authority to force free people to purchase products or services no matter the perceived good or value they may bring to the individual.
The Constitution's interstate commerce and general welfare clauses (Art. 1, Sect. 8) don't provide cover for nationalized healthcare either. In Federalist #41 James Madison declares that applying those clauses to areas beyond Congress' enumerated powers is, at best, a total misconstruction. Those powers are applicable only within the authority specifically granted to the central government.
Providing individual medical care or requiring individuals to buy insurance aren't enumerated powers. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, those powers are retained by the states and the people. Via their auto insurance requirements, states have indicated that their interest lies in protecting the general public against loss incurred from an individual's negligence, not in protecting a person against their own actions. Thus health insurance and medical decisions are rights retained by the people.
No government has a vested interest in your health or health habits. Personal health is an individual responsibility with the rewards and consequences of each persons decisions borne accordingly.
What about catastrophic medical expenses? Doesn't society bear that cost for the uninsured? Yes, but only in a collectivist society. In a free society people bear their own burdens whenever possible and seek charitable assistance when necessary. Involving government inhibits individual responsibility and encourages risky behavior.
Suppose government required drivers to carry collision insurance at a government-mandated cost. The financial incentive for safe driving is reduced. While personal expense motivates responsible behavior the opposite is true when consequences are shifted to third parties.
To argue for federal healthcare mandates based on the existence of state auto liability insurance requirements is political sleight of hand. Anyone making that case is banking on public ignorance for their success.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
VID: Obama and Khalid Mansour
Percy Sutton was the attorney for the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers were recently charged with voter intimidation to get ppl to vote for Obama, but Obama had his Atty Gen. Eric Holder step in and remove all charges. Obama pays back his supporters, like he is doing for ACORN and the Unions - giving UAW OWNERSHIP in the auto industry, and all the construction, infrastructure jobs from Stimulus Bill is going to Unions!
This is fricken amazing. Obama is connected with 15-20 associates/friends/Reverends/f
This is fricken amazing. Obama is connected with 15-20 associates/friends/Reverends/f
Monday, May 17, 2010
Why Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Continue To Cost US Taxpayers Billions
Of all the companies bailed out by the federal government, mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are shaping up as the deepest money pits. A close look at their past and recent financial filings shows why their losses continue to mount.
Fannie and Freddie effectively became wards of the government in 2008. The Obama administration had promised to reveal its plans for the agencies last month, but Washington's focus on reforming the banking system pushed them to the bottom of the to-do list. Fannie and Freddie aren't mentioned in either the Senate or House financial regulatory reform bills.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner may reveal some of the administration's ideas on Tuesday when he testifies before Congress about Fannie and Freddie. But in general, the companies' troubles have drawn less attention than the rest of the financial industry. For example, unlike bonus announcements made on Wall Street, Fannie and Freddie's recent disclosures of about $40 million in executive compensation and bonuses for 2009 caused little stir on Main Street.
Together the two firms have already tapped $125 billion from government lifelines and the Congressional Budget Office predicts they ultimately will drain $380 billion. That would far exceed the final tabs for rescuing the big banks, the automakers or even insurance behemoth American International Group (AIG).
"These calls on taxpayer funds are troubling to all of us," Edward J. DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said in a letter to congressional leaders last month.
DeMarco's predecessor at the housing finance agency, Fannie and Freddie's regulator, has acknowledged that taxpayers are unlikely to ever see a full return on their investment.
Why are the two companies in such dire shape, when many large banks have been able to turn a profit even as they take huge losses from their real estate investments?
Fannie and Freddie effectively became wards of the government in 2008. The Obama administration had promised to reveal its plans for the agencies last month, but Washington's focus on reforming the banking system pushed them to the bottom of the to-do list. Fannie and Freddie aren't mentioned in either the Senate or House financial regulatory reform bills.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner may reveal some of the administration's ideas on Tuesday when he testifies before Congress about Fannie and Freddie. But in general, the companies' troubles have drawn less attention than the rest of the financial industry. For example, unlike bonus announcements made on Wall Street, Fannie and Freddie's recent disclosures of about $40 million in executive compensation and bonuses for 2009 caused little stir on Main Street.
Together the two firms have already tapped $125 billion from government lifelines and the Congressional Budget Office predicts they ultimately will drain $380 billion. That would far exceed the final tabs for rescuing the big banks, the automakers or even insurance behemoth American International Group (AIG).
"These calls on taxpayer funds are troubling to all of us," Edward J. DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said in a letter to congressional leaders last month.
DeMarco's predecessor at the housing finance agency, Fannie and Freddie's regulator, has acknowledged that taxpayers are unlikely to ever see a full return on their investment.
Why are the two companies in such dire shape, when many large banks have been able to turn a profit even as they take huge losses from their real estate investments?
The current financial mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived liberal federal policies.
This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.
The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
30 years of Republican tax policy, with an assist from Bill Clinton, is much preferable to what Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats have done and are planning to do.
I find that most people on the left have very few new or interesting ideas. An exception to this generalization is Robert Frank, whose New York Times columns are often a good read. One of his recent columns has sparked a lively debate between Frank and David Friedman at Friedman’s blog, with Tyler Cowen and David Henderson also weighing in at their blogs. (And, yes, a lot of the argument has to do with health care.)
Frank’s view is that status is very important to people and he uses that fact to make ingenious arguments for (1) a consumption tax on the rich and (2) redistribution of income. (See his book, Choosing the Right Pond, and his Congressional testimony, summarized by David Henderson here.)
Today I’m going to address the first argument. Here’s one of my bottom lines: If you agree with Frank’s argument, you’re compelled to agree that 30 years of Republican tax policy, with an assist from Bill Clinton, is much preferable to what Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats have done and are planning to do.
Frank’s Argument for a Consumption Tax on the Rich. Frank believes that wealthy people are engaged in a conspicuous consumption arms race. (And although I called him an original thinker, at least this part of his thinking harks back to the writings of Thorstein Veblen, almost a century ago.) One person builds a McMansion to demonstrate his success in life, provoking a neighbor to build an even larger one. To best his neighbor’s top-of-the-line BMW, one person buys a Ferrari. His neighbor responds, say, by acquiring an Aston Martin.
Further, a lot of the consumption of the rich is focused on “positional goods.” These goods not only convey high status, they are also fixed in supply. Examples include beachfront property, housing lots in good school districts, paintings by dead artists, vintage wines, antique automobiles, etc. As income and wealth grow, the demand for these items grows. But since supply is fixed, ever-increasing demand only leads to ever-increasing prices.
As with any arms race, everyone would be better off if they all declared a truce. Suppose everyone agreed to cut his conspicuous consumption by 50%. Then everyone could maintain his relative status while halving the cost of doing so. But getting everyone to agree would be impossible because of the huge transactions costs. So government can achieve the next best outcome by a percentage tax on the consumption of the rich. Relative status would remain the same (therefore leaving everyone’s utility the same) and the new revenue could be spent on something that benefits everyone, including the rich. Building statues to honor great economists, say. (My example, not Frank’s.)
Here are some implications of this proposal as well as my criticism:
The Rich are Different. From each other, that is. When Sam Walton was the richest man in the world, he drove a pickup truck. His neighbors didn’t even know he was rich until they read about it in Fortune. So under Frank’s proposal, the very richest person might not pay any additional taxes. The new tax would only apply to high-dollar consumption.
Implication: Saving and Investment Would Be Exempt. When Warren Buffett buys a yacht or eats an expensive meal he is benefiting Warren Buffett. But when he forgoes consumption and saves and invests he is benefitting you and me. (His capital raises our productivity and, therefore, our wage income.) Frank’s argument only applies to Buffett’s consumption. So, as in the case of Sam Walton, the vast bulk of Buffett’s income would not be taxed.
Implication: Most Positional Goods Would Be Exempt. Despite Frank’s focus on these items, positional goods are mainly goods high-income people trade back and forth among each other. Whether the price of these goods rises or falls affects particular individuals, but one man’s gain is another’s loss. A change in price has no net effect on the income, wealth, consumption or possessions of the group as a whole. Further, if we taxed the sale of collectibles and other assets we would likely reduce the amount of financial capital available to create jobs and improve productivity. So Frank’s argument realistically only applies to the purchase of newly produced consumption goods.
Has the GOP Been Listening to Frank? For the last three decades, Republican tax policy (with some interim help from Bill Clinton) has achieved two things: (1) a huge shift in the income tax burden from lower- to higher-income taxpayers and (2) a substantial decrease in taxes on capital. These two changes together imply that an ever-increasing share of government revenue is the result of taxing the consumption of higher-income families.
Although Democratic critics (including the president) have said over and over again that Republican tax policy favors the rich, truth is that virtually all income tax revenues are now coming from the top half of the income distribution. The bottom half pays almost nothing. At the same time, the top rate on capital gains and dividends is only 15% — the lowest tax on capital income in memory. Of course, the government is collecting more revenue at the lower rates (as Art Laffer might have predicted). But the entire object of the exercise has been to shift the tax system toward a tax on the consumption of higher-income families.
Contrast this with the Obama Administration, which is planning to pay for almost all of its health reform by taxing the incomes and reducing the health care consumption of people who are definitely not rich. As part of the same reform, the Administration has already imposed a Medicare payroll tax on capital income and it wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for capital gains, dividends and estates. Further, the Administration is hinting, none too subtlely, that it would like to impose a hefty consumption (VAT) tax on the entire population!
What is the Relative Importance of Relative Status? To say that status is important is one thing. (Isn’t it the theme of just about every Tom Wolfe novel?) To say it is the only thing that is important at the margin is another. My 8,000 square foot house may give me more status than a 5,000 square foot one. But it also gives me room for an indoor swimming pool, a racquetball court or a state-of-the-art home theater. If everyone were forced to go from 8,000 to 5,000, relative status would remain the same but my utility would go down because I would be forced to give up other consumption that I enjoy.
So how can we sort out and measure the relative importance of status? David Henderson has a brilliant idea. Let high-income people (and only high-income people) vote on whether to tax themselves. This avoids the transaction costs problem and gets to the heart of the matter very neatly.
Do we have any reason to believe the vote would be positive? I think not. Although a lot of high-income people voted for Barack Obama, a lot of those same people are making frequent trips to Washington to lobby against paying more taxes.
Frank’s view is that status is very important to people and he uses that fact to make ingenious arguments for (1) a consumption tax on the rich and (2) redistribution of income. (See his book, Choosing the Right Pond, and his Congressional testimony, summarized by David Henderson here.)
