"We'll have to cut police/fire/EMS" was just a threat to protect pork. Now, lots of agencies are really getting cut, and at some levels, the money just isn't there."
Agree, it went from a threat, to a tactic to a reality. When everything is top priority, nothing is. Most LE is local. One of our county commissioners likes to say 'don't tell me we don't have enough money' every time he sees one of these other crazy projects that go through. Not the obvious ones like the billion dollar ballpark that went through last year with a tax increase where the commissioners voted to waive the legal requirement to let the voters vote on it. Just couldn't trust the voters to do the right thing.
CCP, Choice "1- We can have a doctor and their patient decide what care to give/receive." - sounds kind of American to me, at least the America that I once knew. ---- Crafty, Over in The Way Forward I agreed whole-heartedly with this piece (GRACE-MARIE TURNER) and wanted to add that here. She is right on the money. Obama will not see new light and sign anything to do with repeal. These are some practical steps a new congress can do for roughly the same affect. De-fund, dismantle, delay, direct oversight and delegate to the states. ObamaPelosiCare is a choice that should be rejected at the state level and never was a power of the federal government.
IIRC the neutral budget required collecting taxes 4 years before providing services so that the 10 year plan falsely breaks even saying 10 years pays for 6. Instead of repealing, the new congress should set forward with a clean budget to their own priorities and just omit BS like that. There will be a Newt-like showdown coming and I hope they are ready to hold ground win that war of opinion.
The way forward includes inspirational leading, not in-fighting. I want to comment on the Gilder interview on interesting thought pieces here in terms of going forward. Gilder is brilliant yet I think we all learned to take him in with a grain of salt. As the analysis put it, I think he was a bit guarded and simplifying where he also can be loquacious.
I would include Gilder and Ron Paul, and VDH, Thomas Sowell, Karl Rove and plenty of others on my short list for input on how to lead, how to come together, and where to take this movement during this great opportunity, as it is still very vague in meaning and direction.
I agree with his criticism of Ron Paul' foreign policy views. I agree with him on tax rates. I think his insights about shifting the discussion to fostering human creativity is brilliant.
I also think a coalition between existing Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and center right moderates will come together politically only if we commit to cut and contain spending first. Within that framework I think we can also cut military costs without surrendering or disarming. I think we can reform entitlements if there is a will without starving the poor or pulling the plug on granny. I think we can refuse to allow raising tax rates in a recession or any other time since that isn't working. I think if we took congress we could reform the tax policy scoring mechanism at CBO, where I think Newt tried and failed, the model that always underscore pro-growth policies and disregards the contractionary effects of rate increases and regulation overload. I think we can put corporate tax rates at the median level of OECD instead of at the highest in western civilization. I think we can do ALL the things proposed in Crafty's piece today regarding ObamaCare, namely de-fund it and send it back to the drawing board. I doubt if we can do it but I would run with Paul Ryan's proposal that we put discretionary spending not to the stone age but back to the 2008 levels of the Pelosi congress and freeze it there until reforms of all the programs can be instituted. I think we could truly end earmarks and could win on that issue alone if anyone believe us. I think we can effectively contrast the last 4 supreme court picks and make a strong case to move all of our governing focus toward respecting constitutional limits on government.
Within that framework, we need to invite Ron Paul and all the people he has inspired to join and influence this movement, not to fight it. I also think Ron Paul needs to fade back a bit especially on things and trust the work he has already accomplished while his son is front and center asking to be trusted for an extremely important seat. You can't sweep swing states with any meaning if you can't win Kentucky.
I think Gilder's positive vision forward needs to overlay all of the root-canal work that need to be done first to make the full package a positive one. But I don't think you can inherit a situation that has spending at $4 trillion, revenues at 2.5 trillion and a deficit that is greater than half of revenues, in a debt crisis environment, and not attack spending head-on.
Speaking of affirmative action, I hear that DEA is hiring Ebonics translators to help with cases. I wonder if well-qualified whites and Asians will get their proportional share of the hirings (joking): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100823/ap_on_re_us/us_ebonics_dea It actually sounds like a good and necessary idea. LE needs to know what potentially criminal conversations captured with legal warrants mean, be able to explain translations to investigators and juries and they should be free to hire whoever does that best. The key will be to find the Ebonics experts who also knows English well enough to do that.
Reminds me of Hillary's start at State. She couldn't find anyone in the entire Dept. of civil servants and diplomats or from all her other contacts that knew enough Russian to get the word 'reset' translated correctly, besides that it was a stupid idea. I don't think Russians are having the same trouble translating from English the military secrets that they steal. A predecessor of hers humbly spoke fluent Russian all at the same cost to the taxpayer.
CCP, That gives me a nice understanding of how that works from your side and I'm sure you are as tough on them as anyone. Half of it being fraud or exaggeration, even if anecdotal is shocking, but lower than my estimate. The doctor's report should be the beginning of an application process. It should be descriptive not judgmental for the next step. He wouldn't conclude unfit to work, but he might say medium inflammation on the left ankle or the 7th vertebrae. For some the issue is mental health. The patient should not be asking the doctor for a work conclusion just a medical report. Screening and enforcement should in proportion to the resources we put into IRS. Then there should active followup to move people from unable to work to providing something back to society of value based on their capabilities.
Speaking of government spending, I have a true story from yesterday:
County emergency assistance approved and confirmed with me on the phone a thousand dollars of emergency money to be paid on behalf of my new tenants on the exact same day that the satellite dish installer confirmed with me on the phone the location of the new dish and the placement of the large screens throughout the house. Meanwhile I don't take paid TV because of the cost and because I am too busy to watch. The story is true. I have the address names and phone numbers. And it is not unique. Sorry for the generalization, but they all take cable or direct tv and the time that gets set up is on move-in, the same time that emergency assistance generally kicks in - every 6 months!
Instead of restricting things, we are advertising to get more clients into the programs.
Sidetracked by contract micro-details of local governments paying for REAL work, maybe we should next take a look at the myriad of transfer programs federal state and local that pay people to NOT work. One of the most abused that I see with my work in the inner city is SSI. There are times when I am studying rental applications for income and start to believe that everybody by me is getting a check.
It is hard to oppose paying small amounts, maybe 450 per month per adult, to the disabled, except when you find out that nearly everyone in certain neighborhoods is disabled, physically, mentally or otherwise. It makes sense from a distance until you see them carrying in some very large and heavy entertainment systems and expensive furniture for them to relax all day.
One way that they are able to get a note from their doctor is that they already getting free taxpayer paid healthcare so a doctor is only a taxpayer paid cab ride and waiting room visit away whenever you need one.
The cash payment goes ostensibly to pay for food, shelter and clothing except the same people here are also receiving food stamps, free clothing and often housing programs in addition to free unlimited healthcare. I would also observe that because of the cash and other basics free, and time on their hands because they are banned from working so these people tend to have larger budgets available for beer, pot and cigarettes than most of the rest of us might have.
CCP (and others), how is it that these doctors determine these able bodied looking adults unable to participate in 'substantial gainful activity' (while the real disabled such as those returning from foreign wars with missing limbs are not exactly floating in cash)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Security_Income --- Another example I am finding is where people are paid by the government to take care of their own family member. It is a huge, huge scandal IMO. I will post more when I find out more like whether it is state, federal or county that is paying.
I think he thought I was joining the chorus who complain that civil servants have it cushy and make a boatload of money with time off etc. while he is out risking it all in tough situations sometimes like war and sometimes worse and barely breaking even. If Crafty had thought my words were offensive I don't think he would have passed them on. I never questioned our moderator's good faith on that or on posting the reply. He made the effort to get firsthand input and he made the effort coming back to add a fair warning label. My frustration was that thoughts so clear in my mind don't come out clearly after typed or received, because what he read was not at all what I was trying to say. Participating here for one thing is an attempt to work on that.
The friend at NYPD might also have thought the true numbers in total compensation are false because his own past and current paychecks don't look at all like that, especially if he has a spouse working and earning. I imagine he has an astonishing percentage of total pay taken from him before he sees it, good parts of that distributed to people like he runs across including the crackheads for example while his own bills remain challenging. As I re-posted from the earlier thought, I have no idea how to value things like climbing into a burning building (fire dept.), military or police work except to elect and trust representatives that can do what's right and attract and retain the best people they can within the fiscal constraints they face.
Unions like to negotiate salary, benefits and work rules as separate items. We should IMO negotiate the total compensation, then let the worker designate for him/herself how they would like it distributed.
From 'The Economist', which is not exactly my political cup of tea but good with international coverage, some insights and perspective on China and India which I don't wholly support but find to be a very worthwhile read.
A HUNDRED years ago it was perhaps already possible to discern the rising powers whose interaction and competition would shape the 20th century. The sun that shone on the British empire had passed midday. Vigorous new forces were flexing their muscles on the global stage, notably America, Japan and Germany. Their emergence brought undreamed-of prosperity; but also carnage on a scale hitherto unimaginable.
Now digest the main historical event of this week: China has officially become the world’s second-biggest economy, overtaking Japan. In the West this has prompted concerns about China overtaking the United States sooner than previously thought. But stand back a little farther, apply a more Asian perspective, and China’s longer-term contest is with that other recovering economic behemoth: India. These two Asian giants, which until 1800 used to make up half the world economy, are not, like Japan and Germany, mere nation states. In terms of size and population, each is a continent—and for all the glittering growth rates, a poor one.
