|Not what the Democrats had in mind|
Well, speaking of last night, that was a tough speech to sit through and try to stomach because the president is so off base in his ideas in how it is HE BELIEVES GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO CREATE JOBS. Obviously, government growth won’t create any jobs. It’s the private sector that can create the jobs. His theme last night in the State of the Union was the WTF, you know, “Winning the Future,” and I thought OK, that acronym, spot on. There WERE A LOT OF WTF MOMENTS THROUGHOUT THAT SPEECH.”
I don’t think this is what the Obama speech writers had in mind when they plagiarized this little ditty. And once again, Sarah Palin becomes a political master of using language to make a point.
A detailed look at the Rand Paul spending bill
Want to save $500 billion this year? Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has a way to do it.http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/detailed-look-rand-paul-spending-bill#ixzz1CEjb5XGR
Is it realistic? Maybe not every part of it, but have a look below and judge for yourself. ....
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH...............................$1,283,000,000. (23%)
Notes: The Government Printing Office is abolished.
JUDICIAL BRANCH......................................$2,434,000,000. (32%)
The Agriculture Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Resources Conservation Service, and Foreign Agricultural Service are abolished. The Forest Service gets a $1.2 billion haircut.
National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is cut by $857,000,000.
Only the Pell grant program survives.
The Defense Department takes over all of Energy's remaining functions (nuclear waste, for example) and about $18 billion of its budget.
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES..............$26,510,000,000. (26%)
Notes: FDA is cut by $230,000,000; Indian Health Service is cut by $650 million; CDC is cut by $1.17 billion; NIH by $5.8 billion......
Well worth the read. I especially like cutting out the energy department completely and most of the education department. Both of left wing sacred cows that really don’t help the country.
We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it
TWO OF THE CENTRAL PROMISES OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL LAW ARE UNLIKELY TO BE FULFILLED, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.
The landmark legislation PROBABLY WON'T HOLD COSTS DOWN, AND IT WON'T LET EVERYBODY KEEP THEIR CURRENT HEALTH INSURANCE if they like it, CHIEF ACTUARY RICHARD FOSTER TOLD THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates. . . .
Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.
On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded……
McCLINTOCK: "The other promise... was the promise that if you like your plan, you can keep it. True or false?"
FOSTER: "Not true in all cases."
Obamacare is unraveling. It was sold under false pretenses, evaluated by the CBO with questionable assumptions, and pushed through congress using bribery and threats to House and Senate members.
Economic ignorance and the Democrat agenda
President Barack Obama is very insistent on the need to “save American jobs.” The spending and THE BUY AMERICAN PROVISIONS OF HIS MASSIVE STIMULUS PACKAGE, APPROVED BY CONGRESS IN FEBRUARY, WERE MEANT TO “CREATE OR SAVE” MILLIONS OF U.S. JOBS. “Saving jobs” was also the stated goal of his recent pledge TO ELIMINATE TAX ADVANTAGES FOR COMPANIES THAT DO BUSINESS OVERSEAS. But instead of saving American jobs, Obama’s new corporate tax is apt to worsen what is already the highest unemployment since 1983 and make America’s companies even less competitive in the global marketplace.http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/14/destroying-jobs-in-order-to-sa
Last spring, partly in response to the anti-bailout tea parties that were sweeping through the country on and around the April 15 tax deadline, the president announced that he plans to simplify the tax code. That sounds like a worthwhile goal, but it turns out that FOR OBAMA, SIMPLIFICATION MEANS TAXING PREVIOUSLY UNTAXED INCOME.
For instance, the proposal targets what executives consider to be a lifesaving feature of an otherwise depressing corporate tax code: PERMISSION TO INDEFINITELY DEFER PAYING U.S. TAXES ON INCOME EARNED OVERSEAS. According to the Obama administration, this practice keeps $700 billion or more of American corporate earnings in overseas accounts, beyond the taxman’s reach.