Today I’m going to address the first argument. Here’s one of my bottom lines: If you agree with Frank’s argument, you’re compelled to agree that 30 years of Republican tax policy, with an assist from Bill Clinton, is much preferable to what Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats have done and are planning to do.
Frank’s Argument for a Consumption Tax on the Rich. Frank believes that wealthy people are engaged in a conspicuous consumption arms race. (And although I called him an original thinker, at least this part of his thinking harks back to the writings of Thorstein Veblen, almost a century ago.) One person builds a McMansion to demonstrate his success in life, provoking a neighbor to build an even larger one. To best his neighbor’s top-of-the-line BMW, one person buys a Ferrari. His neighbor responds, say, by acquiring an Aston Martin.
Further, a lot of the consumption of the rich is focused on “positional goods.” These goods not only convey high status, they are also fixed in supply. Examples include beachfront property, housing lots in good school districts, paintings by dead artists, vintage wines, antique automobiles, etc. As income and wealth grow, the demand for these items grows. But since supply is fixed, ever-increasing demand only leads to ever-increasing prices.
As with any arms race, everyone would be better off if they all declared a truce. Suppose everyone agreed to cut his conspicuous consumption by 50%. Then everyone could maintain his relative status while halving the cost of doing so. But getting everyone to agree would be impossible because of the huge transactions costs. So government can achieve the next best outcome by a percentage tax on the consumption of the rich. Relative status would remain the same (therefore leaving everyone’s utility the same) and the new revenue could be spent on something that benefits everyone, including the rich. Building statues to honor great economists, say. (My example, not Frank’s.)
Here are some implications of this proposal as well as my criticism:
The Rich are Different. From each other, that is. When Sam Walton was the richest man in the world, he drove a pickup truck. His neighbors didn’t even know he was rich until they read about it in Fortune. So under Frank’s proposal, the very richest person might not pay any additional taxes. The new tax would only apply to high-dollar consumption.
Implication: Saving and Investment Would Be Exempt. When Warren Buffett buys a yacht or eats an expensive meal he is benefiting Warren Buffett. But when he forgoes consumption and saves and invests he is benefitting you and me. (His capital raises our productivity and, therefore, our wage income.) Frank’s argument only applies to Buffett’s consumption. So, as in the case of Sam Walton, the vast bulk of Buffett’s income would not be taxed.
Implication: Most Positional Goods Would Be Exempt. Despite Frank’s focus on these items, positional goods are mainly goods high-income people trade back and forth among each other. Whether the price of these goods rises or falls affects particular individuals, but one man’s gain is another’s loss. A change in price has no net effect on the income, wealth, consumption or possessions of the group as a whole. Further, if we taxed the sale of collectibles and other assets we would likely reduce the amount of financial capital available to create jobs and improve productivity. So Frank’s argument realistically only applies to the purchase of newly produced consumption goods.
Has the GOP Been Listening to Frank? For the last three decades, Republican tax policy (with some interim help from Bill Clinton) has achieved two things: (1) a huge shift in the income tax burden from lower- to higher-income taxpayers and (2) a substantial decrease in taxes on capital. These two changes together imply that an ever-increasing share of government revenue is the result of taxing the consumption of higher-income families.
Although Democratic critics (including the president) have said over and over again that Republican tax policy favors the rich, truth is that virtually all income tax revenues are now coming from the top half of the income distribution. The bottom half pays almost nothing. At the same time, the top rate on capital gains and dividends is only 15% — the lowest tax on capital income in memory. Of course, the government is collecting more revenue at the lower rates (as Art Laffer might have predicted). But the entire object of the exercise has been to shift the tax system toward a tax on the consumption of higher-income families.
Contrast this with the Obama Administration, which is planning to pay for almost all of its health reform by taxing the incomes and reducing the health care consumption of people who are definitely not rich. As part of the same reform, the Administration has already imposed a Medicare payroll tax on capital income and it wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for capital gains, dividends and estates. Further, the Administration is hinting, none too subtlely, that it would like to impose a hefty consumption (VAT) tax on the entire population!
What is the Relative Importance of Relative Status? To say that status is important is one thing. (Isn’t it the theme of just about every Tom Wolfe novel?) To say it is the only thing that is important at the margin is another. My 8,000 square foot house may give me more status than a 5,000 square foot one. But it also gives me room for an indoor swimming pool, a racquetball court or a state-of-the-art home theater. If everyone were forced to go from 8,000 to 5,000, relative status would remain the same but my utility would go down because I would be forced to give up other consumption that I enjoy.
So how can we sort out and measure the relative importance of status? David Henderson has a brilliant idea. Let high-income people (and only high-income people) vote on whether to tax themselves. This avoids the transaction costs problem and gets to the heart of the matter very neatly.
Do we have any reason to believe the vote would be positive? I think not. Although a lot of high-income people voted for Barack Obama, a lot of those same people are making frequent trips to Washington to lobby against paying more taxes.
Timothy P. Carney: Goldman rallies for Obama in Wall Street 'reform'
This is an odd function of government: Making Goldman Sachs feel safer in its business dealings. Blogger Ira Stoll, at his Web site The Future of Capitalism, put it well:
"It's one thing for some elderly retail depositor to ask the FDIC to protect her from risk by guaranteeing bank deposits. But the idea that the government needs to run around setting capital requirements to protect Blankfein and Cohn from the risk that their counterparties might go under or get in a liquidity crunch seems a bit odd. Let them protect themselves."
Also at play in Goldman's call for stricter capital requirements and standardization of derivatives: the confidence game. Much of America has lost some faith in the markets. Regular investors are still a bit scared of the stock market. Financial firms are lending less. Goldman thrives on free-flowing capital.
If Obama signs a financial "reform" and declares that it now safe to enter the waters of the stock market, that's good news for Goldman.
Restoring public confidence in the markets should be the job of those who profit from your investing in the market -- it should not be the job of the federal government.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Goldman-rallies-for-Obama-in-Wall-Street-_reform_-90957879.html#ixzz0oFZ3YszX
"It's one thing for some elderly retail depositor to ask the FDIC to protect her from risk by guaranteeing bank deposits. But the idea that the government needs to run around setting capital requirements to protect Blankfein and Cohn from the risk that their counterparties might go under or get in a liquidity crunch seems a bit odd. Let them protect themselves."
Also at play in Goldman's call for stricter capital requirements and standardization of derivatives: the confidence game. Much of America has lost some faith in the markets. Regular investors are still a bit scared of the stock market. Financial firms are lending less. Goldman thrives on free-flowing capital.
If Obama signs a financial "reform" and declares that it now safe to enter the waters of the stock market, that's good news for Goldman.
Restoring public confidence in the markets should be the job of those who profit from your investing in the market -- it should not be the job of the federal government.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Goldman-rallies-for-Obama-in-Wall-Street-_reform_-90957879.html#ixzz0oFZ3YszX
Friday, May 14, 2010
New Hawaii law shuns Obama birth document requests #birther
HONOLULU – It's now law in Hawaii that the state government can ignore repetitive requests for President Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle signed into law Wednesday a bill allowing state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
The law is aimed at so-called "birthers," who claim Obama is ineligible to be president. They contend the Democratic president was born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't meet a constitutional requirement for being president.
Lingle didn't elaborate on her reasons for signing the bill, but state Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino previously issued statements saying that she's seen vital records that prove Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the Health Department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
Health Department officials supported the law because the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama's birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii.
A few of those requesters file repeated inquiries seeking the same information, even after they're told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
Advocates for openness in government oppose the law because they fear it could be used to ignore legitimate requests for information.
___
The bill is SB2937.
___
Online:
Hawaii Legislature: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle signed into law Wednesday a bill allowing state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
The law is aimed at so-called "birthers," who claim Obama is ineligible to be president. They contend the Democratic president was born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't meet a constitutional requirement for being president.
Lingle didn't elaborate on her reasons for signing the bill, but state Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino previously issued statements saying that she's seen vital records that prove Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the Health Department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
Health Department officials supported the law because the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama's birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii.
A few of those requesters file repeated inquiries seeking the same information, even after they're told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
Advocates for openness in government oppose the law because they fear it could be used to ignore legitimate requests for information.
___
The bill is SB2937.
___
Online:
Hawaii Legislature: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/
Obama's Citizenship in Question #birther
Exhibit A: The Grandmother's tape
Here's the phone call where Obama's grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya.
While politicians are known for it, grandmothers seldom lie.
Exhibit B: No birth certificate
Experts have called the Certificate of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Phil Berg reported on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday, "It's clearly been altered," which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Berg added that there is no indication even on this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place. And it turns out that Hawaiian law at the time allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor's signature) up to one year from the date of the child's birth.
New Hawaii law shuns Obama birth document requests
Exhibit C: The matter of Indonesian citizenship
Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended school in Indonesia where was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam. There was also no dual citizenship at the time.
If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or she becomes an American.
Exhibit D: Travel to Pakistan
U.S. citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when Barack Obama made his visit – likely with a passport other than a U.S. passport.
Exhibit E: Immigration back to the U.S.
According to Phillip Berg on my radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama went through immigration as he re-entered the United States, he would have become "naturalized," which also would not qualify him to become President. If he did not, said Berg, there is a likelihood that he is now an illegal alien – not even eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Berg suggested there has been no evidence that Barack Obama legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro.
In addition, according to U.S. law, from "Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986," a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama's birth must be:
I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961. – Obama's paternal grandmotherThis is the link where Obama's grandmother says Barack Obama is a native Kenyan.
Here's the phone call where Obama's grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya.
While politicians are known for it, grandmothers seldom lie.
Exhibit B: No birth certificate
Experts have called the Certificate of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Phil Berg reported on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday, "It's clearly been altered," which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Berg added that there is no indication even on this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place. And it turns out that Hawaiian law at the time allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor's signature) up to one year from the date of the child's birth.
New Hawaii law shuns Obama birth document requests
Exhibit C: The matter of Indonesian citizenship
Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended school in Indonesia where was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam. There was also no dual citizenship at the time.
If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or she becomes an American.
Exhibit D: Travel to Pakistan
U.S. citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when Barack Obama made his visit – likely with a passport other than a U.S. passport.
Exhibit E: Immigration back to the U.S.
According to Phillip Berg on my radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama went through immigration as he re-entered the United States, he would have become "naturalized," which also would not qualify him to become President. If he did not, said Berg, there is a likelihood that he is now an illegal alien – not even eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Berg suggested there has been no evidence that Barack Obama legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro.