This is uncharted territory that should be seen in terms of decades, not years. Demography is not destiny. Nor for that matter are long-range economic forecasts from investment banks. Two decades ago Japan was seen as the main rival to America. Countries as huge and complicated as China can underachieve or collapse under their own contradictions. In the short term its other foreign relationships may matter more, even in Asia: there may, for instance, be a greater risk of conflict between rising China and an ageing but still powerful Japan. Western powers still wield considerable influence.
So caveats abound. Yet as the years roll forward, the chances are that it will increasingly come down once again to the two Asian giants facing each other over a disputed border (see article). How China and India manage their own relationship will determine whether similar mistakes to those that scarred the 20th century disfigure this one.
Neither is exactly comfortable in its skin. China’s leaders like to portray Western hype about their country’s rise as a conspiracy—a pretext either to offload expensive global burdens onto the Middle Kingdom or to encircle it. Witness America’s alliances with Japan and South Korea, its legal obligation to help Taiwan defend itself and its burgeoning friendships with China’s rivals, notably India but also now Vietnam.
This paranoia is overdone. Why shouldn’t more be asked from a place that, as well as being the world’s most-populous country, is already its biggest exporter, its biggest car market, its biggest carbon-emitter and its biggest consumer of energy (a rank China itself, typically, contests)? As for changing the balance of power, the People’s Liberation Army’s steady upgrading of its technological capacity, its building of a blue-water navy and its fast-developing skills in outer space and cyberspace do not yet threaten American supremacy, despite alarm expressed this week about the opacity of the PLA’s plans in a Pentagon report. But China’s military advances do unnerve neighbours and regional rivals. Recent weeks have seen China fall out with South Korea (as well as the West) over how to respond to the sinking in March, apparently by a North Korean torpedo, of a South Korean navy ship. And the Beijing regime has been at odds with South-East Asian countries over its greedy claim to almost all of the South China Sea.
India, too, is unnerved. Its humiliation at Chinese hands in a brief war nearly 50 years ago still rankles. A tradition of strategic mistrust of China is deeply ingrained. India sees China as working to undermine it at every level: by pre-empting it in securing supplies of the energy both must import; through manoeuvres to block a permanent seat for India on the United Nations Security Council; and, above all, through friendships with its smaller South Asian neighbours, notably Pakistan. India also notes that China, after decades of setting their border quarrels to one side in the interests of the broader relationship, has in recent years hardened its position on the disputes in Tibet and Kashmir that in 1962 led to war. This unease has pushed India strategically closer to America—most notably in a controversial deal on nuclear co-operation.
Autocrats in Beijing are contemptuous of India for its messy, indecisive democracy. But they must see it as a serious long-term rival—especially if it continues to tilt towards America. As recently as the early 1990s, India was as rich, in terms of national income per head. China then hurtled so far ahead that it seemed India could never catch up. But India’s long-term prospects now look stronger. While China is about to see its working-age population shrink (see article), India is enjoying the sort of bulge in manpower which brought sustained booms elsewhere in Asia. It is no longer inconceivable that its growth could outpace China’s for a considerable time. It has the advantage of democracy—at least as a pressure valve for discontent. And India’s army is, in numbers, second only to China’s and America’s: it has 100,000 soldiers in disputed Arunachal Pradesh (twice as many as America will soon have in Iraq). And because India does not threaten the West, it has powerful friends both on its own merits and as a counterweight to China.
A settlement in time
The prospect of renewed war between India and China is, for now, something that disturbs the sleep only of virulent nationalists in the Chinese press and retired colonels in Indian think-tanks. Optimists prefer to hail the $60 billion in trade the two are expected to do with each other this year (230 times the total in 1990). But the 20th century taught the world that blatantly foreseeable conflicts of interest can become increasingly foreseeable wars with unforeseeably dreadful consequences. Relying on prosperity and more democracy in China to sort things out thus seems unwise. Two things need to be done.
First, the slow progress towards a border settlement needs to resume. The main onus here is on China. It has the territory it really wants and has maintained its claim to Arunachal Pradesh only as a bargaining chip. It has, after all, solved intractable boundary quarrels with Russia, Mongolia, Myanmar and Vietnam. Surely it cannot be so difficult to treat with India?
That points to a second, deeper need, one that it took Europe two world wars to come close to solving: emerging Asia’s lack of serious institutions to bolster such deals. A regional forum run by the Association of South-East Asian Nations is rendered toothless by China’s aversion to multilateral diplomacy. Like any bully, it prefers to pick off its antagonists one by one. It would be better if China and India—and Japan—could start building regional forums to channel their inevitable rivalries into collaboration and healthy competition.
Globally, the rules-based system that the West set up in the second half of the 20th century brought huge benefits to emerging powers. But it reflects an out-of-date world order, not the current global balance, let alone a future one. China and India should be playing a bigger role in shaping the rules that will govern the 21st century. That requires concessions from the West. But it also requires commitment to a rules-based international order from China and India. A serious effort to solve their own disagreements is a good place to start.
Coming off my fight with NYPD and what I don't know about what they do and how expensive it is to live there, which is true, may I point out that people in Washington DC have no idea about private sector work and pay across the heartland either. Short of forced labor camps etc. they should not be concerned about what free people pay each other with legislation like minimum wage and other mandates.
GM linked a story on the Govt Spending thread that NYPD would pay $80,000 to train a police officer and then a competing department elsewhere hires them away and saves the expense. That happens in the private sector too. There should be no mandate that companies pay people to be trained or pay certain amounts before they are providing a positive value to the organization. Consenting adults can work out private contracts amongst themselves. Once the employee is of good value to the organization then seldom is there any need for protection from the government anyway. People can vote with their feet and leave and spread the word about which companies are lousy to work for.
Employers shouldn't face minimums to pay people who make substantial tips. At the high end we shouldn't be basing any public policies on tyrannical views like that is enough money - no one needs more money than xxx. We shouldn't be mandating what programs people's own pay gets put into other than their paycheck. It is a violation of their economic freedom. Unions that do that are not always doing their members a favor. Maybe they make 3% on an investment account while they are paying 20% on a credit card or late on their mortgage.
Even with the taxes we pay the withholding should not be mandatory before a taxpayer even knows what their deductions and credits for the year will be. It is enough for them to mandate the filing and require the payment. They have enough power to enforce that without mandatory withholding.
Besides minimum wage laws, there are also maximum wage proposals out there, that a company for example cannot pay anyone more than 20 times what the lowest person in the organization is paid. The concept is a violation of your economic liberties and violates common sense. In our town and MVP like Joe Mauer might make 20 million so should there be a law that the lowest batboy make a million? If you are in Washington and think so then you don't understand the dynamics of markets or baseball, which means you don't understand the business of any other industry either. Yet they want caps on bank fees and anything other gripe that people want the government to intervene on. These proposals are gaining steam with the infusion of government money into private company ownership, like the 3 CEO changes at Government Motors. These infusions are a violation of the economic rights of the competitor to operate freely and fairly on a level playing field
Groups should not be targeted for taxation, like the top 1%, the top 2% or 'only those making over 200,000'. Taxation to pay for public goods should be applied evenly across people and across income. The right to keep the rest of what you earned, other than taxes at the rate everyone is taxed at, is a basic human liberty whether you are rich or not. When they chip away at one group and then another, they are chipping away at you.
Short of things like pouring mercury into ground water and forced labor camps, they need to start respecting people's economic liberties and allow us to run our own businesses and make our own economic decisions. Believe it or not, we can do it better ourselves.
Crafty, I don't suppose you quoted to him what I wrote earlier this week (next two paragraphs) on the same subject which might have helped him to understand in context that I was not saying anyone is overpaid or anyone is underpaid. Where in my post did I write that anyway? I don't have a dog in their fight and I didn't claim to know about their organization. I quoted exact words from their website. I was mostly making the point that 25k posted here is not 45k and we really are talking about roughly a 100k job (Not take home, but total compensation) by the time you get 5 years up to speed and I am still not saying that 100k is a lot of money for what a good cop in NYC does. At the 100k level they probably see well under half of that in take home pay and that is one problem but again I was not judging the value of their work. If he was offended my statement that if the spouse is a school teacher then you are approaching punishable wealth, a little good detective work would tell him quickly that was totally political tongue in cheek because if you took any context to my posts you would know that I don't think 100 million or 500 trillion is punishable wealth, much less 200k or 25k or 45k or 91k. I think all honestly earned wealth is good and there is no question that good cops deserve serious pay.
Aug. 16. 2010 I wrote: "I wouldn't want to judge the real value of what anyone does, the danger that military, fire or police officers face, nor would they want to pay full value for my sacrifices and dangers as an inner city landlord. We get what the market will bear and what it will take to get the right person to come in and do the job.
What I hate is when they disguise or deny the money we pay. Telling us a teacher makes 50 or 60k when we pay out 90k because they aren't counting the deferred money or the benefits as pay. It is all pay. If they want portions of their pay in forced savings, health benefits, pension funds, taxes or anything else, that is their business."
