Absolutely. You may need further tweeking to fit in the full spelling of forked tongue. The Cherokee scandal has faded back to just an earlier indicator of zero personal or public integrity. Now she is just a bitter, big mouthed, dishonest liberal elite of the worst kind. I would prefer to just take on the principles of liberalism. But no one ever presents it honestly. So we have to answer liberalism's deceiving practitioners.
The factory owner, good for him, does not pay his fair share of taxes to build the public roads and schools that benefit his business??! What a bunch of BS. The factory owner who stops paying MORE than his/her share of the public goods is the own that has to close or move because of dishonest liberalism's punitive policies.
"I forget her name... but she was a big fundraiser and her husband worked for Bill. Something had happened and she was afraid for her husband's job and she came to the White House to plead for it. Working from memory, she has formally stated that Clinton pushed her up against the wall and forcefully groped her. Turns out that while she was there, her husband was commiting suicide."
Kathleen Willey was a White House volunteer aide who, on March 15, 1998, alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her on November 29, 1993, during his first term as President. Willey's second husband, Edward E. Willey Jr., committed suicide on November 29, 1993 — the day she claimed Clinton's sexual misconduct took place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey
Who knows the veracity of that story or any one encounter. The point with the analogy to Bill Cosby is that there is too many unrelated incidents in a pattern to just shrug it off. The point with Hillary Clinton is that she knew or she should have known. Juanita Broaddrick alleged very strongly that Hillary knew. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Juanita.htm
NBC News held the Lisa Myers Juanita Broaddrick interview for 35 days, played it opposite the Grammys - after the Senate had acquitted Clinton in his impeachment trial. http://observer.com/1999/04/nbcs-vetting-of-juanita-broaddrick-clintons-accuser-discusses-agonizing-weeks-as-nbc-dragged-it-out/
There was Whitewater, the FBI files scandal, travelgate, and the hurried removal of documents from Vince Foster's office. There was the failure of her healthcare task force and of all their own policies before adopting the success of the Gingrich initiatives. But none of it matters.
Having large national issues decided by one man (or 5 justices) is not what the founders intended.
That said, we have tried opposite policies in different places, a trade embargo against Cuba for 50+ years and a trade opening with China since 1972 to end oppression in both places and neither worked. Shaking up a failed policy is tempting, but this is not the answer.
What is Rand Paul's answer to Rubio's point? If this is the policy that the regime of Cuba has wanted and needed all these years, what did President Obama get in return for surrendering our principles? As usual, nothing.
This isn't surrendering principles to Obama; it is the gaining of a new friend. Coercive, oppressive government that uses the agencies of power like the IRS and DOJ to shut down opposition is not offensive to this administration.
Libertarians including Rand Paul have a foreign policy history of not giving a rip about liberty outside our borders. They forget that at least a couple of foreign powers helped us gain ours.
It's the moderator's call, but it seems to me it is time to put the cognitively dissonant left's leading voice into her own category for future search and find convenience. For the record, I fear her the most right now. And leftists love her the most.
Author of, [you employ a million people,] good for you. But you didn't build that.
What Elizabeth Warren Missed in Her Big Bank Tirade (Crony Governmentism)
Crony Capitalism: Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivered a stemwinder speech last Friday on the need for government to rein in Wall Street influence. But it's big government that created the monster in the first place.
Warren, D-Mass., was attacking a "dangerous provision" in the so-called cromnibus spending bill that, she said, stripped a part of Dodd-Frank that big banks, particularly Citigroup, don't like.
Her speech had the left slobbering over itself. Michael Tomasky, writing for the Daily Beast, said Warren's "weekend heroics" made her the "most powerful Democrat in America." The Huffington Post ran a column calling it "the speech that could make Elizabeth Warren the next president."
That's only possible if voters overlook the glaring problem with her argument.
Warren isn't wrong to complain that big business has too much influence over public policy. But that influence isn't the result of insufficient government intervention. It's the result of a government that is too massive and too willing to intrude in free markets. To take just one example: Up until the mid-1990s, Microsoft had virtually no lobbyist presence in Washington, D.C., and gave almost no money to political campaigns. Then the Clinton Justice Department decided to sue Microsoft for antitrust violations.
By 1998, the company was pouring $3.7 million into lobbying and giving more than $1.4 million to political campaigns. Influencing Washington became part of Microsoft's business strategy only after Washington decided to butt into Microsoft's business.
Warren and her compatriots also fail to understand that big businesses like costly, intrusive regulations when they handicap new competitors.