In addition, according to U.S. law, from "Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986," a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama's birth must be:
- A natural-born citizen;
- Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR
- If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Leftist Radical-Turned-Hero Brandon Darby on the G. Gordon Liddy Show
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, they have a program called the human source program, and I’m sure you’ve very aware of the informant program. And these are men and women, some of them have been in trouble and are trying to avoid charges but the vast majority are simply men and women like you and me who have discovered something or realized something bad, they brought information to the FBI and then in order to serve their country they decide to work undercover with the FBI on that matter and when they do so and their name becomes public, defense attorneys and the left have a tendency to completely try to destroy their character before they testify as to what they know and the information they hold.
And this is something that has happened throughout time and it’s something that’s happening right now and when that occurs those informants, for lack of a better term, usually end up changing their name, they usually end up very depressed or sad and they question what they’ve done because they’re attacked so heavily by the New York Times and by the other mainstream media establishment and that’s what I went through. I went through that.
Immediately every good thing I’d ever done in my life was taken away in the media, they tried to. I was a womanizer. I was a violent, gun-toting, womanizing FBI evil G-man who was trying to oppress the freedoms of others and…agent provocateur…I was accused of, still am being accused of being –this is the strangest thing— a joint Mossad-CIA-FBI hit man or operative having been trained at Quantico so I mean I’ve had these really bizarre attacks but that’s what they do.If you’d like to listen to the complete interview… [MP3 file for you to extract is at http://www.capitalresearch.org/podcast/mp3/p1272571258.mp3 or you can get it from http://feeds.radioamerica.org/loudwater/ggl/000001960_000_000000006.mp3 ]
They show up at places I go. They try to poster and threaten businesses, cafes that I go to for serving me and they do these kinds of things and initially it put me in a really bad funk. It was horrible, it was absolutely horrible to have somebody, to have the entire peace movement of the United States attacking me with the help of the mainstream media and ultimately threatening me.
So it was horrible, the threats were horrible, a lot of it was horrible, but thankfully I received a phone call from a man who had heard about me named Andrew Breitbart who I think is a wonderful, patriotic American doing a good job –he has a number of websites— and he called me and he really encouraged me to say my story and to speak out so that others can be helped and right at that time I received an email, because I have a public email account, and I received an email from a former informant who had changed his name, moved to another city, and he said, Mr. Darby I just want to thank you because hearing about you and the way that you’re handling this and the pride you’re showing and what you’ve done has really encouraged me to move back to my city and just to stand up to it, stand up for what I’ve done. And that meant a lot to me and so that’s one of the things that I really try to do now is advocate for other human sources and other people who’ve testified and tried to keep our country safe.
I really try to advocate for them and provide them a resource to say, hey, no matter what they do, don’t put your head down, don’t be afraid of these people. Just make sure you stay fit and strong, eat a lot of meat, have protein and muscle mass and make sure you can defend yourself. But definitely don’t put your head down and feel ashamed that you served your country regardless of what the mainstream media and what Hollywood and what defense attorneys and the ACLU says about you.
Darby in “Radical Awakening: From America Hater to Hero.” The article appears in the April 2010 issue of Townhall magazine and was posted here at BigGovernment with Townhall’s kind permission.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Nation's Imminent Debt Crisis Is A Matter Of Choice - Obama's
Investor's Business Daily
March 27, 2010
By Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Robbins
March 27, 2010
By Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Robbins
President Obama doesn't need the recently announced National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to figure out how to prevent the debt from rising to apocalyptic proportions and ruining America for generations to come. It's not rocket science; it's a matter of presidential priorities and choices.
If the president opts to continue with the biggest ideologically based spending spree in history - risk to the economy be damned - federal spending for 2009-2020 will as a percent of GDP increase by an enormous 23% (or more) compared to the Bush/Clinton years, the government's gross debt (public plus internal) will as a percent of GDP equal or exceed Greece's, and catastrophe will follow.
Some analysts say that America's AAA bond rating is already in jeopardy and may be lost by 2014 at the latest.
In the alternative, if the president decides not to cavalierly sacrifice America's prosperity (and standing in the world) on the altar of his own ideological ambitions, he should at the very least stop stoking the crisis. He should not deliberately pile on top of the already bursting budget his extra $4.3 trillion of optional new spending in 2011-2020.
It's not for economic recovery (that's already provided for in extra 2009 and 2010 spending), and existing social safety nets are already automatically increased for inflation and population growth.
Instead, the extra $4.3 trillion is part of the long-term cost of targeted social programs and transfer payments in the president's expanding welfare-state policy agenda for America.
About $1.6 trillion of that extra spending can be saved by stopping at the end of fiscal 2010 the long-term spending increases enacted in 2009 under the umbrella of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other similar legislation. Another $1.757 trillion of proposed new spending for refundable tax credits and other transfer payments for 2011-2020 is disguised by being buried in the "baseline" of the president's budget. And another $881 billion of spending increases in 2011-2020 is proposed by the president for an array of programs in the "mandatory" category.
If any of these spending increases is actually vital, surely it could be paid for by sacrificing a bit of the political pork that is stowed away in hundreds of underperforming federal programs already in the $40 trillion that the president plans for the federal government to spend in 2011-2020.
(When the Office of Management and Budget evaluated 900 federal programs in 2007, spending exceeded performance levels by $250 billion per year (or $2.5 trillion over a decade).
Post-recession spending restraint by the president does not mean "cutbacks." Government would still be spending at extraordinarily high and growing levels throughout the 2011-2020 decade.
Furthermore, insofar as the recession and its aftermath are concerned, the Obama administration would still be spending an astronomical, record-setting $6.7 trillion (or more) for 2009-10, including at least $850 billion on stimulus and other arguably anti-recession spending this year.
If the president goes ahead and adds his extra $4.3 trillion of spending, interest costs will increase by at least $952 billion and the public debt in 2020 will increase by at least $5.2 trillion. Public debt in 2020 will be at least 77.2% of GDP, even according to the president's own forecasts, and the gross debt of the United States will be at least 107% of GDP.
If one uses the Congressional Budget Office's more realistic forecasts of interest rates, revenues and GDP growth, adding the president's extra spending and debt is even more risky: The public debt in 2020 will be 91% of GDP. The gross debt will be 123% of GDP (compared with 115% to 125% in Greece today) and greatly in excess of the "tipping point" identified by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in their recent landmark study of worldwide data.
On the other hand, the president could decide not to put America at such great risk and, therefore, to forgo adding the additional spending and debt. In that case, the public debt would be 56% of GDP and the gross debt would be 85% (or, according to CBO data, 68% and 100%).
A step-one decision by the president to forgo spending an extra $4 trillion or so is not alone going to solve the nation's spending and debt crisis, but it would hold it down to potentially manageable proportions.
It would also be a dramatic step - like a shot heard round the world - that would give some reassurance about America's long-term financial future.
Right now, the president's fiscal credibility is low and America's future is uncertain - the question being whether the president is going to ruin the economy by continuing to run up the debt or ruin it with massive tax increases.
Christian is director and Robbins chief economist of the Center For Strategic Tax Reform.
If the president opts to continue with the biggest ideologically based spending spree in history - risk to the economy be damned - federal spending for 2009-2020 will as a percent of GDP increase by an enormous 23% (or more) compared to the Bush/Clinton years, the government's gross debt (public plus internal) will as a percent of GDP equal or exceed Greece's, and catastrophe will follow.
Some analysts say that America's AAA bond rating is already in jeopardy and may be lost by 2014 at the latest.
In the alternative, if the president decides not to cavalierly sacrifice America's prosperity (and standing in the world) on the altar of his own ideological ambitions, he should at the very least stop stoking the crisis. He should not deliberately pile on top of the already bursting budget his extra $4.3 trillion of optional new spending in 2011-2020.
It's not for economic recovery (that's already provided for in extra 2009 and 2010 spending), and existing social safety nets are already automatically increased for inflation and population growth.
Instead, the extra $4.3 trillion is part of the long-term cost of targeted social programs and transfer payments in the president's expanding welfare-state policy agenda for America.
About $1.6 trillion of that extra spending can be saved by stopping at the end of fiscal 2010 the long-term spending increases enacted in 2009 under the umbrella of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other similar legislation. Another $1.757 trillion of proposed new spending for refundable tax credits and other transfer payments for 2011-2020 is disguised by being buried in the "baseline" of the president's budget. And another $881 billion of spending increases in 2011-2020 is proposed by the president for an array of programs in the "mandatory" category.
If any of these spending increases is actually vital, surely it could be paid for by sacrificing a bit of the political pork that is stowed away in hundreds of underperforming federal programs already in the $40 trillion that the president plans for the federal government to spend in 2011-2020.
(When the Office of Management and Budget evaluated 900 federal programs in 2007, spending exceeded performance levels by $250 billion per year (or $2.5 trillion over a decade).
Post-recession spending restraint by the president does not mean "cutbacks." Government would still be spending at extraordinarily high and growing levels throughout the 2011-2020 decade.
Furthermore, insofar as the recession and its aftermath are concerned, the Obama administration would still be spending an astronomical, record-setting $6.7 trillion (or more) for 2009-10, including at least $850 billion on stimulus and other arguably anti-recession spending this year.
If the president goes ahead and adds his extra $4.3 trillion of spending, interest costs will increase by at least $952 billion and the public debt in 2020 will increase by at least $5.2 trillion. Public debt in 2020 will be at least 77.2% of GDP, even according to the president's own forecasts, and the gross debt of the United States will be at least 107% of GDP.
If one uses the Congressional Budget Office's more realistic forecasts of interest rates, revenues and GDP growth, adding the president's extra spending and debt is even more risky: The public debt in 2020 will be 91% of GDP. The gross debt will be 123% of GDP (compared with 115% to 125% in Greece today) and greatly in excess of the "tipping point" identified by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in their recent landmark study of worldwide data.
On the other hand, the president could decide not to put America at such great risk and, therefore, to forgo adding the additional spending and debt. In that case, the public debt would be 56% of GDP and the gross debt would be 85% (or, according to CBO data, 68% and 100%).
A step-one decision by the president to forgo spending an extra $4 trillion or so is not alone going to solve the nation's spending and debt crisis, but it would hold it down to potentially manageable proportions.
It would also be a dramatic step - like a shot heard round the world - that would give some reassurance about America's long-term financial future.