THAT was my point, that pay is pay. It all counts, even if it is low and even if major parts of it go to benefits or accounts in their name and don't show in a current paycheck, and to taxes. How can we begin to judge the money if we can't say accurately what the money is and I was miffed at the original post for putting that information out wrong in my opinion.
For all the insults, "macdoug or whatever his name is does not know what he's talking about", "people like this make me laugh", I didn't see anyone point out a fact that I posted wrong. I assume he did not go to the link I twice provided where all the pay figures I posted came from.
Your friend wrote: "The first 5 years I was on the job I would put my life on the line, then come home and decide what bill I was going to skip."
Sounds like his interests may not have been well served by having more than half of his money earned not be in his paycheck those early years due to inflexible union contracts, benefits and deferrals and high taxes which go more to transfer payments (including the crackheads) than toward real public services like good police work. Unfortunately I don't think he read that far into my post.
The remark about private sector comparisons in interesting. In return there are civil servants who might not always count deferred compensation or benefits as pay because they think everyone gets them. I will tell you, 'Trust me, we don't'.
The interesting part of this to me from a public policy point of view is the PROCESS of how compensation is set. It is not at all about me judging the risk, danger or value of someone else's work from a thousand miles away.
Nothing in that story ("hundreds of city cops, many of them rookies") tells us how many of those completed the 20 years and are PAID to leave, nor does the term hundreds out of 35,000 tell us anything significant. Still, if essential jobs go unfilled, the pay plan will be upped - and it was. The combination of both stories tells us that the process of setting and adjusting those payscales is 'horrific'.
GM, Did you mean to quote a 'starting salary' and then refer to it as "this pay is horrific" when in fact the salary quoted ("this pay") was just over half of current total pay and only for the training period. The pay within just 5.5 years is nearly 4 times what was quoted and likely more with some overtime. (The story quoted without link or date was from May 20, 2008, more than 2 years ago: http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/1696920-NYPD-gets-pay-raise/ )
Welcome to civil service. We hear how little they make without learning honestly or accurately hearing how much they make. Little things like recent increases, healthcare paid and other monies put into an account with their name on it don't really count. NYPD link: http://www.nypdrecruit.com/NYPD_BenefitsOverview.aspx
But once again, the problem with government budgets in NYC and America is not the cost of governing like paying police what is needed to get the job done. The problem is that the majority of government expenditures go to transfer payments for no service at all, NOT to pay for real public services like police work.
"NYC has a far, far higher cost of living than elsewhere."
Agree. I was teasing GM a bit, but as I posted previously - I hate when they tell you the pay is X when the real pay is Y. Starting salary is MISLEADING. In government-speak, 25k for 1st year police work is really 45k to go to school - police academy: http://www.nypdrecruit.com/NYPD_BenefitsOverview.aspx And after 5.5 years that becomes 91k. Add a school teacher spouse to that and it takes you into the area we now call punishably rich. I don't know about police academy attendees, but trainees in business are not particularly valuable. But 91k in 5 years for working 11 months of the year including paid medical, unlimited full paid for sick half pay for life for working 20 years is not something to sneeze at in this economy.
Not included in the 'salary': overtime pay, plus * 10 Paid vacation days during first & second year * 13 Paid vacation days during third, fourth & fifth year * 27 Paid vacation days after 5 years of service * Unlimited sick leave with full pay * A choice of paid medical programs * Prescription, dental, and eyeglass coverage * Annuity fund * Deferred Compensation Plan, 401K and I.R.A. * Optional retirement at one half salary after 20 years of service * Annual $12,000 Variable Supplement Fund (upon retirement) * Annual banking of $12,000 Variable Supplement Fund after 20 years of service (if not retiring) * Excellent promotional opportunities * Educational opportunities * Additional benefits are available to military personnel.
Looks to me like they know how to recruit. Unlike private business, you can't stay at the entry level. After 5 years and with a little overtime the officer makes over 100k for working 11 months of the year. I'm not saying that is overpaid; I'm saying it's not a 25k job, the jobs are not going unfilled and the people are paying a high cost of living by choice.
"The NYPD has been casting its net far and wide in search of recruits."
That sounds like common sense. Still essential jobs are not going unfilled. If they do, then pay goes up- by public choice instead of union and labor board panels. ----- Speaking of cost of living, it's funny how the social extremists keep telling the happy people who moving to the x-urbs that we all need to get more urbanized, live in greater density, that it is far more efficient to live close together and too costly to run a water or sewer pipe an extra mile or two out to the edge of town. What a bunch of B.S.
GM, I did a Google search of "NYPD jobs go unfilled" and amazingly got zero hits. That work is so fun and rewarding that people will do it without pay. Are you counting a free gun, free uniform and squad car usage in that 25k?
Great post / analogy Crafty! Our economy burdened with mandates, taxes, spending and regulations is so obese that we cannot reach down to tie our own shoes. Posted under govt. spending is the new analysis that the public sector is eating up 63.4% of the resources available in the economy. Answer: more spending, seriously. It does not even mischaracterize the thought process of the ruling regime and their thought leaders. Amazingly, the same day you posted Dr. Hayek and Dr. Keynes, Paul Krugman wrote another column poking fun at "austerians" and calling for even more government largess - I kid you not.
Dr. Krugman, we are not worshipping the bond Gods, we are just noticing and frightened by the fact that the public sector is consuming all of the oxygen in the room. If we are living beyond our needs today, we will necessarily be living BENEATH our means tomorrow. The current budget is $4 trillion, $2.5 trillion in revenues, 1.5 trillion in new debt added per year, with accumulating interest. To spend below $4 trillion would be "human sacrifice". The economic growth we have acquired from this Keynesian stimulus is ZILCH, well below the 3.1% or so that the economy requires. I think this is one of those math or word problems where the uncluttered mind of a kindergardner can answer it more accurately than a Nobel prize winning economist - with an agenda. Note where Obama gets his straw man argument style from, if we cut back (at all) on government spending it means we are giving up on job creation!
As I look at what passes for responsible economic policy these days, there’s an analogy that keeps passing through my mind. I know it’s over the top, but here it is anyway: the policy elite — central bankers, finance ministers, politicians who pose as defenders of fiscal virtue — are acting like the priests of some ancient cult, demanding that we engage in human sacrifices to appease the anger of invisible gods.
Hey, I told you it was over the top. But bear with me for a minute.
Late last year the conventional wisdom on economic policy took a hard right turn. Even though the world’s major economies had barely begun to recover, even though unemployment remained disastrously high across much of America and Europe, creating jobs was no longer on the agenda. Instead, we were told, governments had to turn all their attention to reducing budget deficits.
Skeptics pointed out that slashing spending in a depressed economy does little to improve long-run budget prospects, and may actually make them worse by depressing economic growth. But the apostles of austerity — sometimes referred to as “austerians” — brushed aside all attempts to do the math. Never mind the numbers, they declared: immediate spending cuts were needed to ward off the “bond vigilantes,” investors who would pull the plug on spendthrift governments, driving up their borrowing costs and precipitating a crisis. Look at Greece, they said.
The skeptics countered that Greece is a special case, trapped by its use of the euro, which condemns it to years of deflation and stagnation whatever it does. The interest rates paid by major nations with their own currencies — not just the United States, but also Britain and Japan — showed no sign that the bond vigilantes were about to attack, or even that they existed.
Just you wait, said the austerians: the bond vigilantes may be invisible, but they must be feared all the same.
This was a strange argument even a few months ago, when the U.S. government could borrow for 10 years at less than 4 percent interest. We were being told that it was necessary to give up on job creation, to inflict suffering on millions of workers, in order to satisfy demands that investors were not, in fact, actually making, but which austerians claimed they would make in the future.
But the argument has become even stranger recently, as it has become clear that investors aren’t worried about deficits; they’re worried about stagnation and deflation. And they’ve been signaling that concern by driving interest rates on the debt of major economies lower, not higher. On Thursday, the rate on 10-year U.S. bonds was only 2.58 percent.
So how do austerians deal with the reality of interest rates that are plunging, not soaring? The latest fashion is to declare that there’s a bubble in the bond market: investors aren’t really concerned about economic weakness; they’re just getting carried away. It’s hard to convey the sheer audacity of this argument: first we were told that we must ignore economic fundamentals and instead obey the dictates of financial markets; now we’re being told to ignore what those markets are actually saying because they’re confused.
You see, then, why I find myself thinking in terms of strange and savage cults, demanding human sacrifices to appease unseen forces.
And, yes, we are talking about sacrifices. Anyone who doubts the suffering caused by slashing spending in a weak economy should look at the catastrophic effects of austerity programs in Greece and Ireland.
Maybe those countries had no choice in the matter — although it’s worth noting that all the suffering being imposed on their populations doesn’t seem to have done anything to improve investor confidence in their governments.
But, in America, we do have a choice. The markets aren’t demanding that we give up on job creation. On the contrary, they seem worried about the lack of action — about the fact that, as Bill Gross of the giant bond fund Pimco put it earlier this week, we’re “approaching a cul-de-sac of stimulus,” which he warns “will slow to a snail’s pace, incapable of providing sufficient job growth going forward.”