It's no surprise that Dodd-Frank — which was supposed to rein in the excesses of big banks — not only didn't get rid of the "too big to fail" problem, it hampered community banks that used to compete with the big ones.
"It was not the intent of Congress when it passed Dodd-Frank to harm community banks, but that is the awful reality," Dale Wilson of the First State Bank of San Diego told Congress this summer.
If Warren and her ilk really want to reduce the influence of Wall Street in Washington, they should start by calling for a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government.
I wonder if the Clinon's want the Bill Cosby story to continue to rise throughout the campaign? The Statute of Limitations does not prevent one's public image from being destroyed. If they go through with this, it's hard to say which Clinton scandal or weakness will finally catch up with them.
The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.
Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.
Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.
Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly, the rationale for the Hillary Clinton campaign is empowerment of women. People's tolerance of all this, especially Hillary's, is abominable.
It is an argument I have called tax vs. charity or welfare vs. charity. John Stossels frames it well in the this piece called Governing vs. Giving, which is really government forced redistribution vs the free will of giving and accepting responsibility with assistance.
Personally I find that since the government has taken my income, with my taxes more than 100% of take home income, and nothing left over, and they are spending the majority of that on redistribution, I really have no time or interest in charity unless and until we change that dynamic.
Government creates loyalty in the minds of citizens by pretending to be Santa Claus, doling out gifts and favors. Politicians claim they help those unfortunates who aren't helped by coldhearted capitalism.
The truth is, government gets in the way of charity, making it harder for people to help others and for the poor to help themselves. It also gets in the way of commerce, which is what really makes people better off.
When I was in college, President Lyndon Johnson declared "an all-out war on human poverty. ... For the first time in our history, it's possible to conquer poverty." I believed him. But then I watched government poverty programs fail. America spent trillions of your dollars on the poor, and the poor stayed poor.
Actually, the poverty rate did fall after the "War on Poverty" began. But it had already been falling prior to initiation of welfare. Sadly, the poverty rate stopped falling about seven years after Johnson's programs began, mostly because government handouts encouraged people to be dependent.
Simple capitalism does much more for poor people. On my show this week, Marian Tupy, editor of HumanProgress.org, speculates on why people don't appreciate that.
"Our minds evolved tens of thousands of years ago when we lived in small groups of between 50-200 people," says Tupy. "We would go out, kill game, bring it back, share it." The idea of everyone getting an equal share still makes us feel warm and cozy.
"Some of the anti-capitalist impulse goes back to that hunter-gatherer mentality and not comprehending the complexity of the market economy," says Tupy. "The complexity outpaced our ability to understand it.
But even those who don't understand markets should open their eyes and acknowledge its benefits: World-wide, wherever economic freedom is allowed, millions of people have lifted themselves out of stoop labor and miserable poverty.
Of course, not everyone can reap the benefits of markets. The sick, the mentally ill and other truly helpless people need a hand.
But why assume government must provide that help? Government doesn't do anything very well. Why not let private charity handle it?
I once assumed there was too much poverty for private charity to make much of a difference. But now I realize there is plenty of money, and private charity would do much more if government didn't discourage it.
When the welfare state took over poverty relief, it crowded out "mutual aid" societies that the poor ran for themselves.
They were like a cross between private unemployment insurance and "moose" or "elks" lodges that encouraged members to help each other out. They were better at helping the poor because their members, unlike government poverty workers, were free to make judgments about who deserved help and who didn't.
Today, there are fewer mutual aid societies because people say, "Why do it myself when we already have giant welfare bureaucracies? My taxes pay for Obamacare, food stamps, housing vouchers and so on. I'll let the professionals handle it."
But those "professionals" do a poor job.
Fortunately, charities still try to do what government cannot do. I give money to the Doe Fund, an organization that helps addicts and ex-cons discover the benefits of work. I give because I can see the results: Doe Fund participants work as caterers, exterminators and street-cleaners, and they do it with a spring in their step.
Somehow, the charity teaches these men (they only work with men) to take pride in work. That pride changes people. Unlike other ex-cons, those who are Doe graduates rarely go back to jail.
If government didn't discourage it, more charities would do even better work with the poor. Human beings don't sit around ignoring the suffering of their neighbors. But we are most likely to neglect these moral tasks when government insists it has everything covered.
Get government out of the way and just watch what we can do.
If success at the state level were enough to recommend someone for president of the United States, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana would be among the frontrunners for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.