Right now, the president's fiscal credibility is low and America's future is uncertain - the question being whether the president is going to ruin the economy by continuing to run up the debt or ruin it with massive tax increases.
Christian is director and Robbins chief economist of the Center For Strategic Tax Reform.
My God...Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme.
It’s time to stop mincing words. Obama is not a fool. He is not incompetent. He is not a madman. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis, and social chaos- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. But the bonus is brilliant…as he destroys and taxes to death business owners, he also cripples his political opposition.
Rahm Emanuel cynically said, “You never want a crisis to go to waste.” It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Obama’s Presidency. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Obama’s Columbia University. In 1966, they outlined a plan to socialize America by OVERWHELMING the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to overwhelm the system, wreck the U.S. economy, damage or destroy the free market, in order to turn the U.S. into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival.
*Universal healthcare. The healthcare bill had very little to do with healthcare. It had everything to do with adding millions of new union and government employees (sixteen thousand new IRS agents) feeding at the public trough. Obama doesn’t care that giving free healthcare to 30 million Americans will add TRILLIONS to the national debt. Or that not one new doctor was added to the system, thereby causing a healthcare crisis. What he does care about is that it overwhelms the system and cements the dependence and loyalty of those 30 million voters to Obama and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? Why risk destroying the economy on a reckless, unproven scheme? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Cap and trade. Like healthcare legislation having nothing to do with healthcare, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with overwhelming the system, redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to unions and Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE who owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything and anything Obama wants. They will kick back hundreds of millions in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.” Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless tax and spending bill in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? Why risk destroying the economy on a reckless, unproven scheme? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Certainly not the Puerto Ricans, who have repeatedly voted against it, and certainly not American taxpayers. Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? But this has been Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat Senators, five Democrat Congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this reckless scheme in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free healthcare alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But hey...it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters- who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Card check. This disastrous bill creates more union employees EVERYWHERE- all of them Democratic voters. More union employees mean more union dues and hundreds of millions of new dollars to spend on campaign contributions to Democrats. Who cares that it will damage the capitalist system? Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this scheme in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer-- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Stimulus & Bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions- including billions of dollars to save the jobs of government employees across the country, and billions more to hire new government employees. It went to save GM and Chrysler, so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1,000,000 in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby saving their union dues to teachers unions). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. And their union dues will be forwarded directly to Obama and Democrat politicians. All while the private sector is melting down. Pretty soon a government job will be the only game in town. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means. OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Spend trillions on bailouts. Who needs welfare mothers, when you can addict America’s largest companies on welfare? These companies are now beholden to Democrat politicians and therefore powerless to criticize anything Obama does. The trillions to GM, Chrysler, AIG will never be paid back. But, that’s no concern to a socialist revolutionary who wants to destroy capitalism, control business, and OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
*Raise taxes ONLY on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on 10% of the population, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing (except vote for Obama). Why? Because such a plan destroys the group that contributes the most money to fiscally conservative politicians and causes. Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to “starve the beast” (by cutting off funds for government). Obama wants to starve his political opposition by taxing them to death. OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by OVERWHELMING THE SYSTEM.
My God...Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme.
Only one thing stands in their way – you and me, the American taxpayers. If we want to save the greatest country and economic system in world history, we had better get busy. We had better fight back hard. Our children and grandchildren’s futures are at stake. And please don't assume the GOP is the answer. They had their chance. Bush spent irresponsibly; Bush never vetoed a single spending bill; Bush supported bailouts, earmarks and stimulus; Bush was responsible for the Medicare expansion; Bush spent a trillion dollars on two never-ending wars; Bush was the disaster that opened the door for Obama.
The answer is to support true fiscal conservatives who understand that national debt is the real global threat to our survival. Libertarians who truly support economic freedom are the real Tea Party candidates who want to truly change "business as usual" in Washington D.C. Libertarians don’t just talk the talk- we walk the walk. On November 2nd let's throw every incumbent in Congress out (with a few exceptions like Ron Paul)...and if the new class let's us down...let's throw them all out again in 2012. Eventually they'll get the message- the citizens are in charge.
Monday, May 10, 2010
"Content...which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter"- Obama: Do you mean like your compaign?
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," - Obama
Obama's campaign had a huge presence on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, using 24/7 media to reach his army of supporters at a moment's notice. The Black Eyes Peas' 'Will.I.Am' cut a music video in his honor that tore through YouTube.
Obama's campaign had a huge presence on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, using 24/7 media to reach his army of supporters at a moment's notice. The Black Eyes Peas' 'Will.I.Am' cut a music video in his honor that tore through YouTube.
Obama Lies: An Epic Technology Hypocrite #obamafail
PRESIDENT LASHES OUT AT MEDIA WORLD; IPADS, XBOXES, RUMORS...
BUT HOOKED ON CRACKBERRY...
BUT He told The Associated Press after Michael Jackson died that "I still have all his stuff on my iPod."
BUT He once found the iPod a device befitting royalty. He gave one to Queen Elizabeth II as a gift when he visited London last spring.
BUT his campaign had a huge presence on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, using 24/7 media to reach his army of supporters at a moment's notice.
BUT HOOKED ON CRACKBERRY...
BUT He told The Associated Press after Michael Jackson died that "I still have all his stuff on my iPod."
BUT He once found the iPod a device befitting royalty. He gave one to Queen Elizabeth II as a gift when he visited London last spring.
BUT his campaign had a huge presence on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, using 24/7 media to reach his army of supporters at a moment's notice.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Consitutional Formation of Air Force and Marines Corps are Rights we Delegate to Congress
Rights vs. Wishes
We hear so much about "rights" -- a right to this and a righealth care, food and a decent job, and more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.
We hear so much about "rights" -- a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food and a decent job, and more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it. At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from?
If you said "From some other American," go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings.
Let's apply this bogus concept of rights to free speech and the right to travel freely. If we were to apply it to my right to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, "Williams, yes you have rights to free speech and travel rights, but I'm not obligated to pay for them!"
As human beings, we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us."
By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government. If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft -- the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote.
Decent housing, good medical care and decent jobs are not rights at all, at least not in a free society -- they're wishes. As such, I'd agree with most Americans because I also wish that everyone had decent housing, a high paying job and good medical care.
The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution
To mollify Alexander Hamilton's and James Madison's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Ninth Amendment was added that reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In essence, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our G-d-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the Ninth saying, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." That means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the states of the people.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean absolutely nothing today as Americans have developed a level of naive trust for Congress, the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court that would have astonished the founders, a trust that will lead to our undoing as a great nation.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean absolutely nothing today as Americans have developed a level of naive trust for Congress, the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court that would have astonished the founders, a trust that will lead to our undoing as a great nation.
The Marines, the Coast Guard, and the Constitution
Is the Coast Guard constitutional? The answer to that strikes me as simple — the Coast Guard is a naval force, and as such is well within Congress's power to "provide and maintain a Navy." That Congress may choose to break the Navy down into two departments under two different heads is not, I think, a problem: Both of them, put together, would constitute the constitutionally sanctioned Navy.
The tougher conceptual question is whether the Marines can constitutionally be considered part of the constitutionally specified Navy (whether or not they are part of a federal agency labeled the Navy), or must be seen as falling under the constitutional head of "Armies." In either event they'd be constitutional, but if they are treated under the head of "Armies," then they'd have to be funded using appropriations that are for no longer than two years; if they are treated under the head of "Navy," they can be funded under unlimited-length appropriations. Recall that the relevant Congressional powers are:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy.
I don't know the answer, but I thought I'd flag the question (recognizing that it is of little practical importance, especially these days).
UPDATE: Some comments point out the long history of the Marines as a branch of the Navy, stemming from the Marines' having historically been sea-borne troops.
Nonetheless, the reason for my question is that today (as I understand it), the Marines often operate well away from all coasts, and are functionally a land fighting force.
My (somewhat vague) recollection is that the constitutional distinction between armies and the navy stems from the fact that Englishmen of the time -- including the American variety -- saw land-based forces as much more dangerous to domestic liberty than sea-based forces, and sea-based forces as much more important to day-to-day national defense. That's also why there was lots of concern about a standing army, but not about a standing navy. Modern Marines are in this respect at least potentially more like "armies" than like the "navy"; that's why the question I pose is theoretically nontrivial.
The tougher conceptual question is whether the Marines can constitutionally be considered part of the constitutionally specified Navy (whether or not they are part of a federal agency labeled the Navy), or must be seen as falling under the constitutional head of "Armies." In either event they'd be constitutional, but if they are treated under the head of "Armies," then they'd have to be funded using appropriations that are for no longer than two years; if they are treated under the head of "Navy," they can be funded under unlimited-length appropriations. Recall that the relevant Congressional powers are:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy.
I don't know the answer, but I thought I'd flag the question (recognizing that it is of little practical importance, especially these days).
UPDATE: Some comments point out the long history of the Marines as a branch of the Navy, stemming from the Marines' having historically been sea-borne troops.
Nonetheless, the reason for my question is that today (as I understand it), the Marines often operate well away from all coasts, and are functionally a land fighting force.
My (somewhat vague) recollection is that the constitutional distinction between armies and the navy stems from the fact that Englishmen of the time -- including the American variety -- saw land-based forces as much more dangerous to domestic liberty than sea-based forces, and sea-based forces as much more important to day-to-day national defense. That's also why there was lots of concern about a standing army, but not about a standing navy. Modern Marines are in this respect at least potentially more like "armies" than like the "navy"; that's why the question I pose is theoretically nontrivial.
The Air Force and the Constitution
One argument that is often made against originalist and textualist approaches to constitutional interpretation is the claim that they would render the Air Force unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution seems to give Congress the authority to creat an Army and Navy, but not an Air Force. It grants Congress the following relevant powers:
To raise and support Armies .....;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Citing this text, critics of textualism and originalism claim that the Air Force must be considered unconstitutional under these theories of interpretation. I think there are at least two compelling answers to this claim:
1. At most, the argument suggests that it is unconstitutional to have an independent air force. But air forces that are part of the Army and Navy are surely permissible. That is in fact the arrangement we had during WWII, and could go back to again. The mere fact that planes are a new technology that flies through the air surely does not forbid their use by the military, even under a very narrow view of textualism. Planes that fly through the air are no more constitutionally problematic than bullets that fly through the air, or balloons (whose military use was contemplated even at the time of the Founding).