It seems almost superfluous, given all that, to mention the final insult: many of the most vocal austerians are, of course, hypocrites. Notice, in particular, how suddenly Republicans lost interest in the budget deficit when they were challenged about the cost of retaining tax cuts for the wealthy. But that won’t stop them from continuing to pose as deficit hawks whenever anyone proposes doing something to help the unemployed.
So here’s the question I find myself asking: What will it take to break the hold of this cruel cult on the minds of the policy elite? When, if ever, will we get back to the job of rebuilding the economy?
When Happy Cost of Government Day hits so late it spills over into Ramadan we really should start noticing that we have a problem. (Speaking of religious holidays, polls say more people are looking forward to November 2nd than December 25th this year.)
The nice thing about Happy Cost of Government Day falling on August 19 is that now you are good to go. Everything you make from today August 20th on until the end of the year is yours to spend anyway that you like - like maybe a little food for the family, a new pair of shoes or maybe a bicycle for one of the kids.
You people calling it all socialism just because you work 8 months for the government are over-reacting. For the next 4 months, it's all yours. Get out and enjoy it! For the way our nation has been voting and governing we are lucky to keep one day's earnings in a year.
Cost of Government Day Finally Arrives on August 19, 2010
Every year, the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation and the Center for Fiscal Accountability calculate Cost of Government Day. This is the day on which the average American has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government on the federal, state, and local levels.
In 2010, Cost of Government Day falls on August 19. That means working people must toil 231 days out of the year just to meet all costs imposed by government. In other words, the cost of government consumes 63.41 percent of national income.
“Two years ago Americans worked until July 16 to pay for the cost of government: all federal, state and local government spending and regulatory costs. That government was too expensive and wasteful. Two years later, we work until August 19 for the same bloated government. We have lost an additional full month of our income to pay the cost of government in just the last two years,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Watch for these liberal pretend economist arguments to slip into the political debate in your own congressional districts and senate races. As Reich puts it: "supply-side economics won't create jobs. It's pushing on a wet noodle. Businesses create jobs only if consumers are pulling the noodle from the other end." Corporations are sitting on plenty of cash but won't hire with it. Tax cuts won't help that he argues. In reality he means tax rate increases that are coming won't make it that much worse...
First of all, the publicly traded companies of Dow and NASDAQ are not the small businesses of America that will generate the next expansion.
Reich forgets that a good part of our existing demand is used up purchasing foreign made products and services because the climate and cost and regulatory structure are prohibitive. And too much of the demand elsewhere in the world is directed toward also purchasing non-USA products where we once were the leaders.
Some of our hiring is held up by the uncertainty of future costs and penalties associated with new healthcare requirements, ccap and trade energy restrictions, tax increases, property tax increases, energy cost increases and who knows what else might be coming down the pike between now and when this anti-business, anti-freedom, anti-growth crowd loses their power. Tax cuts alone do not make up a 'supply side' policy. The regulatory maze and the flood of public spending competing for resources are big parts of the puzzle also.
You can't tell me that pro-growth policies that would bring unemployment down from 10% back to 5% would not increase consumer demand and business product and services in this country. You cannot convince me that making it easier and less costly to hire and produce here would not shift some production to here and some consumer purchasing to American goods and away from the foreign competitor. You cannot even convince me that even if all the sales of new production here went to overseas markets that the money coming back wouldn't provide a burst and a boost to our own economy our own demand and lead to new hiring. You cannot tell me that lowering corporate tax rates from the highest in the world of western civilization to the median of the OECD countries would not have an affect on keeping and attracting new jobs to our economy.
What Mr. Reich needs to do is first get all the parties in power such as Obama, Pelosi, Valerie Jarret and Van Jones (is he still around?) to at least admit and declare publicly that real economic growth is a public good of value, not something to be attacked, before we can seriously argue out what is the best set of policies to achieve it.
Currently the US Dollar is within about 5% of its all-time historic low. You cannot convince me that this would not be a perfect time to be selling Made-in-USA goods all around the globe - if only we were still producing anything.
Boyo, I agree that an Ann Coulter event deserves the same type of protections. Shouting her down is not any kind of free speech, just a violation of someone else's rights. Even the John Bush affair wasn't about what he could say, it was about where. A campus that hires 95% liberals needs to understand that outside speakers will be required to offer any kind of balance. I frankly despise having to frequent conservative-bias sites to get the even the facts of most stories much less a conservative take, while liberals seem comfortable to build and maintain a bubble of protection around them from other views, seldom curious about why half (or more) of our society might think differently than they do.
Private Universities can rise and fall on their own reputation. There is no excuse for supporting the use of public funds in these public universities (or K-12) that won't end the indoctrination described in the documentary. --- Update on John Bush from his own site: "Bush was held on a criminal trespass charge, a class B misdemeanor, in the Travis County jail Monday evening. He was subsequently released, and made several media appearances on Tuesday." http://tagtexas.org/ --- The pie thrower who hit Sen Carl Levin D-Mich. was arrested and charged with a felony. http://womc.radio.com/2010/08/18/accused-levin-pie-thrower-jailed/ --- To the protesters on both sides, the idea isn't to persuade or confront your opponents; the point is to organize and defeat them politically.
I'm glad it was appreciated. Really just hollow words though without the followup video made possible by the policies of his successor and the American military; Saddam Hussein's hanging is at about the 1:37 mark of this clip12/30/2006:
In both cases you would think the availability of google, youtube and camcorders everywhere would begin to persuade world leaders to behave better.
"a strong case can be made that China is a huge bubble. Furthermore its unique demographic profile presents deep questions."
During the last expansion here, we had more GDP growth in part of a decade than they have in total GDP. China cut a corporate tax rate (Jan.2008) that was already below ours, right as our taxes were promised to get worse and right as our economy was starting to tank and needing the same type of real production stimulus. Their economy is more dependent on ours than ours is on theirs, IMO. If they outperform us going forward, the fault is all our own. They have had phenomenal growth but as Crafty hints, there is plenty wrong in China.
A healthy Chinese economy and a growing world middle class is a healthy thing for the U.S. economy, assuming we also choose to engage and compete, except for the aspect and the extent to which they are military enemies of us.
Looks to me like the Univ. of Texas administrators were trying to balance these rights, the students, the security of a Presidential visit, accommodate but contain the protest, etc. and just got it wrong in the sense of overly restricting the protest. The police were determined to enforce the rule but seemed like they were trying very hard not to further cause the situation to escalate.
OTOH, these campus restrictions and protest restrictions are not wholly the same thing as losing your right to free speech. In both the example of the GOP convention that I gave and with the Obama visit, the protesters are piggybacking off of the popularity of the main event. Yet they still have the same right to book the same convention center, bring 50,000 of their own people in, speak to their hearts' content, sell the networks on the idea of coverage or broadcast their own message out, even form a party, endorse a ticket and get their names on the ballot. At Univ. Texas, same thing. I assume John Bush could rent an auditorium on campus, host an event, get a park permit for an event somewhere in town, draw his own crowd and speak all day on anything short of inciting violence. To some extent the protesters are trying to take something away from the scheduled event - the easy way out - instead of throwing their own event and taking on the burden of drawing their own crowd and putting out their own message.
"service members who are in the lower 3 ranks with kids can qualify for some welfare programs" Of course it shouldn't be that way but there are some factors to consider: a) a lot of their compensation is deferred, b) a significant part is not counted as income such as education benefits, housing, food, medical care, etc. c) our social welfare programs are screwed up so qualifying doesn't for sure mean you are poor, and d) there is some market aspect to military recruiting - they have budget constraints but they have to come up with packages sufficient to recruit the numbers needed in the ranks.
Very interesting Strat, as always. Seems to me they exaggerate our goal number 3, ending with a pro-American government. Pro-American is a little hard to arrange. We would I think settle for anything that involves stability, self-determination and not actively planning (or harboring) attacks against American interests.
Iran is a key player and factor but I wonder if Stratfor overestimates how much the Iraqis, even Shia, want to be controlled by Iran.
Iran has some stability issues of its own with 70 million oppressed people. The USA by now should have some covert destabilization contingency plan of its own ready to deploy in Iran, short of an invasion. In Iraq it was the previous Dem administration in 1998, candidate Gore in 2000 as well as many inconsistent, antiwar Democrats of the 2000s who kept alleging that "regime change" policy did not mean all-out military invasion. Similarly could be covert destabilization efforts could be launched or threatened within Iran. Even if unsuccessful, they could keep the tyrannical regime busy with problems of its own. Here is Clinton '98 discussing efforts to destabilize Iraq toward regime change:
For all the talk by Obama and his cronies about political rather than military solutions in conflicts, in Iraq it is the military effort succeeding and the political situation failing at the moment, yet he has his ace number one chief diplomat HRC assigned elsewhere. If I were President Barack "I have a Gift" Obama, friend of all Arabs and Muslims, I would send myself to the negotiating table (the photo-opp of the century) and sit down now with all the factions, here them all out and then settle the issues, letting each side believe that they won all they could win in the negotiations for power.
After we leave and destabilization comes back and spreads across the country, that opportunity to negotiate and settle power may never again be possible.