...last year's 5 percent income tax reduction, the largest state tax cut in Indiana history." In addition, the state corporate tax rate was reduced from 6.5 percent to 4.9 percent, making it the third lowest in the country and contributing to Indiana's increase in the labor force
He served for 10 years as a congressman
Pence's education agenda includes a goal of taking children in underperforming schools and putting them in good schools...largest education voucher program in America.
This is where I vote 3rd party or don't even bother.
That is why he is announcing this so early - to give us more time to recover from the initial stomach emptying reaction. He is not my candidate. But, ... He was a successful, two term governor, an otherwise divided state, the only Republican to ever serve two full four-year terms as Governor of Florida. Many of the better policy oriented candidates have no executive experience. He was considered the most conservative of the 3 Bushes in politics. His record in Florida was more conservative than Reagan's was in California (they say). This will be a long, substantive campaign (I think). He will be known for his own strengths and weaknesses more than family name by the end of it. Support for "Common Core" and amnesty look like his big obstacles to me. -----------------------------
John Hinderacker has an anyone but jeb Bush column out. He admits that his current favorite is Marco Rubio
"Hillary Clinton ... can be had by someone younger: a fresh face, a new voice, someone who changes the dynamic. Pretty much anyone but a Bush, in other words. ... Polling data suggest that there are more conservatives in the U.S. than there are Republicans. There certainly are plenty of conservatives to put a Republican presidential candidate over the top. But they need a strong candidate to rally behind. This cycle, I think there are a number of Republicans who could fit that description–Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio (my current favorite), maybe Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal or John Kasich, maybe Chris Christie if he can define himself as a conservative. There are others who could jump into the race, both plausible candidates (John Thune) and less plausible (Ben Carson)."
Well, I'm thinking having 9 more Rep senators would have made for different results overall.
They're coming in 3 weeks, but we're funding amnesty (and Obamacare) as permanent programs that can't be removed by the new majority. Someone stood up and called for a vote on that. Only in Washington does that cause 88 liberal judges to get lifetime appointments. Rules are set or changed on the whim of the majority. Then blame for the result goes to anyone who disagrees.
Don't use logic, common sense or passed laws to try to understand this.
I have heard this story too, but the bias throughout this report is a bit hard to swallow. "Cruz, who almost single-handedly caused the last government shutdown" - Who caused the 16 day, 17% shutdown?? The people who funded the government or the people who wouldn't?
- Whose fault is it that the vote to defund the executive action over existing law failed?
Why are R's voting to fund a Democrat budget for one year after the Republicans take the Senate? Why does it have to be a CRomnibus no one has read instead of funding the government, department by department, line by line, through to the start of the next congress? Why is it Republicans fault if Democrats shut the government down, again? Because Obama and MSNBC said so? Who cares if Obama gets a radical Surgeon General at this point? Will they order more new laws for Republicans to fund? 3 quotes are from Lindsey Graham who favors unilaterally surrendering the filibuster back to the Democrats, immediately, anyway.
When the leaders make a deal, should everyone fall in line, no matter your view or your conscience?
Maybe the vote he forced WILL matter in 2016. Maybe he was right about that last time. The midterms went pretty well.
Stocks are up because corporate profits are up; P/E's are up also. Corporate profits are up for reasons like being able to hire fewer workers to achieve the same output (improved productivity), while over-regulation is locking out competing startups and disruptive innovation, and more money is chasing fewer companies. It's not like the US or world economic growth is on fire.
Wesbury was right about stocks - they went up during all this time of zero interest rates and unprecedented QE. Good for him. (Said with a little Elizabeth Warren-style sarcasm.)
Now we have "tapering", which is even more QE (at a slower rate) on top of all previous QE. It is not a reversal of QE.
Wesbury: "Yes, the Federal Reserve has done a massive amount of QE. And, yes, interest rates have been low. But, correlation does not equal causation."
Proof of causation isn't the question or issue. Correlation is enough. Low interest rates accompanied QE, and if we are done with QE, then we are done low interest rates. No Latin lecture on Post hoc, ergo proptor hoc is required. If QE and low interest rates are coming and going hand in hand, what difference does proof of causation make?
Look at it more closely. When the federal government was in deficit in amounts of a trillion a year for multiple years, it did not have to go out and find willing buyers for all those bonds. If they did have to, they also would have had to raise the yield way up to do that, which is the interest rate. QE was the government "buying" their own bonds with an accounting entry, without having to first secure the funds anywhere and without having to offer an attractive interest rate to a buyer. That looks like causation of lower interest rates to me. Oh well.