2. Even an independent air force could potentially be justified by the Necessary and Proper Clause. If, under modern conditions, it really is militarily important to have an independent air service (a point I don't express any opinion on), then the creation of an independent air fo
To raise and support Armies .....;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Citing this text, critics of textualism and originalism claim that the Air Force must be considered unconstitutional under these theories of interpretation. I think there are at least two compelling answers to this claim:
1. At most, the argument suggests that it is unconstitutional to have an independent air force. But air forces that are part of the Army and Navy are surely permissible. That is in fact the arrangement we had during WWII, and could go back to again. The mere fact that planes are a new technology that flies through the air surely does not forbid their use by the military, even under a very narrow view of textualism. Planes that fly through the air are no more constitutionally problematic than bullets that fly through the air, or balloons (whose military use was contemplated even at the time of the Founding).
2. Even an independent air force could potentially be justified by the Necessary and Proper Clause. If, under modern conditions, it really is militarily important to have an independent air service (a point I don't express any opinion on), then the creation of an independent air fo
Interpreting the Constitution Contextually
What Is Ignored
Both conservative and liberal constitutionalism, in short, ignore essential principles of the Constitution, principles that are stated clearly and explicitly in the document itself. The conservatives' chief blind spot is the Ninth Amendment (see sidebar for this and other constitutional passages), which was intended by the Founders not only to protect unenumerated rights but also to ensure that rights provisions generally be interpreted as broadly as possible. Conservatives also tend to overlook, or to interpret too narrowly, the many provisions in the Constitution—particularly the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments—that explicitly protect property and liberty rights in all their aspects, including the so-called right to privacy and other rights of personal autonomy.
Left-liberals, on the other hand, are blind to the Ninth Amendment's companion provision in the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, which affirms a fundamental feature of the Constitution: that it creates a national government of limited, enumerated powers. By dismissing the Tenth Amendment as stating a mere truism, as the Supreme Court did in its 1941 decision in United States v. Darby, liberal constitutionalism not only ignores the importance of the Amendment (which Thomas Jefferson regarded as the foundation of the Constitution) but also tends to render meaningless the Framers' carefully crafted list of Congress's legislative powers in Article I of the Constitution. Liberal constitutionalism thus overlooks the mandate of the Tenth Amendment, which was meant not merely to protect federalism but also to ensure that the power-granting clauses of the Constitution be interpreted narrowly, in light of the document's enumerated-powers scheme.
Even in the aspects of their jurisprudence that are most faithful to the Constitution, conservatives and liberals fail to appreciate fully its key principles. Conservatives, although they are correct to criticize left-liberals' blindness to the Tenth Amendment, have their own blindness to the Amendment, which they tend to see as limited to the protection of federalism or, even more narrowly, to the protection of "states' rights." Not only is that concept misleading—only individuals truly have rights; states have powers—but it also misses the real significance of the Tenth Amendment. That Amendment should be regarded as a basic rule of interpretation. Yes, as conservatives say, it is intended to limit the scope of the national government's powers and to protect the legitimate powers of state governments—but it is also intended to protect the rights of individuals. Conservatives miss the latter fact because they ignore the last four words of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the national government either to the states "or to the people."
Left-liberals, on the other hand, while generally correct in their criticism of conservatives' unduly narrow view of individual rights, are themselves guilty of inconsistency and subjectivity in their regard for rights. A common criticism of liberal constitutionalism, and one that is entirely justified, regards its "double standard." Certain rights are given a preferential status—for example, the First Amendment's freedom of speech and the Fourteenth Amendment's right to "equal protection of the laws" (as applied to racially discriminatory acts of government). These are regarded as fundamental rights and as protected by a strict-scrutiny standard that requires a showing of "compelling" governmental needs to override them. Other rights—such as the property and economic-liberty rights of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments or the Second Amendment's right to firearms—are given lesser protection or are ignored altogether. Left-liberals do acknowledge an important implication of the Ninth Amendment—that courts should recognize the existence of unenumerated constitutional rights—but they are biased in favor of certain unenumerated rights, such as the so-called right to privacy. They reject other legitimate rights, such as those aspects of property rights and economic-liberty rights that courts in the early twentieth century protected under the rubric of "liberty of contract." By their selectivity, left-liberals fuel the conservatives' accusation that liberal judicial activism undermines the rule of law and replaces neutral, objective standards of constitutional interpretation with the subjective preferences of individual judges. As former attorney general Edwin Meese said, theirs is a "chameleon jurisprudence, changing color and form in each era."
When it comes to the mainstream debate over constitutional interpretation, therefore, modern Americans are faced with a catch-22: If they wish to avoid the dangers of liberal judicial activism, they must choose a conservative theory of strict construction, but under that theory they lose protection for certain kinds of rights. If they wish to avoid the dangers of crabbed conservatism, they must opt for the left-liberals' loose construction, but under that theory they lose meaningful limits on federal powers (as well as losing some other kinds of rights). Neither choice is acceptable to those who value individual liberty in all its aspects—economic freedoms as well as personal freedoms—and who value limited government.
Both conservative and liberal constitutionalism, in short, ignore essential principles of the Constitution, principles that are stated clearly and explicitly in the document itself. The conservatives' chief blind spot is the Ninth Amendment (see sidebar for this and other constitutional passages), which was intended by the Founders not only to protect unenumerated rights but also to ensure that rights provisions generally be interpreted as broadly as possible. Conservatives also tend to overlook, or to interpret too narrowly, the many provisions in the Constitution—particularly the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments—that explicitly protect property and liberty rights in all their aspects, including the so-called right to privacy and other rights of personal autonomy.
Left-liberals, on the other hand, are blind to the Ninth Amendment's companion provision in the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, which affirms a fundamental feature of the Constitution: that it creates a national government of limited, enumerated powers. By dismissing the Tenth Amendment as stating a mere truism, as the Supreme Court did in its 1941 decision in United States v. Darby, liberal constitutionalism not only ignores the importance of the Amendment (which Thomas Jefferson regarded as the foundation of the Constitution) but also tends to render meaningless the Framers' carefully crafted list of Congress's legislative powers in Article I of the Constitution. Liberal constitutionalism thus overlooks the mandate of the Tenth Amendment, which was meant not merely to protect federalism but also to ensure that the power-granting clauses of the Constitution be interpreted narrowly, in light of the document's enumerated-powers scheme.
Even in the aspects of their jurisprudence that are most faithful to the Constitution, conservatives and liberals fail to appreciate fully its key principles. Conservatives, although they are correct to criticize left-liberals' blindness to the Tenth Amendment, have their own blindness to the Amendment, which they tend to see as limited to the protection of federalism or, even more narrowly, to the protection of "states' rights." Not only is that concept misleading—only individuals truly have rights; states have powers—but it also misses the real significance of the Tenth Amendment. That Amendment should be regarded as a basic rule of interpretation. Yes, as conservatives say, it is intended to limit the scope of the national government's powers and to protect the legitimate powers of state governments—but it is also intended to protect the rights of individuals. Conservatives miss the latter fact because they ignore the last four words of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the national government either to the states "or to the people."
Left-liberals, on the other hand, while generally correct in their criticism of conservatives' unduly narrow view of individual rights, are themselves guilty of inconsistency and subjectivity in their regard for rights. A common criticism of liberal constitutionalism, and one that is entirely justified, regards its "double standard." Certain rights are given a preferential status—for example, the First Amendment's freedom of speech and the Fourteenth Amendment's right to "equal protection of the laws" (as applied to racially discriminatory acts of government). These are regarded as fundamental rights and as protected by a strict-scrutiny standard that requires a showing of "compelling" governmental needs to override them. Other rights—such as the property and economic-liberty rights of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments or the Second Amendment's right to firearms—are given lesser protection or are ignored altogether. Left-liberals do acknowledge an important implication of the Ninth Amendment—that courts should recognize the existence of unenumerated constitutional rights—but they are biased in favor of certain unenumerated rights, such as the so-called right to privacy. They reject other legitimate rights, such as those aspects of property rights and economic-liberty rights that courts in the early twentieth century protected under the rubric of "liberty of contract." By their selectivity, left-liberals fuel the conservatives' accusation that liberal judicial activism undermines the rule of law and replaces neutral, objective standards of constitutional interpretation with the subjective preferences of individual judges. As former attorney general Edwin Meese said, theirs is a "chameleon jurisprudence, changing color and form in each era."
When it comes to the mainstream debate over constitutional interpretation, therefore, modern Americans are faced with a catch-22: If they wish to avoid the dangers of liberal judicial activism, they must choose a conservative theory of strict construction, but under that theory they lose protection for certain kinds of rights. If they wish to avoid the dangers of crabbed conservatism, they must opt for the left-liberals' loose construction, but under that theory they lose meaningful limits on federal powers (as well as losing some other kinds of rights). Neither choice is acceptable to those who value individual liberty in all its aspects—economic freedoms as well as personal freedoms—and who value limited government.
The Census and the Constitution
What to do? Unless a census taker can show me a constitutional requirement, the only information I plan to give are the number and names of the people in my household. The census taker might say, "It's the law." Thomas Jefferson said, "Whensoever the General Government (Washington) assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Aw Shucks MSNBC, The Times Square Bomber was Another Islamic Terrorist and not #Teaparty!
MSNBC's Contessa Brewer 'Frustrated' That Times Square Bomber Is a Muslim
MSNBC host Contessa Brewer appeared on the liberal Stephanie Miller radio show on Tuesday and lamented the fact that the person arrested for the attempted Times Square bombing is a Pakistani American. She complained, "I get frustrated...There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country." [Audio available here.]
Brewer continued, "...There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry."
The News live host didn't explain which ethnicity or religion she had been hoping the bomber would have been affiliated with. She did defensively mention members of a Michigan militia group arrested in March and asserted that they were "from far different backgrounds than what this guy is coming from."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/05/04/msnbcs-contessa-brewer-frustrated-times-square-bomber-muslim-0#ixzz0n1XYrcok
MSNBC host Contessa Brewer appeared on the liberal Stephanie Miller radio show on Tuesday and lamented the fact that the person arrested for the attempted Times Square bombing is a Pakistani American. She complained, "I get frustrated...There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country." [Audio available here.]
Brewer continued, "...There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry."
The News live host didn't explain which ethnicity or religion she had been hoping the bomber would have been affiliated with. She did defensively mention members of a Michigan militia group arrested in March and asserted that they were "from far different backgrounds than what this guy is coming from."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/05/04/msnbcs-contessa-brewer-frustrated-times-square-bomber-muslim-0#ixzz0n1XYrcok
VID: Why isn't the left calling the Mexicans terrorists?