Deficits and out of control public spending are not caused by police costs. Real governing and public service functions make up a tiny fraction of the total we pay. Police forces are cut first to punish us for wanting to cut or even contain costs.
OTOH, real public functions like police work don't have much market discipline to control costs. Requires wise and responsible management to look for innovation and searches for new efficiencies. Often their hands are tied with work rules and union contracts.
Our small town contracts with other neighboring towns for police and some other services. We can negotiate a half of a cop of coverage or we can contract with a different neighboring force for cost sharing so there is in fact some choice and competition. But we have almost no crime. Problem here is that in a county larger than several states we are also paying for all the third world behaviors and the welfare-destroyed culture of a major inner city with all its problems spilling over to the inner ring suburbs.
"if... Rove is consolidating his political behind the scenes power in the party, than what does that mean for the future of the party?"
IMHO Rove was never the problem. He is an adviser, not a politician or a leader. Presidents need political advisers to figure out the political implications of things. Rove made mistakes, all of them did. This is a different time and his political advice would be different. Rove's name is political poison to some I'm sure but I think he is a conservative with a keen insight. Rove has value, skill, weaknesses and baggage, but I don't think he has any power or ever will other than the power of his ideas. Bush probably used him beyond his area of expertise and that was the Presdent's fault. I don't think any candidate would hand the whole campaign or agenda over to him today. A real leader has to take in all the advice in different directions and then do the right thing.
If I were a candidate, I would love to hear his advice, especially if I could get it in private without being tied publicly to advisers that brought us the failures of the past (and a number of successes). Same with Dick Morris, though I wouldn't buddy around with him in public, but I would hear him out. You have to win elections to govern and to prevent people like Pelosi-Obama from governing. I would also consult and train with all the others I could find who have shown great skill at simplifying, clarifying and articulating the conservative message and define a realistic platform and agenda for this unique time in history.
I don't think Rove (or Cheney) ever controlled Bush or congress; I don't think Rahm or Axelrod control Obama, or Carville or Stephanopoulus controlled Clinton. HW Bush caved in to his advisers but that again was his fault and his responsibility. We have just had a series of inconsistent or wrong headed leaders unfortunately.
It is not (IMO) the amount civil servants are paid, it is the process that is screwed up. I don't know what amount of money it would take to hire and retain good people for key positions in any location but we all know stories of where it is all skewed. I remember my daughter's principal saying he had one thousand applicants for each teaching position open - this was during economic boom, not recession. You could call it high pay or low pay, fair or unfair pay, but we know for certain it is above market pay. That principal went on to retire right as he entered what would have been the peak of his business executive career at age 55, left the community, draws a good check, and entered another career. A family member retired from the federal government with full pension in his 40s, an air traffic controller. They want the controllers out of traffic control because of the stressors, but same employer also hires national park attendants or whatever. Move the beat cop to detective if deserving or other position that fits his/her current abilities. If still on the beat at 55-65, I would give the deserving officer a firearm with a little better range. In Minneapolis, the police don't run down muggers or investigate the crime anyway, so here age shouldn't be an issue. Note that I did see DBMA video of a youthful aging athlete training on hills with very heavy packs at beachside and I (similar age) still enjoy defeating college athletes at my sport (tennis), though the aches and pains do increase over time. My parents age 85 self-employed still work, by their own choice.
I wouldn't want to judge the real value of what anyone does, the danger that military, fire or police officers face, nor would they want to pay full value for my sacrifices and dangers as an inner city landlord. We get what the market will bear and what it will take to get the right person to come in and do the job.
What I hate is when they disguise or deny the money we pay. Telling us a teacher makes 50 or 60k when we pay out 90k because they aren't counting the deferred money or the benefits as pay. It is all pay. If they want portions of their pay in forced savings, health benefits, pension funds, taxes or anything else, that is their business.
The concept of public employees union violates the reason I thought that workers needed to organize - the greedy capitalist has disproportionate power over the lowly worker. How can it be that a government of the people, by the people and for the people needs it's power to negotiate curtailed?
3 page editorial basically favoring the war and stating that we have a long way to go. My take on their take: There is currently a Presidential promise in place to end our commitment in less than one year. If kept that means all we sacrificed so far and for the next year will be lost. Gen. Petraeus seems to have the job of explaining to everyone sensible that we will stay longer. The NY Times apparently has taken the assignment of explaining it to the liberal elites, the academics, the arts crowd and the kooks that make up the rest of the (Obama) ruling coalition. The President will follow later with some fireside chat and explain to us what we already knew from these surrogates. As the NY Times puts it: "Americans need regular, straight talk from President Obama about what is happening in Afghanistan, for good and ill, and the plan going forward." I'm sure it is coming - as soon as his pollsters and political advisers tell him it is time to do that.
August 13, 2010 3:34 PM How Many "Top Priority" Issues Does Obama Have? Posted by Mark Knoller
After the Senate passed that $600 million Border Security Bill yesterday, President Obama issued a statement asserting that securing the southwest border has been "a top priority" since he took office.
But if you think Mr. Obama can have but a single "top priority," you'd be wrong. He's got a load of them.
In an Address to the Nation two months ago, Mr. Obama declared "our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American."
More than any other issue, he has used the phrase "top priority" about digging the economy out of the recession and creating jobs. And on this issue, he drew a distinction between "a" top priority and "the" top priority.
"Creating jobs in the United States and ensuring a return to sustainable economic growth is the top priority for my Administration," he said in an Executive Order last March on his National Export Initiative.
Early in his administration, Mr. Obama also assigned the "top priority" label to his campaign promise to overhaul America's health care system. But a check of his speeches since taking office, reflect a bevy of other "top priorities:"
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS: "...that's something that's going to be a top priority." (4/27/10)
ENERGY SECURITY: "And that's why my energy security plan has been one of the top priorities of my Administration since the day I took office." (4/28/10)
EDUCATION REFORM: "To train our workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we've made education reform a top priority in this Administration." (2/24/10)
STUDENT LOAN REFORM: "This is something that I've made a top priority." (2/1/10)
EXPORTS BY SMALL BUSINESSES: "This is going to be a top priority." (12/3/09)
HEALTH ASSISTANCE TO 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS: "I'm not just talking the talk, we've been budgeting this as a top priority for this Administration." (2/3/10)
END HOMELESSNESS AMONG VETERANS: "I've also directed (Veterans Affairs) Secretary Shinseki to focus on a top priority: reducing homeless among veterans." (8/17/09)
HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS: "Our top priority is ensuring the public safety. That means appropriate sheltering in place or if necessary, getting as many people as possible out of harm's way prior to landfall." (5/29/09)
H1N1 FLU VACCINATIONS: "And throughout this process, my top priority has been the health and the safety of the American people." (5/1/09)
SUPPORT FOR MILITARY FAMILIES: "These military families are heroes too. And they are a top priority of Michelle and me. And they will always have our support." (5/30/09)
STRENTHENING TIES WITH CANADA AND MEXICO: "We're going to make this a top priority..." (10/16/09)
CONSUMER PROTECTION: "During these challenging times, the needs of American consumers are a top priority of my Administration." (2/11/09)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: "So this is going to be a top priority generally improving our environmental quality." (11/5/09)
The dictionary defines "top" as a singular entity: "the part of anything that is first or foremost."
By designating a multitude of "top priorities," Mr. Obama can be seen trying to score political points with the constituencies for all of these issues.
Mark Knoller is a CBS News White House correspondent.
JDN, I took this quote (away from context)over to politics to answer:" Until Bush came along I was a life long Republican. The Republican core ideals can and do apply to all ethnic groups. I blame it on poor Republican leadership and vague or unrealistic platforms. The core (good) story of the Republican party is just not getting out."
Not just Bush, but the R. congress of that time needs to be answered. Some here are conservatives, some are libertarians. I'm sure some are neither, but among those who are like-minded we need to find areas of overlap such as founding principles and apply and promote the message.
Putting an R by your name doesn't make Bush, McCain or anyone else a Republican, a conservative, a libertarian or anything else. Looking back, I give the Nixon presidency to the Dems (of today), the JFK tax cuts to the R's of today and the Clinton and Bush Presidencies mixed reviews. What I like to do is argue out are the policies and the vision, not the people and their blemishes.
Bush created a huge new entitlement. At that moment he was a Democrat by my labeling. Likewise for No child Left Behind. Whether they got the policy details right or wrong, it was a federal expansion into a non-federal area and that was wrong. Problem with those reachout and crossover moves was that his new friends were backstabbers while he started to lose his old friends. Bush siding with Dems on 'amnesty'. It was realpolitik idea for Republicans, like you suggest, but not a conservative, enforce our laws and our borders direction. Other policies of Bush were economically expansive or national security based, in crude modern terms things I call conservative. Overall spending along with the earmark political payoff spending was obscene - and that congress were punished, politically, as was our nation.
Roughly 40% of the electorate is politically conservative and 40% liberal. When a President's approval drops below 50% approval, he is losing support from moderates. Dropping below 40% means losing the base.
The Pelosi-Obama fiasco has given the Republican-conservative-libertarian movement a teachable moment, and remember that power in Washington shifted in Nov. 2006, not Jan. 2009.