Here is Scott Grannis trying to explain how QE is not money creation: "I suspect that a great number of market participants and observers do not fully understand how QE works. The myth that QE means the Fed is "printing money" persists. All the Fed can do is buy bonds from banks and "pay" for them by crediting the banks' reserve account at the Fed. This is equivalent to the banks selling bonds to the Fed and simultaneously lending the money to buy them. (Zero interest is lending? Sounds more like crony graft.) It is also equivalent to the Fed acting like a massive hedge fund, borrowing money at a short-term interest rate (0.25%) that it sets in order to buy notes and bonds. It is also equivalent to the Fed "transmogrifying" notes and bonds into T-bill substitutes. (Gruber, is that you?) No money creation is involved in the QE process. Money is only created if banks use their reserves to back up an increase in lending. Banks have only recently started to do this in earnest." http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2014/03/saving-lending-and-tapering-combine-in.html (Quote is from the comments section.)
Reserves are created out of thin air (an accounting entry) but that isn't money creation unless someone, by chance, uses that money created as money, which they are now starting to do (as of last March). So QE IS money creation?
Wesbury quoting Janet Yellen (December 2008): “As Japan found during its quantitative easing program, increasing the size of the monetary base above levels needed to provide ample liquidity to the banking system had no discernible economic effects aside from those associated with communicating the Bank of Japan’s commitment to the zero interest rate policy.” [Japan has been having nothing but economic trouble before and since Dec. 2008. Zero interest rates screws up nearly everything and so does a lot of other unforced errors they are committing.]
(Back to Wesbury) "In other words, by ending QE, the Fed is implicitly ending its commitment to low rates. As a result, the 2-year Treasury yield has jumped from 0.31% in mid-October to 0.64%. Not because of tapering, but because rate hikes are now expected. There is no mystery here. QE signals a low interest rate policy."
Splitting hairs to me, that sounds like causation.
"[QE is ending,] ... interest rates will rise. That’s happening in the U.S. right now." - Wesbury again.
On a better note, here is Wesbury caught reading the forum: Wesbury: "What’s missing from just about every conversation about central banks is their inability to offset the damage done by excessive taxes, government spending, or regulation.
I'm saying that your quote of her is in reference to Yemen and other countries.
SOMEONE got the idea that this meme could be blended into the Benghazi cover up, but this quote, as best as I can tell, proves nothing with regard to whom that may have been.
Fair enough. Same thing here, HRC speaking at the Benghazi killings memorial:
...video of the memorial service Clinton comments occur from 16:25-17:45: “This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with."
Crafty, her separation of these events is technically valid, but her effort to merge them is pathological IMHO. It took me multiple readings of this to see that separation as she stood over the caskets from Benghazi.
By Sat. am with HRC speaking, we were back to the video.
Sunday, I watched Susan Rice to find out what happened in Benghazi, not various other protests. Same with the questioners on the various shows.
Here is wikipedia on the "video" protests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims It was a big deal across many nations, however... In Cairo, the leader/organizer didn't know the name of the video. Egypt's prime minister Hesham Kandil said "a number" of protesters later confessed to getting paid to participate. None had seen the video; organizers were trying to show protesters the trailer. Yemen was a copycat and most of the others followed that.. Benghazi was an organized terror attack. My point is that this video did NOT cause these protests. The video trailer was a pretense to protest.
Back to Hillary. My point is that she and/or her people likely wrote the 'blame the video' script. But let's take it the other way around; take her at her word. The video IS to blame. This is the prequel to empathy for the terrorists. It is something WE are doing that makes them want to kill us. In the Sept 13 remarks and when she met the deceased families, she vowed to get the video maker, not the terrorists. That view is not a political winner. Take down free speech; leave terrorists in place. Seems to me these views or her sloppy expressions leave her politically culpable.
Sec Clinton: I want to say a few words about the events unfolding in the world today. We are closely watching what is happening in Yemen and elsewhere, and we certainly hope and expect that there will be steps taken to avoid violence and prevent the escalation of protests into violence. I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries." http://nicaragua.usembassy.gov/sp_120914_secstate_on_video_that_has_caused_violence.html
Very important piece, IMHO. He discusses the balancing act Republicans will face as they attempt to undo this mess. The public disapproves of Obamacare, but doesn't want empty repeal with a return to all that was wrong before. And conservatives will revolt if they see Republicans acting like Democrats, tinkering around the edges or replacing with their own government monstrosity. Not having a plan isn't going to work any longer. Take the best of the market driven, conservative plans and start making the positive case for change. ---------------------------------------------------- Getting beyond Obamacare It’s time to make the case for replacing it, not fixing it. By Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review, December 8, 2014
The gaffe was that he told the truth, right up until he was sworn in to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Then this 40-something, apparently healthy economist started to lose all important recollections.