The president also wants to overhaul WHAT HE DESCRIBES AS A “MUCH-ABUSED” SET OF TAX REGULATIONS KNOWN AS THE “CHECK-THE-BOX” RULES. These regulations give companies some latitude in deciding where their subsidiaries will be taxed and make it easier for multinationals to transfer money between countries. The result, which Obama frowns upon, is that many companies have placed their offshore subsidiaries in low-tax countries.
While he’s at it, THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO RESTRICT TAX CREDITS THAT THE U.S. GRANTS COMPANIES TO OFFSET TAXES THEY PAY TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
An excellent article that lays out the simplemindedness of many liberals regarding taxation.
A new explanation of why the Democrats lost last November
We can begin by stipulating that CONGRESSMAN JIM MORAN (D-VA) is a disgusting human being. But is he this disgusting? He gave an interview to Alhurra, an Arab television network that, as AllahPundit notes, was founded as an American-supported alternative to Al Jazeera. Moran is asked about the Republican sweep, and he answers--I think--as follows:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028217.php
It [the Republican successes in the 2010 elections] happened for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. IT HAPPENED BECAUSE THE SOUTHERN STATES, THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, DIDN'T WANT TO SEE A PRESIDENT WHO WAS OPPOSED TO SLAVERY.
In this case, I believe, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES DON'T WANT TO BE GOVERNED BY AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN, PARTICULARLY ONE WHO IS LIBERAL, WHO WANTS TO SPEND MONEY AND WHO WANTS TO REACH OUT TO INCLUDE EVERYONE IN OUR SOCIETY....
It appears the left isn’t satisfied with comparing the right to Nazis. We’ve now gone back and compared them to the Democratic slaveholders during the Civil War.
Follow the money
Employees and political action committees of organizations that make up the big four special interests that own the Democratic Party contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to the party's federal candidates in 2010.
THE TOP 20 LABOR UNIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, GAVE MORE THAN $68 MILLION IN 2010, with 94 percent of the total going to Democrats and just 4 percent to Republicans. Most of the total, 88 percent, came from PACs associated with the top 20 unions, while the remaining 12 percent came from individual union members, according to Opensecrets.org.
Similarly, liberal ideological groups, many of which are heavily funded or otherwise closely linked with INFLUENTIAL DEMOCRATIC INSIDERS LIKE GEORGE SOROS AND DRUMMOND PIKE, GAVE MORE THAN $33 MILLION TO FEDERAL CANDIDATES IN 2010. Not surprisingly, virtually all of that money went to Democrats, according to Opensecrets.org.
But tracking campaign finance is never easy because of weaknesses of the data collection system and thanks to the creativity and regularity with which individuals and organizations across the ideological spectrum find ways in which to circumvent or otherwise compromise disclosure.....
The Examiner found that MORE THAN 2,600 INDIVIDUALS WHO LISTED THEIR EMPLOYER AS ONE OF THE TOP 110 PLAINTIFFS BAR LAW FIRMS GAVE MORE THAN $7.23 MILLION IN CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL CANDIDATES in 2010. More than 96 percent of the total went to Democrats. Independent candidates actually received more contributions from these trial lawyers than did Republicans.
There is another NEARLY $2.7 MILLION IN CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL CANDIDATES IN 2010 BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE PAC, which represents the class-action lawsuit industry in the nation's capital. Ninety-seven percent of that money went to Democrats and 3 percent to GOPers
A pretty good article which quantifies the amounts of money going from special interests to the Democrat Party.
Affirmative action scandal at US Naval Academy
Professor Bruce Fleming is not your typical US Naval Academy (USNA) Professor. HE TEACHES ENGLISH AND HE ALSO HAPPENS TO BE A LIBERAL. I’ve written favorably in my books about his work because he also happens to believe in speaking the truth. And by speaking the truth about THE DIRTY SECRETS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AT THE NAVAL ACADEMY, he has set off a fire storm.