There is a set of ideals and policies that we need in this country. We will argue over what those are, but we need to settle some of the basic questions as a coalition if we want a direction changing election to have any meaning or mandate.
If we can get that roadmap, blueprint, platform right, and get that very clear message out, then I don't care so much who joins in or who opposes us.
What we had previously was muddled policies, muddled directions, muddled leaders and muddled elections. What we learn from that is nothing IMO. I agreed with the sentiment of 2006/2008 of throw the bums out. I just think what followed should have been a clear and careful turn to the right instead of a sharp blind turn to the left. That choice was never on the ballot.
Quoting GM: I'm guessing this "John Bush" had no student status on the campus and had been asked to leave, refused to do so and was then arrested as a result. A press pass is not some sort of "get out of jail free" card.
There were some updates here: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/142018 "John was officially booked and charged with Criminal Trespassing. He is at the Austin jail located at 500 W 10th St." Also a reply from the Univ.Texas President: "In order to mitigate any public disruption to the teaching and research mission of the institution, the University temporarily created a limited area for public protest on the East side of the Perry-Castaneda Library on August 9"
Bush did not claim to be a student, only that campuses are traditionally the center of free speech, particularly protest speech. Missing in the video is the Presidential visit. Areas are often secured for events like these, but that was not the issue here. I find a few things peculiar. As the video begins, the police are already on the scene. If he is already guilty of the criminal trespass, a serious charge, why is he offered the freedom to leave without arrest? I agree that one's free speech rights don't spill over onto my property, but is a public university really private property? I assume yes, but even the public streets and sidewalks that run through it? The video shows quite a large group of onlookers in the same "criminal trespass" location, the videographer and the chanters and so on, why are they not handcuffed and hauled off? Are protesters of other causes on other days given the same or comparable treatment? (I doubt it.) Was there really any classes in session on UTA or research being conducted within earshot of the spirited discussion on Aug. 9? Were students and staff really disrupted by the spirited discussion or was the President's security breached by the protesters? Accuweather says it was 99 degrees, and the August classroom windows would be open?
I recall the Republican convention in St. Paul MN 2008. Really the 50,000 conventioneers were the trespassers in that totally liberal, Democrat city and the civil servants enforcing the protest area designations were mostly Dems and protest sympathizers charged with doing their jobs. Public streets around the convention center and public grounds were off-limits to protesters. Real violence occurred and serious terrorist threats existed. Arrests were made and very angry protesters posted their youtubes. Everyone in this age of blogging has a press pass, but not one issued or cleared by the event.
The question it all centers on IMO is whether the security or threat of disruption justified the location and free speech restrictions. In the St. Paul example, I think all the people arrested but not tied to violence or threats were released and not charged. The UTA example is different I think because people were allowed in those areas, with or without student/staff status, as long as they DID NOT SPEAK. His arrest was about conduct not location or status from all that I can see.
JDN, Thanks for the reply. As CCP put it, I would also like to agree to disagree, just try to clarify my own view without too much repetition.
Finding a workable solution does not equal blanket amnesty. You are courageous to use that term amnesty as it doesn't poll well at all. In the business of processing people who broke the law I would use the term plea bargain rather than amnesty. If we process some of the undocumented onto a path toward citizenship, some into work visas with an end date and some out now, that might be a comprehensive solution that involves compromise, but how do you sort that out under equal protection?
You say give citizenship to Mexicans and Republicans need to adjust their views to attract Mexicans I assume you mean to refer to them as 'Americans', but as you again courageously admit, they are not.
Yes I was referring to the illegal vote of the illegals. The 60th vote in the senate that enabled healthcare overhaul came from a state that does not verify citizenship. I was there and watched it happen. You need nothing but a voter registered in a precinct to vouch for your ADDRESS, not your citizenship, or a STUDENT ID, or one of many other documents that DO NOT VERIFY CITIZENSHIP: http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=204. To vote, a non-citizen would have too check the box marked citizen, but that is well-known to be unverified and unverifiable. (Note that they are already breaking the law and wishing to vote.)
One interesting point of JDN is that border crossing is down. With both the precise number of 12 million and the measured trend line, I wonder how we know and I wonder why that trend might be down. My guess is that double digit unemployment explains that far more than anything US border enforcement is doing. Also it looks to me like border enforcement has shifted to the gangs in charge. They require a high fee which most don't have, and they require you to use their service. Free spirited individuals setting up to cross in their territory without paying the fee are likely killed or captured on one side of the border or the other - and dealt with accordingly. I didn't eyewitness this but have other first hand knowledge about how gangs protect their economic interests. Violence statistics on both sides of the border offer some corroboration of that theory.
Lastly, no I don't assume that 600M worth of public employee union members sent to vacation near the border (sorry for the cynicism) with rules of engagement that include don't ask don't tell will make a significant impact on anything except making possible a line in an upcoming campaign or state of the union speech of this administration stepping up border enforcement. In other words, we would have to clarify the mission, commit to the mission and change the rules of engagement before sending more money will make a difference IMHO.
"I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this story. Is there some fiscal restraint implicit in the gutting of one untouchable program to fund another?"
Sorry BBG but you won't be able to see their logic with your brain screwed on frontwards; you have to turn it around backwards and tilt it a bit.
The First Lady's pet program has to be paid for, even though nothing is paid for when we already spend a trillion and a half a year more than revenues. Food for the poor never has to be paid for, even though that is a meaningless designation anyway. Democrats are confident in their ability to restore spending from food stamp cuts blindfolded, in their sleep, before breakfast, even restore the spending from their new position - in the minority.
Putting the poor and their self-centered needs for food aside for a moment, the main thing is that the first lady gets what the first lady wants.
JDN,here are a few points back. a) I don't bash Obama because it's fashionable. I post heartfelt views here because I can. b) If 0.6B extra for one of our greatest problems out of 4000B in spending strikes you as 'significant', I don't know what to say except we can watch and see what the results will be. It strikes me as small, insignificant and coming 100% from political advisers saying that is enough to say we did something, and not at all from border security advisers that see this for what it is to me, an invasion threatening our national security. c) I can't imagine that this small step could begin to offset the acceleration of the surge inward that I would expect from all the loose talk about amnesty for those who do come in.
"With 12 million plus illegal immigrants some form of amnesty needs to be worked out." - Where else could that level of logic be applied? How about tax evasion or child abduction. Look, everyone is doing it.
"I prefer to have illegals in school versus running wild on the street or in gangs." - Do I prefer if I am mugged that the money that was formerly mine go toward nutritional snacks for the mugger's children? Again, I have no ability to follow your logic past the word illegal or that a crime was committed. And why would you think that they don't vote? They are counted in the U.S. Census, correct? Propose making the borders open and unattended if that is your wish, and have an up or down vote on it, but do we have to keep playing games with national security and national sovereignty.
"...on Bush's watch ... Where was the outrage then?" - Come on JDN, at least argue seriously. I refuse to believe as informed as you are that you were not aware of the earthquake sized fault line in the Republican Party over borders and immigration under Bush. For an indicator, political conservatives make up about 40% of the electorate. When Bush's approvals dropped into the 20s after proposing 'comprehensive' immigration reform that put him close to the proportion of people in the poll who did not understand the question.
"frankly, I don't understand why the Republican party cannot appeal to Mexicans." - There it is, the nut of the matter. We have a hard enough time selling the outrageous idea of having a little freedom and security to Americans in 50 states. They had to witness Obama-Pelosi economics in action to get any idea what we were talking about. Now we have to translate and sell to 3rd world countries. Maybe run political ads in the prestigious Mexico City market or a comprehensive reachout program to the gangs in Nuevo Laredo to start exposing them to our ideas and founding principles before they come and before they are told on the way in to always vote Dem if you want to get the benefits, amnesty and programs that you deserve for your troubles. What about the Chinese, JDN? Why don't they have equal rights in America? If we are going to not enforce borders over land, why is it fair to check everyone at our airports and sea ports? How many of the 3879000000 disadvantaged people from Asia would need to come here before you would see a security or sovereignty problem?
I thought I was clicking on a positive piece on Newt when I clicked on "Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican" and kept the tab open until I had time to read it in its entirety. Apologies in advance for posting/linking a second hit piece on Gingrich in a short time, but this is what is being written. I didn't realize that Newt is already the front runner in polls and in money. I'm sure that is why the attacks have begun. If you can wade through the obviously anti-Newt, anti-conservative, anti-Republican slant of the writing, I think you will find in this long piece covers his strengths and accomplishments and his weaknesses and vulnerabilities very thoroughly. The bizarre writing style wanders in and out of interviews with none other than the ex-wife Marianne and with Newt. He writes what people said sometimes in quotes and sometimes not. I wouldn't assume any/all of the covered facts or personal accusations and stories are completely true but I will guess that contents of this will become the centerpiece of the future attacks against him. I don't expect him to answer any of it, just to move forward with whatever his new blueprint for the country will be.
CCP, I brought this quote over from your Cheryl Crow story: "I remember someone who was not an American citizen once told me (decades ago) "the world is a joke, Always Remember I tell you this. The world is a joke". His context was that it wasn't fair I was an American citizen and he was not. I had privileges and lived in the greatest country and he did not - only because of a twist of faith. I was born here he was not. The longer I live the more I have come to agree he was right. I always remembered he told me that wondering if one day I would agree with him."