"Complicating the picture, Gruber's was a specialized type of memory loss: the more difficult and challenging the question about his notorious descriptions of Obamacare's birth, the more tenuous Gruber's memory became." ... The questioner, again, was Turner. "You said this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the individual mandate as taxes," Turner said to Gruber. "Did you ever speak to anyone in the administration who acknowledged that to you?"
"That was an inexcusable term used by — " Gruber began.
"I'm not asking you about how you believe that whether or not you should have said that or not," Turner replied. "It's a factual statement you're making. Did anybody in the administration ever have that conversation with you?"
"I do not recall anyone using the word 'tortured,' " Gruber said.
"Did they have the conversation with you that it had to be drafted in a way that the CBO did not score the individual mandate as taxes?" Turner persisted.
"I don't — " Gruber began.
"You're under oath."
"I honestly do not recall."
When the talking point (what I said was inexcusable) didn't work, and then when the parsing (no one used the word 'tortured') didn't work, Gruber went to Plan C, the last resort: I don't recall. And just for emphasis, he added that he honestly did not recall. ... In all, Gruber said "I don't recall" or some variant of the phrase about 20 times during his testimony, frustrating the Republicans who had hoped to elicit actual information during the hearing. What the GOP got instead was one of the nation's foremost experts on healthcare who, for a few hours at least, could barely remember his name.
Unsurprisingly, there are flies in their ointment.
1. Progressives compare minor upward results with the depths of the crash (that they caused), not with previously successful periods.
2. They judge job growth as positive even when most of it was below the level required to break even.
3. They call it unemployment falling when the real change is a rapidly declining workforce participation rate. There are more people not working now than ever before. Even with funny math, the stated unemployment rate is worse than when they took majority power in Washington.
4. Progressives claim stock gains with the blatant hypocrisy that they would most certainly be criticizing these gains if it was someone else's policies sent the financial gains only to the wealthiest among us. The rich and powerful gained while the middle declined. Startup under Obama were like a Neal Young song; they "start off real slow and then fizzle out altogether".
5. Progressives chart the highest debt added in history to look like a trend line down when in fact their own budgets and forecasts have it going right back up.
6. Lastly, how do you say Chutzpah? From the author of Audacity, they claim oil production in the US is way up under Obama! Yes it is! Is there one person smart enough to vote that doesn't know that Obama fought against oil production at every turn?
Take a close look at a liberal viewpoint and most often you will find a lie or deception in the first substantive point. And here is no exception.
Please see if this link works. Very powerful video. A nice woman apparently has a hidden camera and asks the clinic staff a lot of innocent questions about what is happening in a late term abortion.
What is human?
By the end, one might ask, what is inhuman? Merriam-webster.com says, inhuman is a: lacking pity, kindness, or mercy : savage <an inhuman tyrant> b : cold, impersonal. Sound more like the abortionist than the fetus.
When people in these lands learn about all the bad Americans have done, it creates a whole new generation of terrorist. So the liberals say. Now they want the whole world to know all they can release of details, methods, locations, partners, etc. And they exaggerate what was done while playing down its value.
Torture in an al Qaida manual is when you scoop out the eyeballs one by one. When the enemy says we'll kill your children ... they kill your children. Why do we want to tell future terrorists that we won't hurt anyone.
Who did we hurt, by the way? Who got injured by a US interrogator? No one that I know of.
What did we get with these strong techniques? Names, places, dates, plans, organizations, arrests, attacks stopped. That kind of thing.
We would have had that information anyway? Yeah, right. Maybe after the fact.
There are two Americas, but not divided by rich and poor as Edwards asserted, IMHO. There is the America where your household participates or particpated in the productive economy and there is the America living where no one has done that. To me, that means the school janitor and the successful business owner are in the same, interconnected economy. They have more in common with each other than with people who don't have to get up in the morning, work and pay taxes.
There’s no easy way to say this, so I’ll just say it: We’re no longer No. 1. Today, we’re No. 2. Yes, it’s official. The Chinese economy just overtook the United States economy to become the largest in the world. For the first time since Ulysses S. Grant was president, America is not the leading economic power on the planet.
It just happened — and almost nobody noticed.
The International Monetary Fund recently released the latest numbers for the world economy. And when you measure national economic output in “real” terms of goods and services, China will this year produce $17.6 trillion — compared with $17.4 trillion for the U.S.A.
As recently as 2000, we produced nearly three times as much as the Chinese.