All over the lamestream media you protests of a few thousand Illegal Mexicans who don't like the fact that the majority of Americans dont want them here.
Why are they covering a few thousand Illegal Mexicans but not 2 MILLION Tea Party protests by United States Citizens that pay taxes!
Notice the Tea Party protests were peaceful and the Mexicans protesting are violent..lol Why aren't the left calling the Mexicans terrorists?
Its really odd all the coverage considering the Tea Party 2 MILLION man march got basically no coverage except Fox.
Why are they covering a few thousand Illegal Mexicans but not 2 MILLION Tea Party protests by United States Citizens that pay taxes!
Notice the Tea Party protests were peaceful and the Mexicans protesting are violent..lol Why aren't the left calling the Mexicans terrorists?
Its really odd all the coverage considering the Tea Party 2 MILLION man march got basically no coverage except Fox.
They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty
The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!
Against all this frenzy of agitation there is but one weapon available: reason. Just common sense is needed to prevent man from falling prey to illusory fantasies and empty catchwords.
Against all this frenzy of agitation there is but one weapon available: reason. Just common sense is needed to prevent man from falling prey to illusory fantasies and empty catchwords.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
"Producing Papers" is Lethal to Democrat Ability to Win Elections #teaparty
RUSH: Byron York today has an opinion piece that is excellent in the DC Examiner, and it's a takeoff, it's a reaction to a Michael Gerson column that ran in the Washington Post. Here's Byron York: "In the Washington Post, columnist and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson pronounces the new Arizona immigration law 'understandable -- and dreadful.' Gerson says states do not have the authority 'to take control of American immigration policy -- an authority that Arizona has seized in order to abuse.' The effect of the new law, he argues, will be bad for everybody: It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny -- but it also makes it harder for some American citizens to live without suspicion and humiliation. Americans are not accustomed to the command 'Your papers, please,' however politely delivered. The distinctly American response to such a request would be 'Go to hell,' and then 'See you in court.'
"Which leads to the question: What America is Gerson living in? No, we are not confronted by actors with heavy German accents demanding our papers. We are instead confronted routinely by people of all stripes asking to see our driver's license. When we board an airplane, we are asked to produce a government-issued photo ID, usually a driver's license. When we make some credit- or debit-card purchases in department stores, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we enter many office buildings, both private and government, security guards often ask us to produce a driver's license. When we go to doctors' offices and hospitals, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we check into hotels, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we purchase some over-the-counter drugs, we are asked to produce a driver's license. If we go to a bar or nightclub, anyone who looks at all young is asked to produce a driver's license. And needless to say, if we have any encounter with police or other authorities, we are asked to produce a driver's license. Some situations involve an even higher level of scrutiny. When we get a new job, we are asked to provide not a driver's license but a passport or birth certificate to prove citizenship. In other situations, too: When I renewed my District of Columbia driver's license last year, I had to produce a passport to prove citizenship, even though it was a valid, unexpired license I was renewing. And in many places, buying a gun -- a constitutionally-protected right -- involves enormous scrutiny."
By the way, I can personally attest to this driver's license business. I had to go get mine renewed. There were three forms of documentation required. A tax return, a passport, I forget what the other one was, and without all three you didn't get your renewal, even though mine had not expired, my picture was on the expiring license. It was a level of scrutiny I have never faced in getting a driver's license before. (interruption) Well, yeah, I was upset by it, of course I was upset by it because it was silly. And yet it was there. "Has Michael Gerson never experienced any of those situations? And by the way, has he read the Arizona law? Does he know that it specifically states that in any encounter with police, when a person produces a valid Arizona driver's license (or, for non-drivers, other forms of ID listed in the law), that person is immediately presumed to be in the United States legally? Given all the situations listed above, can anyone argue that being asked to produce a driver's license, if one is in some sort of encounter with police in which police are acting lawfully (that is also specified by the new law) is overly burdensome? Being asked to produce identification is a burden that falls on everyone," and now all of a sudden it's racist.
It is racist to ask people who may be here illegally to prove that they are here legally? We have to produce a lot of this identification, by the way, especially when we get a job because of illegal aliens. Can I be clear about this? You go apply for a job and you have to prove that you're a citizen because of the influx of illegals. We aren't used to being asked for our papers? "Our papers, please." About the only time we aren't asked for identification, my friends -- I've gone through everything Byron York said here, I agree with it -- about the only time we're not asked for ID is when we vote. We are asked for our papers. We are asked to prove who we are constantly, multiple times a day, and yet somehow it is racist to do this in Arizona. And the president of the United States may move to undo the immigration law. This is how the regime does things.
"Which leads to the question: What America is Gerson living in? No, we are not confronted by actors with heavy German accents demanding our papers. We are instead confronted routinely by people of all stripes asking to see our driver's license. When we board an airplane, we are asked to produce a government-issued photo ID, usually a driver's license. When we make some credit- or debit-card purchases in department stores, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we enter many office buildings, both private and government, security guards often ask us to produce a driver's license. When we go to doctors' offices and hospitals, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we check into hotels, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we purchase some over-the-counter drugs, we are asked to produce a driver's license. If we go to a bar or nightclub, anyone who looks at all young is asked to produce a driver's license. And needless to say, if we have any encounter with police or other authorities, we are asked to produce a driver's license. Some situations involve an even higher level of scrutiny. When we get a new job, we are asked to provide not a driver's license but a passport or birth certificate to prove citizenship. In other situations, too: When I renewed my District of Columbia driver's license last year, I had to produce a passport to prove citizenship, even though it was a valid, unexpired license I was renewing. And in many places, buying a gun -- a constitutionally-protected right -- involves enormous scrutiny."
By the way, I can personally attest to this driver's license business. I had to go get mine renewed. There were three forms of documentation required. A tax return, a passport, I forget what the other one was, and without all three you didn't get your renewal, even though mine had not expired, my picture was on the expiring license. It was a level of scrutiny I have never faced in getting a driver's license before. (interruption) Well, yeah, I was upset by it, of course I was upset by it because it was silly. And yet it was there. "Has Michael Gerson never experienced any of those situations? And by the way, has he read the Arizona law? Does he know that it specifically states that in any encounter with police, when a person produces a valid Arizona driver's license (or, for non-drivers, other forms of ID listed in the law), that person is immediately presumed to be in the United States legally? Given all the situations listed above, can anyone argue that being asked to produce a driver's license, if one is in some sort of encounter with police in which police are acting lawfully (that is also specified by the new law) is overly burdensome? Being asked to produce identification is a burden that falls on everyone," and now all of a sudden it's racist.
It is racist to ask people who may be here illegally to prove that they are here legally? We have to produce a lot of this identification, by the way, especially when we get a job because of illegal aliens. Can I be clear about this? You go apply for a job and you have to prove that you're a citizen because of the influx of illegals. We aren't used to being asked for our papers? "Our papers, please." About the only time we aren't asked for identification, my friends -- I've gone through everything Byron York said here, I agree with it -- about the only time we're not asked for ID is when we vote. We are asked for our papers. We are asked to prove who we are constantly, multiple times a day, and yet somehow it is racist to do this in Arizona. And the president of the United States may move to undo the immigration law. This is how the regime does things.
Mexicans are Hypocrites along with their president Felipe Calderon
If you were caught living in Mexico illegally..you'd get your head chopped off
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Why I Regret Voting For President Obama
Why I Regret Voting For President Obama
By Jill Dorson
I am a registered Independent. I voted for Barack Obama. And for that, I am sorry.
I'm not sorry for you. I'm sorry for me. Because I voted for Obama for me, not for you. I voted for hope and change and all the intangibles that Obama was peddling in the wake of the financial crisis, Sarah Palin, Sept. 11 and all the other ills that shook our country in the last decade. I wanted something new. Something different. What I got was, I suppose, exactly what I voted for - a spin doctor. And not a very good one at that.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
Jill Dorson RealClearPolitics
Barack Obama John McCain
Before John McCain unwittingly picked a tabloid-magazine cover girl for his running mate, I was leaning toward going Republican this time around. I did the second time Bush was on the ballot and I very nearly did the first time, too. But as soon as Palin climbed out of her igloo and onto the national scene, well, there was no turning back for me.
You see, I felt my choice was to risk McCain dropping dead and letting the world's most well-known hockey mom run this country, or to believe that Obama would surround himself with educated people and that he was smart enough to take their advice.
I was right. He is smart enough to seek counsel. I'm just outraged at the counsel he's seeking these days. Key financial leaders who are tax cheats come immediately to mind, but as the recent terror attack made clear to me, the idea that a president of the most powerful nation in the world could think it was OK to have a Homeland Security chief with such a loose grasp of what terrorism is and how it works is troubling.
I was right there laughing when George W. Bush struggled with the names of countries around the world early in his tenure. And while my knowledge of foreign policy is limited, I thought Bush's was lousy, too. But after Sept. 11, I saw a man with no charisma step up and fight for this country, its citizens and its freedom. Bush became a leader.
Seven years later, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma. Obama was so convincing that I stopped caring about what he knew and started getting caught up in the euphoria. Imagine having a president who came from a broken home, who had money troubles, who did grass-roots community service? A young father. The first black president. It pains me to admit I got caught up in the hoopla.
But McCain made it easy. He's a smart man, I don't doubt that. But between picking Palin, suggesting that the first debates be delayed and, well, picking Palin, he made it easy for Obama to win. As Election Day drew near, all Obama had to do was keep his mouth shut to win.
All that changed when the Obama campaign became the Obama administration. I was a small business owner during 2008 election and my business ultimately failed under the weight of a horrendous economy. I am not ashamed. I worked hard. But I believed that Obama would try to level the playing field between big business and small, between thieves and honest business people, between greed and moderation. Instead, he bailed out the most wicked and left the rest of us fail.
I watched with horror as Obama followed Bush's lead in bailing out banks, auto makers, insurance companies, all of those companies deemed "too big to fail." What does that mean? My small company got thrown under the bus and my savings were ravaged - perhaps Wall Street is using them for bonuses this year.
Not to mention President Obama is recklessly spending our country's future into oblivion.
It was clear after just 90 days what a mistake I'd made. My taxes have gone up and my quality of life has gone down. Hope has given way to disgust and I see now that change is simply a euphemism for "big government."