The world is not a joke; it is more of a puzzle, and figuring things out for ourselves isn't good enough. We need to articulate and persuade and hold certain things without compromise and sometimes to rise up and sometimes to risk all and fight wars to preserve that which we value.
We have (or had) the greatest country on earth. We need to protect what we have. We exclude most outsiders, but we don't prevent them from adopting our principles or copying any of our good qualities such as personal and economic freedom, limited government and a market-based, competitive economy into their homeland.
Instead people in these same countries where they love to escape speak mostly the language of anti-Americanism and choose governments opposite to our founding principles. And so do we.
CCP: "And make no mistake about it - you can't give access to care to 45 million without costs skyrocketing. Thus we will have rationing, restrictions, waits, and the rest."
A market has participants like buyers, sellers, investors, etc. A non-market like Healthcare has who knows what anymore, lobbyists, interests, special interests, union representatives, gatekeepers, caseworkers, and former professionals who are now public employees or worse.
My experience currently that I find relevant is with a public utility which is a government sanctioned monopoly. Aug. 1, I called for electrical service because it was shut off on my tenants who had moved out. (Aug. 1 was a Sunday, they don't answer phones.) August 2, never got passed 'on-hold'. Aug. 3 got my urgent need heard and secretly entered. Unfortunately they didn't tell anybody and my request died. Aug. 11 reached again told same thing. Aug 12, got someone out to verify old tenant gone. He said power back on probably 'tomorrow. Aug 13, told possibly 2 more weeks to get electric service - which involves re-connecting 3 wires on the pole, 5 minutes of work once a truck actually pulls in.
3-4 weeks without electricity, is this a 3rd world country? No, it's one of the wealthiest metros in the world. A rental home is my place of business. I can't clean carpets, light or show the place or collect any revenue while I wait - like a fool. I even bought a generator and created a new set of problems without solving any. Meanwhile, major damage sets in. I am unable to operate a sump pump or a dehumifier, water damage and mold is setting in. 'Customer Service Rep' today said, "we don't care about that..."
Why did this happen? No competition. Where else am I going to go? Nowhere and they know it. And frankly, no oversight. I contacted the public utility commission. They wrote back saying to download forms and file a complaint if not resolved. That is a neat trick without electricity. I'll use maybe a magic wand.
Soon that will be ALL of healthcare. One supplier, government sanctioned. If they tell you to wait in line, you can wait in line. If you leave and come back - go to the end of the line. If you ask how long, they can tell you any answer, or no answer, with no consequence and no oversight. If you wish to file a complaint, again - wait in line - you weren't the first to think of that.
I let my health coverage lapse lately. 10+ plus years self employed with absolutely no payout from the policy. New laws say they will have to let me back in at the same price as the people who kept coverage. That is not insurance and the new system will have no resemblance to a market.
"The alleged serial killer is a Christian from Ramle."
I respectfully offer different wording, alleged Christian, former Christian, pretend Christian,was born to a Christian family, or raised Christian, etc. Practicing Christians are constrained by the Commandments.
I would love to eat my words on this. Maybe she will grow from who she is to being a serious interpreter of the law. But she got there without any indication of it. What I hoped from this process is that from the conservative questioners people would get an idea of how a great justice would approach the job. I never had an opportunity to watch, listen or read the proceedings. Unfortunately I don't think anyone else except a few insiders did either. So on we go with another lifetime appointment of someone committed to uphold liberal programs and causes no matter what the words of the framers specifically say. The only good thing that happened was that the opponents didn't at all hold up the choice of the President or the vote of the majority as required by the constitution. Maybe that will pay off someday soon when the tables politically are turned. - Doug ------- http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/026931.php August 5, 2010 Paul Mirengoff
The Senate has confirmed Elena Kagan. The vote was 63-37. Five Republicans joined every Democrat except Ben Nelson to vote "yes." The five Republicans were, as expected, Senators Snowe, Collins, Graham, Gregg, and Lugar.
The "no" vote tally was pretty high -- up from 31 in Sotomayor's case -- but there's really no way for conservatives to put a positive spin on Kagan's confirmation.
To get a sense of what it means, think of the three big constitutional decisions rendered by district courts in the past week or two. They are: (1) Judge Bolton's grant of a preliminary injunction blocking key portions of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, (2) Judge Hudson's ruling permitting the Commonwealth of Virginia to proceed with its lawsuit challenging the portion of Obamacare that requires individuals to purchase insurance, and (3) Judge Walker's outrageous ruling that California's Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, is unconstitutional.
If these matters reach the Supreme Court, as seems likely, I have no doubt that Kagan will side with those who challenge the Arizona immigration law and Proposition 8, and with the government in the case of Virginia's challenge to Obama care. But that's just the tip of the iceberg -- probably less than one year's worth of bad jurisprudence. Kagan is only 50 years old, so we can expect at least 25 years of the same sort of leftist assault on our traditional freedoms and the rights of our states.
The only way Kagan's confirmation doesn't become a disaster is if we are able to elect Republicans presidents pretty consistently during the next 22 years or so, starting in 2012, and thus can keep Kagan busy writing dissents.
Despite watching European welfare states collapse under the weight of their own debt, those running Washington are leading us down precisely the same path. With the debt surpassing $13 trillion, we can no longer avoid having a serious discussion about how to address the unsustainable growth of government.
Unfortunately, rather than make meaningful contributions to this conversation and bring solutions to the table, Democrats have attempted to win this debate by default. Relying on demagoguery and distortion, the left would prefer that entitlements - often labeled the "third rail" of American politics - remain untouchable, and the column by Paul Krugman of The New York Times is indicative of the partisan attacks leveled against the plan I've offered, a "Roadmap for America's Future."
When I introduced the "Roadmap," my hope was that it would spur an open and honest discussion about how our nation can address its fiscal challenges. If we are truly committed to developing real solutions, this discussion must be free of the inflammatory rhetoric that has derailed past reform efforts. In keeping with this spirit, it is necessary to clarify some of the inaccurate claims and distortions made recently regarding the "Roadmap."
The assertion by Krugman and others that the revenue assumptions in the "Roadmap" are overly optimistic and that my staff directed the Congressional Budget Office not to analyze the tax elements of the "Roadmap" is a deliberate attempt to misinform and mislead.
I asked the CBO to analyze the long-term revenue impact of the "Roadmap," but officials declined to do so because revenue estimates are the jurisdiction of the Joint Tax Committee. The Joint Tax Committee does not produce revenue estimates beyond the 10-year window, and so I worked with Treasury Department tax officials in setting the tax reform rates to keep revenues consistent with their historical average.
What critics such as Krugman fail to understand is that our looming debt crisis is driven by the explosive growth of government spending - not from a lack of tax revenue.
Krugman also recycles the disingenuous claim that the "Roadmap" - the only proposal certified to make our entitlement programs solvent - would "end Medicare as we know it."
Ironically, doing nothing, as Democrats would prefer, is certain to end entitlement programs as we know them, and in the process, beneficiaries would face painful cuts to these programs. Conversely, the "Roadmap" would pre-empt these cuts in a way that prevents unnecessary disruptions for current beneficiaries.
It reforms Medicare and Social Security so those in and near retirement (55 and older) will see no change in their benefits while preserving these programs for future generations of Americans. We do not have a choice on whether Medicare and Social Security will change from their current structure - the true debate is if and how these programs will be made solvent.
Far from the "radical" label that critics have tried to pin on it, the Medicare reforms in the "Roadmap" are based on suggestions made by the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, chaired by Sen. John Breaux (D-La.). That commission recommended in 1999 "modeling a system on the one members of Congress use to obtain health care coverage for themselves and their families." With respect to Medicare and Social Security, the "Roadmap" puts in place systems similar to those members of Congress have. There has been support across the political spectrum for these types of reforms.
By dismissing credible proposals as "flimflam," critics such as Krugman contribute nothing to the debate. Standing on the sidelines shouting "boo" amounts to condemning our people to a future of managed decline. Absent serious reform, spending on entitlement programs and interest on government debt will consume more and more of the federal budget, resulting in falling standards of living and higher taxes as we try to sustain an ever larger social welfare state.
The American people deserve a serious and civil discussion about how to reduce our exploding debt and deficit. By relying on ad-hominem attacks and discredited claims, Krugman and others are missing an opportunity to contribute to this discussion and are only polarizing and paralyzing attempts to solve our nation's fiscal problems.
I reject the notion that these problems are too big or too difficult to tackle or that it is acceptable to leave future generations of Americans an inferior standard of living than we enjoy. The "Roadmap" shows that a European-style social welfare state is not inevitable, that it is not too late for our nation to choose a different path and that we can do so in a way that preserves our freedoms and traditions.
The panic at the White House is over the loss of political power. The economic carnage is really not that surprising based on their stubborn adherence to anti-growth policies.
Kudlow is right. 4% growth is needed to move at all out of this conundrum. Economists typically consider breakeven 'growth' to be around 3.1% Anything less is moving in the wrong direction.