We rightfully worry a lot around here about elected Republicans not governing conservatively and not representing our own best interests. A much greater failure has been elected Democrats not representing their constituents best interests. Who else is pointing THAT out?
Government for the strongest
By George F. Will Opinion writer December 5, 2014
Intellectually undemanding progressives, excited by the likes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — advocate of the downtrodden and the Export-Import Bank — have at last noticed something obvious: Big government, which has become gargantuan in response to progressives’ promptings, serves the strong. It is responsive to factions sufficiently sophisticated and moneyed to understand and manipulate its complexity.
Hence Democrats, the principal creators of this complexity, receive more than 70 percent of lawyers’ political contributions. Yet progressives, refusing to see this defect — big government captured by big interests — as systemic, want to make government an ever more muscular engine of regulation and redistribution. Were progressives serious about what used to preoccupy America’s left — entrenched elites, crony capitalism and other impediments to upward mobility — they would study “The New Class Conflict,” by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat.
The American majority that believes life will be worse for the next few decades — more than double the number who believe things will be better — senses that 95 percent of income gains from 2009-2012 went to the wealthiest 1 percent. This, Kotkin believes, reflects the “growing alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the instruments of state power.” In 2012, Barack Obama carried eight of America’s 10 wealthiest counties.
In the 1880s, Kotkin says, Cornelius Vanderbilt’s railroad revenues were larger than the federal government’s revenues. That was the old economy. This is the new: In 2013, the combined ad revenue of all American newspapers was smaller than Google’s; so was magazine revenue. In 2013, Google’s market capitalization was six times that of GM, but Google had one-fifth as many employees. The fortunes of those Kotkin calls “the new Oligarchs” are based “primarily on the sale of essentially ephemeral goods: media, advertising and entertainment.”
He calls another ascendant group the Clerisy, which is based in academia (where there are many more administrators and staffers than full-time instructors), media, the nonprofit sector and, especially, government: Since 1945, government employment has grown more than twice as fast as America’s population. The Founders worried about government being captured by factions; they did not foresee government becoming society’s most rapacious and overbearing faction.
The Clerisy is, Kotkin says, increasingly uniform in its views, and its power stems from “persuading, instructing and regulating the rest of society.” The Clerisy supplies the administrators of progressivism’s administrative state, the regulators of the majority that needs to be benevolently regulated toward progress.
The Clerisy’s policies include dense urban living as a “sustainable” alternative to suburbia, and serving environmentalism by consuming less. Hence the sluggish growth and job creation since the recession ended in June 2009 — a.k.a. the “new normal” — do not seriously disturb the Clerisy. It preaches what others — including the 43 percent of non-college-educated whites who consider themselves downwardly mobile — are supposed to practice. The result, Kotkin says, is a “more stratified, less permeable social order.” And today’s “plutonomy,” an economy fueled by the spending of the relatively few people who guaranteed that luxury brands did best during the recession.
Michael Bloomberg, an archetypical progressive, enunciated a “ ‘Downton Abbey’ vision of the American future” (Walter Russell Mead’s phrase) for New York. As New York City’s mayor, Bloomberg said: “If we can find a bunch of billionaires around the world to move here, that would be a godsend, because that’s where the revenue comes to take care of everybody else.” Progressive government, not rapid, broad-based economic growth, will “take care of” the dependent majority.
In New York, an incubator of progressivism, Kotkin reports, the “wealthiest 1 percent earn a third of the entire city’s personal income — almost twice the proportion for the rest of the country.” California, a one-party laboratory for progressivism, is home to 111 billionaires and the nation’s highest poverty rate (adjusted for the cost of living). One study shows that young Californians are less likely to become college graduates than their parents were. “The state’s ‘green energy’ initiatives,” Kotkin observes, “supported by most tech and many financial Oligarchs, have raised electricity rates well above the national average, making it difficult for firms in traditional fields like manufacturing, fossil fuels, agriculture or logistics.” California is no longer a destination for what Kotkin calls “aspirational families”: In 2013, he says, Houston had more housing starts than all of California.
In 2010, there were 27 million more Americans than in 2000 — but fewer births, a reflection, surely, of what Kotkin calls “the end of intergenerational optimism.” The political future belongs to those who will displace the progressive Clerisy’s objectives with an agenda of economic growth.
ccp: "Someone called into Mark Levin and wondered if the 5 million illegals who are now legal will be added to the unemployment rolls. Since I believe the vast majority who are not children are working Obama could claim he "added" a million or two new jobs to the rolls. That assumes these people will also admit to working."