Like many others, my view is narrow. I vote for the candidate I think will be best for me. I often define myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. But above all, I want to feel safe and I don't want to feel that I am being ripped off. I want a president who inspires me and cares about my contribution to the fabric of the country. I want a president with experience and savvy, a Commander in Chief who puts our country and its citizens first.
I only hope the Republicans can find him the next time around.
By Jill Dorson
I am a registered Independent. I voted for Barack Obama. And for that, I am sorry.
I'm not sorry for you. I'm sorry for me. Because I voted for Obama for me, not for you. I voted for hope and change and all the intangibles that Obama was peddling in the wake of the financial crisis, Sarah Palin, Sept. 11 and all the other ills that shook our country in the last decade. I wanted something new. Something different. What I got was, I suppose, exactly what I voted for - a spin doctor. And not a very good one at that.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
Jill Dorson RealClearPolitics
Barack Obama John McCain
Before John McCain unwittingly picked a tabloid-magazine cover girl for his running mate, I was leaning toward going Republican this time around. I did the second time Bush was on the ballot and I very nearly did the first time, too. But as soon as Palin climbed out of her igloo and onto the national scene, well, there was no turning back for me.
You see, I felt my choice was to risk McCain dropping dead and letting the world's most well-known hockey mom run this country, or to believe that Obama would surround himself with educated people and that he was smart enough to take their advice.
I was right. He is smart enough to seek counsel. I'm just outraged at the counsel he's seeking these days. Key financial leaders who are tax cheats come immediately to mind, but as the recent terror attack made clear to me, the idea that a president of the most powerful nation in the world could think it was OK to have a Homeland Security chief with such a loose grasp of what terrorism is and how it works is troubling.
I was right there laughing when George W. Bush struggled with the names of countries around the world early in his tenure. And while my knowledge of foreign policy is limited, I thought Bush's was lousy, too. But after Sept. 11, I saw a man with no charisma step up and fight for this country, its citizens and its freedom. Bush became a leader.
Seven years later, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma. Obama was so convincing that I stopped caring about what he knew and started getting caught up in the euphoria. Imagine having a president who came from a broken home, who had money troubles, who did grass-roots community service? A young father. The first black president. It pains me to admit I got caught up in the hoopla.
But McCain made it easy. He's a smart man, I don't doubt that. But between picking Palin, suggesting that the first debates be delayed and, well, picking Palin, he made it easy for Obama to win. As Election Day drew near, all Obama had to do was keep his mouth shut to win.
All that changed when the Obama campaign became the Obama administration. I was a small business owner during 2008 election and my business ultimately failed under the weight of a horrendous economy. I am not ashamed. I worked hard. But I believed that Obama would try to level the playing field between big business and small, between thieves and honest business people, between greed and moderation. Instead, he bailed out the most wicked and left the rest of us fail.
I watched with horror as Obama followed Bush's lead in bailing out banks, auto makers, insurance companies, all of those companies deemed "too big to fail." What does that mean? My small company got thrown under the bus and my savings were ravaged - perhaps Wall Street is using them for bonuses this year.
Not to mention President Obama is recklessly spending our country's future into oblivion.
It was clear after just 90 days what a mistake I'd made. My taxes have gone up and my quality of life has gone down. Hope has given way to disgust and I see now that change is simply a euphemism for "big government."
Like many others, my view is narrow. I vote for the candidate I think will be best for me. I often define myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. But above all, I want to feel safe and I don't want to feel that I am being ripped off. I want a president who inspires me and cares about my contribution to the fabric of the country. I want a president with experience and savvy, a Commander in Chief who puts our country and its citizens first.
I only hope the Republicans can find him the next time around.
Too Dumb to Understand "Obama Tax Cut 2009" Tax Credit Giveaways
Absolutely amazing poll results from CNN today about the $787 stimulus package: nearly three out of four Americans think the money has been wasted. On second thought, they may be right: it's been wasted on them. Indeed, the largest single item in the package--$288 billion--is tax relief for 95% of the American public. This money is that magical $60 to $80 per month you've been finding in your paycheck since last spring. Not a life changing amount, but helpful in paying the bills.
The next highest amount was $275 billion in grants and loans to states. This is why your child's teacher wasn't laid off...and why the fire station has remained open, and why you're not paying even higher state and local taxes to close the local budget hole.
It turns out that what people are really upset about is all that wasteful money that has gone to political public works projects...except that the overwhelming portion of that money hasn't been spent yet. Remember all those "shovel-ready" projects? Well, they didn't exist. The big jobs-creating projects like the rebuilt "smart" electric grid, major highways and fast trains will come on line during the next year. (Although these projects might have gotten greater public support if they'd been chosen by a National Infrastructure Bank--a panel of experts, like the fed--that would have picked them according to their value added, rather than by the bozo appropriators in the Congress.)
So, two thoughts:
1. The Obama Administration has done a terrible job explaining the stimulus package to the American people...especially since there have been very few documented cases of waste so far.
2. This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed...and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.
It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don't make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of dodos.
The next highest amount was $275 billion in grants and loans to states. This is why your child's teacher wasn't laid off...and why the fire station has remained open, and why you're not paying even higher state and local taxes to close the local budget hole.
It turns out that what people are really upset about is all that wasteful money that has gone to political public works projects...except that the overwhelming portion of that money hasn't been spent yet. Remember all those "shovel-ready" projects? Well, they didn't exist. The big jobs-creating projects like the rebuilt "smart" electric grid, major highways and fast trains will come on line during the next year. (Although these projects might have gotten greater public support if they'd been chosen by a National Infrastructure Bank--a panel of experts, like the fed--that would have picked them according to their value added, rather than by the bozo appropriators in the Congress.)
So, two thoughts:
1. The Obama Administration has done a terrible job explaining the stimulus package to the American people...especially since there have been very few documented cases of waste so far.
2. This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed...and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.
It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don't make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of dodos.
Seeing a Liberal Defending Tax Cuts is Quite Fun
Seeing a liberal like Cynthia Tucker defend tax cuts is quite fun. It's fun until you realize a liberal thinks a tax credit (pork spending) is a tax cut:
Little-known fact: Obama has CUT taxes
If you’re going to blame the president for your economic misery, then you ought to at least have your facts right. This morning, RealClearPolitics posted a piece from a self-described independent, Jill Dorson, who says she regrets her vote for Barack Obama.
Some of her complaints seem logical. But one of the complaints is factually inaccurate: she says her taxes have gone up. In fact, Obama pushed through a massive tax cut in the stimulus bill.
Over at Time, pundit Joe Klein vents his frustration over the popular misunderstanding of the stimulus bill.
Maybe Ms. Dorson’s state or local taxes have gone up. But her federal taxes have not.
Some of her complaints seem logical. But one of the complaints is factually inaccurate: she says her taxes have gone up. In fact, Obama pushed through a massive tax cut in the stimulus bill.
All that changed when the Obama campaign became the Obama administration. I was a small business owner during 2008 election and my business ultimately failed under the weight of a horrendous economy. I am not ashamed. I worked hard. But I believed that Obama would try to level the playing field between big business and small, between thieves and honest business people, between greed and moderation. Instead, he bailed out the most wicked and left the rest of us fail.Here’s the thing: The stimulus package, for which Obama is being bashed, contained the biggest one-year tax cut in U.S. history. That’s right. The biggest one-year tax cut in U.S. history was pushed through by a Democrat.
I watched with horror as Obama followed Bush’s lead in bailing out banks, auto makers, insurance companies, all of those companies deemed “too big to fail.” What does that mean? My small company got thrown under the bus and my savings were ravaged – perhaps Wall Street is using them for bonuses this year.
Not to mention President Obama is recklessly spending our country’s future into oblivion.
It was clear after just 90 days what a mistake I’d made. My taxes have gone up and my quality of life has gone down. Hope has given way to disgust and I see now that change is simply a euphemism for “big government.”
Over at Time, pundit Joe Klein vents his frustration over the popular misunderstanding of the stimulus bill.
Maybe Ms. Dorson’s state or local taxes have gone up. But her federal taxes have not.
Is Obama's 2009 Tax Cut the Biggest in History? No, it was the biggest Tax Credit in History
The Democrats have been so busy defending federal spending, and denigrating the stimulative power of tax cuts, that they apparently either forgot to -- or felt they couldn't -- point out something rather dramatic: the tax cuts in this stimulus plan appear to be the biggest in history.
The compromise stimulus plan includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush's first two years of tax cuts amounted to $174 billion. A second batch in 2004 and 2005 cost $231. And those were thought to be bigger than the tax cuts offered by Reagan, Kennedy or others.
Now, perhaps some new analysis will show that the tax cuts end up not quite being the largest in history by this measure or that. But it's clear they're massive.
I'm ducking the debate on whether this is economically good or bad -- but surely it ought to be a big story.
It leads to two further points. The fight got boiled down to: Democrats want spending. Republican want tax cuts. This is partly the media's fault for following the script layed out by the Congressional leaders, but it also represents a lost opportunity by Obama. In his press conference, he mostly made the case for spending. He didn't make the case for the massive size of his tax cuts.
Second, Obama kept a campaign promise that few Republican thought he'd keep. If this weren't part of a larger package, that would be an enormous story. A liberal Democrat in the campaign promised the biggest tax cut in history. Republicans said it was a complete charade (and many liberals didn't much like it anyway). And the Democrat in his first few weeks delivers the tax cut.
The compromise stimulus plan includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush's first two years of tax cuts amounted to $174 billion. A second batch in 2004 and 2005 cost $231. And those were thought to be bigger than the tax cuts offered by Reagan, Kennedy or others.
Now, perhaps some new analysis will show that the tax cuts end up not quite being the largest in history by this measure or that. But it's clear they're massive.
I'm ducking the debate on whether this is economically good or bad -- but surely it ought to be a big story.
It leads to two further points. The fight got boiled down to: Democrats want spending. Republican want tax cuts. This is partly the media's fault for following the script layed out by the Congressional leaders, but it also represents a lost opportunity by Obama. In his press conference, he mostly made the case for spending. He didn't make the case for the massive size of his tax cuts.
Second, Obama kept a campaign promise that few Republican thought he'd keep. If this weren't part of a larger package, that would be an enormous story. A liberal Democrat in the campaign promised the biggest tax cut in history. Republicans said it was a complete charade (and many liberals didn't much like it anyway). And the Democrat in his first few weeks delivers the tax cut.