But sustained 4% growth is not possible with anti-growth, anti-wealth, anti-private-sector policies. Divided government alone, after the election, is not going to fix that. The Dem party needs to reform its views economically from the inside, but it is the liberals representatives in liberal districts that will survive this and the moderate Dems in conservative leaning districts that will be leaving congress.
Regarding the Romer research paper that demonstrated that an exogenous tax increase, like the one coming Jan. 1, will be HIGHLY CONTRACTIONARY. Crafty wrote (over at Tax Policy): "Isn't C. Romer that chunky bureaucratic drone female who is BO's chief economist? Fascinating that she would think this AND publish it!'
I watched R-leader Rep. Boehner today on Meet the Press. Very lousy interview mostly because of the interviewer. Boehner looked a couple of times like he needed a script and much of the times like he was reading from one. He was being careful to not make news by saying something controversial, mostly missed the opportunity to set a positive agenda and draw in new people to the cause. Mike Pence followed and was far more personable. Paul Ryan is more articulate, disciplined and persuasive. Boehner is a good guy and I would give him a B as minority leader but someone new, more dynamic and visionary should be the next Speaker. Boehner did say they would be introducing something of an agenda or campaign platform after Labor Day. Looking forward to it!
At the RNC, I might give Michael Steele a D for his job performance so far, yet would still probably keep him for his term. More important over there is the behind the scenes work at the RNC which is probably D work too, but who knows. I don't understand that a first black President spends his time reaching out to liberal elites, offers the inner city of America only free, borrowed money, and then a black RNC Chair reaching out only to known rich Republican donors. Where is the real outreach? Michael Steele IMO should use his position to round up a rainbow coalition of free thinkers and take the message directly into the worst inner-city neighborhoods in this country that it is the economic freedoms, not the government programs, that brings prosperity. Not with the expectation of suddenly winning the minority vote, but to at least put the word out that there is a conservative viewpoint to consider and plenty of intelligent people of color and different ethnicities are joining in.
Nationwide, the grassroots tea party movement and the broadbased rejection at the opinion poll level of the Pelosi-Obama agenda has been phenomenal. Leadership for the most part is lagging or missing so far.
Hey CCP, (You should bring your last post over to here) "why don't [networks] give us the real objective picture about illegals."
The latest news from our metro we are up 19 Somalians from Minneapolis charged with Al Qaida-tied terrorist activities. This is not about heritage, it is about right to know and control who comes in, what for, and how long they will be staying.
As argued on L. issues, our cops can follow any one of us for nothing and watch for a screwup to pull us over, but feds don't track people they know came in, then insist we play 'don't ask, don't tell' across the fruited plain.
It's not good for security. The good news is that now it is on the radar screen politically and this is a pivotal year. -----
http://wcco.com/wireapnewsmn/Timeline.of.important.2.1845631.html In Minneapolis, 19 people have been charged in the FBI's investigation into a terror recruiting operation Read the detailed timeline too long to post. The ties of terror to twin cities communities and the revolving door travel in and out of MN to terror locations is freightening and that is just the part we know about.
As I understand it a Calif. Federal judge struck down Prop.8 which was the right of the state to define the participants in a marriage. The judge recognized marriage as a fundamental right and therefore too heavy a burden for any other factor to justify denying anyone that right.
But the fundamental part of marriage is that one man and one woman can make this commitment to become what we call husband and wife. Anything else is a new right, a new definition, a new tradition.
There was an important point made on another issue on the board about equal circumstance that applies and the entire progressive tax collection systems and entitlement payment systems are built on it, called equal circumstance One taxpayer is taxed differently on his next dollar earned than another taxpayer. The reason that passes for 'equal protection' is that IF either person were in the other's circumstance, they would be treated the same as the other.
Isn't that EXACTLY the same as a gay person's opportunity to marry. One gay man has the same right to fall in love and marry one woman and become husband and wife as anyone else does, and receive all the rights, burdens and privileges.. A former governor of New Jersey comes to mind; he had children, filed joint returns, spousal privilege, all of it. Same with Billie-Jean King, a married woman who happened to be lesbian, and I assume thousands or millions of other people. They didn't get all they wanted in life out of their marriage; neither do plenty of heteros, but they did have the fundamental right. Man-woman marriage for a gay person is just as likely and accessible as other areas of established law such as the possibility of an actively practicing physician qualifying for food stamps of a homeless man being levied with a yacht tax. It is what we call equal protection, different circumstances.
This issue will be settled once and for all just like all the other great divisive issues of our time. It will come down to what mood Anthony Kennedy is in that day.
I regret to say that Ann Coulter makes more sense on this than our friends here who argued the opposite. Quotes like this if actual are very persuasive:
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
One president gave his premature "Mission Accomplished" speech about Iraq on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Now another has given his own version as part of a Chicago-ward-politics sales pitch to disabled veterans.
The difference is that the first guy was sincere.
President Obama's pork-barrel speech to the Disabled Veterans of America yesterday (if you want to help our vets, shut up and do it) would have drawn a blush from those Soviet propagandists who cropped purged Politburo members from Stalin-era photographs.
Ignoring his own opposition to the liberation of Iraq, supporting our troops and the surge, Obama spoke as if all's well in Baghdad -- thanks to him.
As part of his weird victory lap, the president rightfully praised the way "our troops adapted and adjusted" to the insurgency in Iraq, then stressed that 90,000 service members have come home during his administration.
He preened that we'll meet his Aug. 31 deadline to transition "from combat to supporting and training Iraqi security forces" and reaffirmed that we'll remove the last of our troops in 2012. But the portion of yesterday's speech that focused on Iraq left out . . . Iraq.
While that country has passed its military crisis, it's now in political turmoil -- from which our government has utterly disengaged. We won that war, but we still can lose the peace. Obama shunned the fact that, almost half a year after its last national election, Iraq doesn't have a new government. Determined to abandon "Bush's war," Obama's been AWOL in Baghdad.
His neglect may prove disastrous. And the saddest aspect is that the Iraqis wanted us to step in and act as referees, to press them to get past their political differences.
The Iraqi elections were so close that both main camps claimed victory. In the macho atmosphere of Iraq, neither side could back down or compromise after that without an excuse ("Those mean Americans made me do it!"). Our essential and dirt-cheap role would have been to hand the posturing parties a fig leaf.
We've seen this before, in the Balkans, where all sides wanted to stop fighting but were too macho to be the first to suggest a truce. When American troops arrived, they had their excuse. We just don't get it that a key role for our soldiers and diplomats is to enable foreign parties to do what they already want to do themselves.
The situation in Iraq this year didn't call for more troops. Those force reductions were fine. But after hearing for years about the supremacy of political over military solutions, it was odd to witness this administration's neglect of basic statesmanship (which opened the door to the Iranians).
The problem is that this White House and its left-wing base now believe their own propaganda that Iraq was just a distraction, that Afghanistan's all that matters.
So when his script reached the part about Afghanistan yesterday, the president spoke with the rhetoric of a warlord, insisting that "we are going on the offensive against the Taliban" and "we will disrupt, we will dismantle and we will ultimately defeat al Qaeda."
Apart from sounding like George W. Bush (after extensive training by a public-speaking coach), it was noteworthy that, in the course of rattling his light saber, Obama didn't mention his deadline for troop withdrawals from Afghanistan next year.
We'll see how that one goes. Meanwhile, the really-big-booboo aspect of his speech was Obama's utter refusal to acknowledge that Iraq matters to us at all, that it has any strategic value. Yet Iraq, not Afghanistan, lies at the heart of the Middle East, has a profound psychological grip on the Arab world, possesses a critical geo-strategic location -- and, yes, has a lot of oil.
Even a sloppy, kinda-sorta, not-downright-awful outcome in Iraq improves the Middle East enormously. But all this administration cares about is getting out. We're in danger of throwing away seven years of sacrifices -- many made by those disabled veterans to whom Obama pandered -- because our president won't tell our diplomats to step up.
Sure, some on the left would delight in a belated disaster in Iraq to spite the long-gone bogeyman, George W. Bush. I do not believe President Obama is among them. He just doesn't understand the stakes in Baghdad -- and doesn't want to.
Craftt VERY interesting post, very plausible. All makes sense except for asking what Obama will do? Calculate exactly what the right thing is and he will do the opposite. If a response fast and strong is called for, he will announce commissions, sponsor UN resolutions and condemn the wrong side.
The pardon question is interesting. I don't see how that would grant citizenship. For the Pres. to grant blanket citizenship appears to be outside of his powers. If it requires congress, hard to believe any amnesty deal could get through right now that allowed immediate voting to change the next election. He would love to have the amnesty citizenship legacy with healthcare, even as a one-termer, still I don't think he could get a that deal through 60 senators before or after the correcting midterms and not through the House either. People are upset about this in places like Nebraska, not just Arizona. Suing AZ and stirring up the controversy is helping him presumably with Hispanics and maybe that is his intent, but it is not helping him overall - his Gallup approval sunk to 41 this week. ----
An email is circulating that attributes the following to Gov. Jan Brewer. I can't find that she said it, but these are the points she could have / should have made back to the protesting Phoenix Suns. Those who complain about Arizona law seem to have their own obsession with 'secure borders'.
'What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?'