We have illegals working her in numbers greater that all the working class citizens looking for work. If we wanted to absorb new immigrants at a faster rate, we should combine that wish with policies that enhance the starting and growing of new businesses and jobs, instead of the opposite.
"The point is the unemployment numbers are all just smoke and mirrors. And this is one more example to prove it. "
Lead story yesterday on our local paper was just how great the employment situation now is. Twin Cities' unemployment is now back to 3.6%. No mention that the majority of adults in north Minneapolis are now permanently out of the workforce.
Meanwhile, the number of adults completely out of the workforce in America will hit 100 million by the end of the Obama administration. More adults have left the workforce than work full time in the private sector, 92M to 86M.
Yes, ccp, we need new ways to measure and talk about employment and unemployment.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
This is why I don't hold the views of the experts much higher than our views on important Supreme Court cases. For one thing, the experts do not always get it right. Often they attempt to use "metaphysical subtleties" to arrive at contorted opinions of the law or constitution. Tests like strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis, and adhering to precedent are useful to a point. Also valid is for a citizen to read the facts, law, article or amendment in question and apply common sense to it.
Here's the facts as I currently understand them to be:
Local merchants (all or most black?) went to the police station to complain about 6'3" 350 pound Garner (31 arrests to his credit) causing problems in front of their stores and driving away business. The squad sent was led by a black female sergeant sent by a black precinct commander.
In the footage we have all seen repeatedly I am not seeing ANY "chokehold" at all. I see a basic "over/under" as part of a team takedown.
As far as the numerous times Garner says "I can't breathe" goes, a) people being arrested say excrement all the time (You're breaking my arm! You're killing me! etc) b) if he can't breathe, he can't talk. Bottom line, readily understandable that the cops blew this off.
Coroner's report shows he was seriously overweight, diabetic, and asmatic.
For me an easy call that the police acted correctly and that the racial pandering has begun. AG Holder has announced an investigation and the President has already blathered about uneuqal justice. Somehow this goes unnoticed
I like Crafty's take on this. I was disturbed to see Charles Krauthammer call the Grand Jury verdict incomprehensible. http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/225948-krauthammer-staten-island-grand-jury-decision-totally-incomprehensible I have not viewed the video. Good point that if you can hear him on audio/video saying he can't breathe, then he is breathing. The law against selling untaxed, loose cigarettes is a whole, other issue. I have pointed out many times that no one knows how many laws a simple lemonade stand is breaking. This takedown was because of resisting arrest. They could have used mace, stun gun,or taken him down in other ways that also could have resulted in death, if it was because of his condition, A black captain ordered a black sergeant to arrest him. Blacxk store owners too? This isn't racial. You simply don't resist arrest. When a cop is wrong, we have a system for that. When a law is wrong, we have a system for that. In a libertarian state, if it was legal to sell an untaxed product, it still would not be legal to block public access to someone else's business to do that. That was the complaint that started this, as I understand it.
Read through the table carefully. It begs a number of questions. Why are lower earners mad at or blaming upper earners for our problems and their problems? Why do we subsidize second and third quintile voters I mean earners more than low income earners? At $16 trillion in debt, why is someone making 50k getting a net subsidy at all? What is missing here is the marginal tax rate each person faces. The size of that all the way up and down might surprise you! Why do we have any marginal rate above 20% as a disincentive when we collect so much less? What tax system would collect more or the same and motivate people all the way up and down to produce more?
Rubio is in an unusual position where he has to not seek reelection to the Senate if he wants to pursue the Presidency. Control of the Senate may rest on the Florida race for his seat, so he can't leave it until spring 2016 to announce if he is out. He has perhaps a one in twelve chance of winning just the nomination at this point. Many would handicap it lower than that. I think he will be either the next President or Vice President. But I only get one vote.
Projecting the economy and the (dis)approval of the incumbent:
"At 2.8 percent growth and using Obama’s current job approval, the model forecasts a Democratic loss of 4.6 points"
"... these models probably can give us a rough sense of what would happen under various fundamentals for 2016. They point to a reasonably close election; they do not suggest that the Democratic nominee should be considered the favorite at this point."
...six of the seven seats Republicans will be defending in 2016 are in states that Obama carried with between 50 and 52 percent of the vote. In three of these Obama states, Republican incumbents have shown a capacity to run well ahead of their party -- Charles Grassley in Iowa (52 percent Obama), Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire (52 percent) and Rob Portman in Ohio (51 percent). They may well do so again. Three others would not have to run much ahead of party lines to prevail -- Marco Rubio in Florida (where Obama got 50 percent), Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania (52 percent) and Ron Johnson in Wisconsin (52 percent). ...it is conceivable that Republicans could lose Richard Burr's seat in North Carolina (48 percent Obama).