Fleming wrote a piece last year exposing the fact that the USNA had a “two-tiered” system of admission that was designed to bring more minorities into the academy. And he began speaking to academy alumni about the lower standards. ”We’ll do anything to get non-white students,” he said, IN ORDER TO APPEAR MORE DIVERSE AND IMPROVE THE FOOTBALL TEAM. According to Fleming, THE ADMISSIONS SYSTEM IS TWO-TIERED BECAUSE MINORITY CANDIDATES HAVE LOWER TEST SCORES AND GRADES than their counterparts. In short, Fleming says that the Academy is rejecting better qualified white applicants to admit minority candidates with less impressive credentials. The USNA has been very aggressive on the affirmative action front in recent years. In 2009, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, went so far as to say that “diversity is the No. 1 priority” at the academy. (Gee, I guess training warriors and officers is now #2).
But Fleming, who has served on the academy’s admissions board, goes even further. While white applicants are required to secure a nomination by a member of congress or other federal official, MINORITY CANDIDATES ARE SOMETIMES GIVEN WHAT HE CALLS “A PRO FORMA NOMINATION TO MAKE IT LEGIT.”…..
Can we tolerate affirmative action when our country’s defense is on the block?
S&P Downgrade Of Japan Roils Currency Markets
THE DOWNGRADE REFLECTS OUR APPRAISAL THAT JAPAN’S GOVERNMENT DEBT RATIOS–ALREADY AMONG THE HIGHEST FOR RATED SOVEREIGNS–will continue to rise further than we envisaged before the global economic recession hit the country and will peak only in the mid-2020s. Specifically, we expect general government fiscal deficits to fall only modestly from an estimated 9.1% of GDP in fiscal 2010 (ending March 31, 2011) to 8.0% in fiscal 2013. In the medium term, we do not forecast the government achieving a primary balance before 2020 unless a significant fiscal consolidation program is implemented beforehand.
Japan’s debt dynamics are further depressed by persistent deflation. Falling prices have matched Japan’s growth in aggregate output since 1992, meaning the size of the economy is unchanged in nominal terms. In addition, Japan’s fast-aging population challenges both its fiscal and economic outlooks. The nation’s total social security related expenses now make up 31% of the government’s fiscal 2011 budget, and this ratio will rise absent reforms beyond those enacted in 2004. An aging and shrinking labor force contributes to our modest medium-term growth estimate of around 1%.
In our opinion, the Democratic Party of Japan-led government lacks a coherent strategy to address these negative aspects of the country’s debt dynamics, in part due to the coalition having lost its majority in the upper house of parliament last summer. We think there is a low chance that the government’s announced 2011 reviews of the nation’s social security and consumption tax systems will lead to material improvements to the intertemporal solvency of the state. We even see a risk that the Diet might not approve budget-related bills for fiscal 2011, including government financing authorization. Thus, notwithstanding the still strong domestic demand for government debt and corresponding low real interest rates, we expect Japan’s fiscal flexibility to diminish.
Japan has long had the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the developed world, at approximately 200 percent of GDP. (The U.S. is around 60 percent.) This is definitely a word of warning for the USA.
Islamists Never Sneak in from Mexico
U.S. border authorities have arrested a CONTROVERSIAL MUSLIM CLERIC WHO WAS DEPORTED FROM CANADA TO TUNISIA THREE YEARS AGO AND WAS CAUGHT EARLIER THIS MONTH TRYING TO SNEAK INTO CALIFORNIA INSIDE THE TRUNK OF A BMW, according to court documents.
Said Jaziri, the former Imam of a Muslim congregation in Montreal, was hidden inside a car driven by a San Diego-area man who was pulled over by U.S. Border Patrol agents near an Indian casino east of San Diego. Jaziri allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling group $5,000 to get him across the border near Tecate, saying HE WANTED TO BE TAKEN TO A “SAFE PLACE ANYWHERE IN THE U.S.” .
Do we need a fence on the border? Of course we do.