TARP II: Breeding More Bailouts
Regulatory Redux
-
Not Fixing the Problem: Congress and the Obama Administration are proposing new regulations that they claim will fix the financial industry. In reality, these regulations would hurt consumers and make future government bailouts more likely. They would also do little to address the real problems in the financial industry.
- "Too Big To Fail" : Some propose giving the Federal Reserve or other regulators sweeping powers to control firms deemed "too big to fail"--firms whose failure could put the financial system at risk.
- False Security : This puts a lot of faith in regulators who missed the outset of the last financial crisis.
- The Real Life Effect? More risk. The government's new powers would signal to markets that the targeted firms are guaranteed against failure, thus leading those firms to take more undue risks, not fewer.
- New Regulatory Bureaucracy : The bill would create a new "Consumer Financial Protection Agency." Despite its name, this new bureaucracy would hurt consumers far more than it would help them.
- Limiting Financial Innovation : The new powers granted would likely be used to limit the development of new products, thus depriving consumers of the real benefits of financial innovation.
- Increased Risk: The new rules would do nothing to reduce the risk of another financial crisis and in fact could increase risk by interfering with safety and soundness rules.
- Broad Federal Powers: The proposals would give the FDIC or another agency broad power to seize and close failing financial institutions (with limited court review) and establish a permanent fund to resolve the affairs of the firms it takes over.
- Uncertainty: Private businesses would be subject to closure at the sole discretion of bureaucrats in Washington based on vague standards.
- The Final Irony: These regulations would pave the way for more bailouts rather than preventing new ones.
- Modernize Bankruptcy Laws : One reason for the TARP bailouts was that current bankruptcy laws are not designed for modern financial firms. Congress should create an expedited bankruptcy process to restructure and close large and complex financial firms. Otherwise, the next time firms face financial troubles, the government will again be pressured to bail them out.
- Strengthen Capital Standards: Policymakers should strengthen capital standards to reduce the risk that financial firms will reach the point that their failure could endanger the entire financial system.
Senator Dodd’s Regulation Plan: 14 Fatal Flaws in Financial Reform
Fourteen Flaws
Among other things, the bill:
Among other things, the bill:
- Creates a protected class of “too big to fail” firms. Section 113 of the bill establishes a “Financial Stability Oversight Council,” charged with identifying firms that would “pose a threat to the financial security of the United States if they encounter “material financial distress.” These firms would be subject to enhanced regulation. However, such a designation would also signal to the marketplace that these firms are too important to be allowed to fail and, perversely, allow them to take on undue risk. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Peter Wallison wrote, “Designating large non-bank financial companies as too big to fail will be like creating Fannies and Freddies in every area of the economy.”[1]
- Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is “in danger of default” and whose failure would have “serious adverse effects on financial stability.” This determination is subject to review in the courts only on a “substantial evidence” standard of review, meaning that the seizure must be upheld if the government produces any evidence in favor of its action. This makes reversal extremely difficult.
- Creates permanent bailout authority. Section 204 of the bill authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to “make available … funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution.” Although no funds could be provided to compensate a firm’s shareholders, the firm’s other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. The situation is much like the scheme implemented for AIG in 2008, in which the largest beneficiaries were not stockholders but rather other creditors, such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs[2]—hardly a model to be emulated.
- Establishes a $50 billion fund to pay for bailouts. Funding for bailouts is to come from a $50 billion “Orderly Resolution Fund” created within the U.S. Treasury in Section 210(n)(1), funded by taxes on financial firms. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ultimate cost of bank taxes will fall on the customers, employees, and investors of each firm.[3]
- Opens a “line of credit” to the Treasury for additional government funding. Under Section 210(n)(9), the FDIC is effectively granted a line of credit to the Treasury Department that is secured by the value of failing firms in its control, providing another taxpayer financial support.
- Authorizes regulators to guarantee the debt of solvent banks. Bailout authority is not limited to debt of failing institutions. Under Section 1155, the FDIC is authorized to guarantee the debt of “solvent depository institutions” if regulators declare that a liquidity crisis (“event”) exists.
- Limits financial choices of American consumers. The bill contains a new “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection” with broad powers to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers. The intended purpose is to protect consumers from unfair practices. But the effect would be to reduce available choices, even in cases where a consumer fully understands and accepts the costs and risks. For many consumers, this will make credit more expensive and harder to get.[4]
- Undermines safety and soundness regulation. The proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would nominally be part of the Federal Reserve System, but it would have substantial autonomy. Decisions of the new bureau would not be subject to approval by the Fed. New rules could be stopped only through a cumbersome, after-the-fact review process involving a council of all the major regulatory agencies. This could impede efforts of economic (or “safety and soundness”) regulators to ensure the financial stability of regulated firms, as the new, independent “consumer” regulator would establish rules that conflict with that goal.
- Enriches trial lawyers by authorizing consumer regulators to ban arbitration agreements. Section 1028 specifically authorizes the new consumer regulatory agency to ban arbitration agreements between consumers and financial firms. By reducing the use of streamlined dispute resolution procedures, more consumers and businesses would be forced to pay the costs of litigation—to the benefit of trial lawyers.
- Subjects firms to hundreds of varying state and local rules. Section 1044 limits pre-emption of state and local rules, subjecting banks and their customers to confusing, costly, and inconsistent red tape imposed by regulators in jurisdictions across the country.
- Subjects non-financial firms to financial regulation. Regulation under this legislation would extend far beyond banks. Many firms largely outside the financial industry would find themselves caught in the regulatory net. Section 102(B)(ii) of the bill defines a “nonbank financial company”” as a company “substantially engaged in activities … that are financial in nature.” The phrase “financial in nature” is defined in existing law quite broadly. According to former Treasury official Gregory Zerzan, it includes things such as “holding assets of others in trust, investing in securities … or even leasing real estate and offering certain consulting services.”[5] As a result, a broad swath of private industry may find itself ensnared in the financial regulatory net. As Zerzan explains: “An airplane manufacturer that holds customer down payments for future delivery, a large home improvement chain that invests its profits as part of a plan to increase revenues, and an energy firm that makes markets in derivatives are all engaged in ‘financial activities’ and potentially subject to systemic risk regulation.”
- Imposes one-size-fits-all reform in derivative markets. The bill would subject derivatives now traded over-the-counter by banks and other financial institutions to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and/or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It would require most derivative contracts to be settled through a clearinghouse rather than directly between the parties. Yet derivatives are already increasingly being traded on clearinghouses thanks to private efforts coordinated by the New York Fed.[6] The Senate’s bill, however, would require virtually all derivatives to be so traded. Applying such ill-designed blanket regulation would make financial derivatives more costly, more difficult to customize, and, consequently, less widely used—which would increase overall risk in the economy.[7]
- Allows activist groups to use the corporate governance process for issues unrelated to the corporation or its shareholders. Section 972 of the bill authorizes the SEC to require firms to allow shareholders to nominate directors in proxy statement. Such proxy access turns corporate board elections from a process designed to ensure that each board has a good mix of skills and experience into a popularity contest where the long-term interests of the stockholders become secondary to political agendas or corporate raiders. The process can also be used by labor unions, politicians who manage public pension funds, and others to force corporations to respond to pet social or political causes.
- Does nothing to address problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government-sponsored housing giants helped fuel the housing bubble. When it popped, taxpayers—because of an implicit guarantee by the U.S. Treasury—found themselves on the hook for some $125 billion in bailout money. Not only has little of this amount been paid back, but the Treasury Department recently eliminated the cap on how much more Fannie and Freddie can receive. Yet the bill does nothing to resolve the problem or reform these government-run enterprises.
The Obama Smoke and Mirror Tax Cuts of 2009
Feb 17 (Reuters) - The $787 billion U.S. economic stimulus package contains about $287 billion in tax cuts, according to the latest congressional calculations on the value of the package and its impact on U.S. budget deficits.
President Barack Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, saying he wants quick action to boost the struggling economy.
Here are some of the major tax provisions in the bill:
FOR WORKERS, CONSUMERS AND RETIREES
* A "making work pay" refundable tax credit championed by Obama of up to $400 per individual and $800 for couples in 2009 and 2010. It is calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and is phased out for individuals with adjusted incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $150,000.
* A one-time payment of $250 to Social Security beneficiaries, railroad retirees and veterans receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. State government retirees not eligible for Social Security would also get the $250 payment.
* Increases the earned income tax credit for low-income workers with three or more children.
* Increases eligibility for the refundable child tax credit to more low-income workers. The bill reduces the income floor to $3,000 in 2009 and 2010 from the current floor of $8,500.
* A new $2,500 tax credit for college education expenses. The credit phases out for individuals earning more than $80,000 and couples with incomes over $160,000.
* An $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers for homes purchased between Jan. 1 and Dec. 1, 2009. The tax credit phases out for individuals earning more than $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000.
* Temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax for millions of middle-class taxpayers who otherwise would be ensnared by the tax originally meant for the very wealthy.
FOR BUSINESSES
* Small businesses with gross receipts of up to $15 million can write off 2008 losses against five previous tax years. Current laws allows a two-year carryback of losses.
Businesses will also be allowed to immediately write off more of their investments in computers and other equipment.
* Businesses that repurchase debt at a lower amount than when it was issued will be able to defer taxes on it. Usually reduced or canceled debt is treated as income and taxed. The break applies to debt repurchased adjusted after Dec. 31, 2008, and before Jan. 1, 2011.
* A tax break on capital gains from the sale of stock held in a small business for more than five years.
* The bill raises about $7 billion in revenues by repealing a Treasury Department decision last year to liberalize rules that were intended to prevent companies in a merger from taking huge tax breaks on losses of firms they were acquiring.
FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
* Creates a new category of tax-preferred bonds for investment in economic recovery zones for job training, education and economic development.
* Creates a new category of tax-preferred bonds for the construction, and repair of public schools and the purchase of land for schools.
* Creates a federal subsidy for state and local governments offering bonds that give investors credits against their federal taxes in place of interest payments.
FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
* Extends tax breaks for wind facilities and other renewable energy facilities and provides other tax incentives to encourage development of renewable energy facilities.
* Authorizes an additional $1.6 billion of new clean renewable energy bonds as well as $2.4 billion of energy conservation bonds to finance state and local government projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
* Extends tax credits for energy-efficient improvements to existing homes.
* Provides a tax credit for purchase of "plug-in" electric vehicles of at least $2,500. The credit is increased depending on the battery capacity of the car purchased.
* Provides a new 30 percent investment tax credit for facilities engaged in producing renewable energy technology and conservation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)