Eight of the 10 seats Democrats are defending are in states Obama carried with at least 54 percent of the vote, and they don't look vulnerable. Michael Bennet in Colorado (51 percent for Obama) has been forewarned by his colleague Mark Udall's defeat. Harry Reid in Nevada (52 percent Obama) looks beatable
Democrats do look well-positioned to gain Senate seats, but not necessarily the number needed to overturn what looks to be a 54-46 Republican majority.
"...would give lawful status to the millions of people who are beneficiaries of the new policy, and afford to them work authorization and other benefits that are specifically prohibited by U.S. law."
"there are few areas of constitutional authority that are more clearly vested in the Congress than determinations of immigration and naturalization policy. The Supreme Court has routinely described Congress’s power in this area as “plenary,” that is, an unqualified and absolute power."
"...lawfully authorized workers displaced by those to whom Obama has unlawfully extended work authorization have the kind of particularized injury that would give them legal standing to challenge the new policy. Workers compensation insurance carriers, too, might be able to challenge the policy, which forces them to extend coverage to those not legally able to work. "
Congress has options to answer Obama’s dishonest executive amnesty By John C. Eastman
The president’s statement on November 20, 2014 contained several outright falsehoods. More significantly, masked behind the discussion over prosecutorial discretion is a flagrant violation of the Constitution’s core separation of powers principle that Congress, not the president, makes the law.
First the lies, damn lies, and statistics. President Obama said that deportations are up over 80 percent. Truth be told, his administration has manipulated the definition of “deportation” in order to make that claim. Those caught and turned away at the border are now included in the total, whereas before they were not. Comparing apples to apples, the Los Angeles Times reported last April that deportations are down by more than 40 percent since Obama first took office, and the New York Times reported that there was a 26 percent drop in deportations in fiscal year 2013 alone.
Obama also claimed that “The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every single Democratic President for the past half century.” False again. Presidents routinely exercise prosecutorial discretion in individual cases because they seldom have the resources to enforce every minor violation of the law. But rarely has a President engaged in such a wholesale, categorical non-enforcement of the law as Obama did two years ago with the so-called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program (which was available to anyone up to the age of 35!), and now the massively expanded program announced on November 20.
The president’s largest whopper was this: “Now, let’s be clear about what [the new program] isn’t. . . . It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive—only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.”
Not true by a long shot. Non-deportation alone would be an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, even if wholesale, categorical non-enforcement pushes the limits of that doctrine beyond the breaking point. But Obama’s new directive (which was not even issued as an executive order, but merely a “memo” from the Secretary of Homeland Security) would give lawful status to the millions of people who are beneficiaries of the new policy, and afford to them work authorization and other benefits that are specifically prohibited by U.S. law.
As the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service announced with respect to the predecessor DACA program, “An individual who has received deferred action is authorized by DHS to be present in the United States, and is therefore considered by DHS to be lawfully present during the period of deferred action is in effect.” That’s why hundreds of thousands of DACA applicants were deemed to have “legal status,” obtain work authorization, and also obtain driver’s licenses (which were then used to open the door to a host of other benefits available only to citizens and those with lawful permanent residence). The new program will expand that number to millions, perhaps tens of millions.
Obama was right about one thing: “Only Congress can do that.” Indeed, there are few areas of constitutional authority that are more clearly vested in the Congress than determinations of immigration and naturalization policy. The Supreme Court has routinely described Congress’s power in this area as “plenary,” that is, an unqualified and absolute power.
But Obama went ahead and did it anyway. Contradicting even his own express statements over the past four years that he did not have the constitutional authority to do this.
Congress is not without constitutional checks on a president who abuses the powers of his office. It has the power of the purse, and it can use that power to prohibit the expenditure of funds for carrying out the president’s dictate to extend work authorization to those not lawfully authorized to work.
And there may be litigation strategies that can be employed, as well. For example, lawfully authorized workers displaced by those to whom Obama has unlawfully extended work authorization have the kind of particularized injury that would give them legal standing to challenge the new policy. Workers compensation insurance carriers, too, might be able to challenge the policy, which forces them to extend coverage to those not legally able to work.
Whatever path is pursued, it is critical that this constitutional crisis not go unanswered; the rule of law itself is at stake.
Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, the director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and the chairman of the Federalist Society’s Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group.