Visions From The Horizon

‘National Popular Vote Compact’

2012-01-25T11:56:00.002-11:00

As discussed at the DCRP Central Committee meeting last night, there is a real (and extremely dangerous) movement known as the 'National Popular Vote Compact'.

The agreement is aimed at circumventing the Electoral College Process, thus taking away the input of states guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution under, Article II, Section 1 which states, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….".

The idea involves a compact between member states promising their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote, thus rendering the Electoral College Process irrelevant. In order to accomplish this goal, the compact requires 270 electoral votes which could be accomplished through as little as 11 states, rather than the 38 required to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The compact has already been encacted by eight states and D.C., garnering a total of 132 electoral votes (California, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington). Almost half way there!!!

Why is this dangerous?

• Non-member states become irrelevant
• Small states such as Nebraska and Iowa become irrelevant.
• Large liberal cities such as NY, Chicago and L.A would decide our elections for us.
• Guarantees candidates would ignore non-member states.
• Deliver's non-member states to the mercy of large liberal cities.

The compact was unanimously opposed by the NEGOP at the State Central Committee meeting on Saturday. It guarantees Nebraska's irrelevance. It guarantees the Democratic Party's dominance. It saddles the country with the same liberal policies that have destroyed and continue to hold down the same large liberal cities that would control the country.

But the compact is already being pushed at the state level. State Senator Ken Haar (D), introduced LB 583 last year and it currently sits before the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee chaired by Senator, Bill Avery (D).

And Iowa was afraid their caucus would become irrelevant? Candidates would skip non-member states all together!

read more ('National Popular Vote Compact')http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

and more (Objective Conservative)http://objectiveconservative.blogspot.com/2012/01/republicans-go-on-record-opposing.html

read more (LB 583 – 2011)http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalpopularvote.com%2Fresources%2Fbills%2FNE-LB583-Bill-2011-Haar.pdf&ei=xzMgT8zoGKiGsAKY3O3CDg&usg=AFQjCNEBeZd0A0ON6JoO9vxM_oJpRNLhTw

I had a good friend of mine who happens to be a liberal democrat ask why he would oppose something like this? I think the answer is pretty evident here:

Because disregarding the Constitution would be destructive to the country that I hope you love?

Want a picture of the future under that reality? Take a look at the government's website on unemployment:

(Dept. of Labor) http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Notice the states with the highest unemployment are all those blue states that harbor those large liberal cities. In fact, most are the very states that have already adopted the "National Popular Vote Compact". Gee...why could that be? Because they have no money and no jobs, and this way they can put a government in place that will "take care of them" by taking the wealth from the other states (like us) and giving it to them. Remember, they don't need us anymore, they don't owe us anything, but they have to keep those member states happy because they control the elections!!! Soon...Nebraska and the rest of the nation will all be without jobs or money and look just like those other blue states that lead the nation in poverty and unemployment.

Unemployment of "NPVC" member states: (all blue liberal states btw)

California: 11.1% (50th)
D.C.: 10.4% (47th)
Hawaii: 6.6% (13th)
Illinois: 9.8% (44th)
Maryland: 6.7% (15th)
Massachusetts: 6.8% (16th)
New Jersey: 9.0% (38th)
Vermont: 5.1% (4th)
Washington: 8.5% (34th)

Best states for employment: (red states)
1.) N.Dakota (3.3%)
2.) Nebraska (4.1%)
3.) S.Dakota (4.2%)
6.) Iowa (5.6%)
7.) Minnesotta (5.7%)
8.) Wyoming (5.8%)
9.) Utah (6.0%)
10.) Oklahoma (6.1%)
* (all but 8 of the top half are RED states)

Now take a look at cities with the highest poverty rates. As you can see, most are cities in blue liberal states, but more importantly...let's take a look at specific cities that have a long history of being ran by democratic leadership:

http://by106w.bay106.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000005&InboxSortAscending=False&InboxSortBy=Date&n=1375334856
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country. Detroit hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since. Cincinnati, Ohio(third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri(sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin(eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania(ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey(10th), since 1907. The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.

Lastly let's check out the best and worst states for business:

http://www.chiefexecutive.net/media/usbestandworststates/2009/

Best States:
1.) Texas
2.) North Carolina
3.) Florida
4.) Georgia
5.) Tennessee
(Red States with conservative economic policies)

Worst States:
1.) California
2.) New York
3.) Michigan
4.) New Jersey
5.) Massachusetts
(Blue States with liberal economic policies)

So...in summary...Why would someone who is a liberal or democrat want to oppose circumventing the Constitution like this?! Well...besides the fact that the Constitution was set up to protect us all (not just conservatives)...you also may wish to oppose this if you wish to keep your job and live above the poverty line!!! Being a liberal is only fun while there is wealth to redistribute. Once everyone is drug into poverty...it becomes much more difficult to live at other's expense!!!

Say’s Law

2012-01-17T17:00:00.000-11:00

What a man produces is what he can bid for the produce of others. The value of what he creates – that is, its value to others – represents his effective demand in the marketplace. If he produces nothing, if what he produces has no value (mud pies), if what he produces loses its value (stone knives in the Bronze Age), or if he produces more than can be consumed (houses after a housing bubble has burst), he has no effective demand though his needs be unchanged.

Say’s Law

This restates Say’s Law, which Keynes in his General Theory popularly, though misleadingly, formulated as: Supply creates its own demand – misleading because a supply of goods with no value yields no effective demand and because supply that does have value to others does not create effective demand, it is effective demand.

What Keynesians do not understand is that if a man is hired to dig holes and then fill them back up, he is fully employed but he produces nothing of value; effective demand is not increased by his efforts. Nor does giving him money or goods in exchange for his useless labor create effective demand; it only shifts it from the people who produced what was given him.

Only production creates effective demand and only after what was produced is sold can other goods can be purchased and consumed. What changed England was not increased consumption but increased production, production that made increased consumption possible.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/keynesian-cure/

Obama's Military Record So Far...

2011-11-08T06:16:00.002-11:00

I find it interesting that although obama promised to draw troops home, up until less than 6 months ago he had actually deployed more troops than he brought home!

obama only began to pull troops home within the last 6 months, AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION OF TOP GENERALS and MILITARY ADVISORS, (RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION), and then plans another troop buildup in the region DIRECTLY AFTER THE ELECTION!!!

Yet...while he continues to ask MORE from our military, he plans to force them to do it with LESS!!!

Democrats press Pentagon for more cuts...reductions in medical, retirement benefits:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/panetta-weighs-military-cuts-once-thought-out-of-bounds.html?hp

U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=2

Obama's Afghanistan Troop Levels 5X Bush's:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/07/correction-obamas-afgahistan-troops-levels-5x-bushs.html

GENERALS: Do not abandon Afghanistan...
Obama's Choice: A Partial Exit, With Reelection in Mind:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-s-choice-a-partial-exit-with-reelection-in-mind-20110622

November 6, 2011

Weighing Pentagon Cuts, Panetta Faces Deep Pressures:

By THOM SHANKER and ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON — Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.

Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.

Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.

Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries. That effort would free up money so the United States could maintain or increase its forces in Asia, a high priority for the Obama administration, and sustain a presence in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal from Iraq this year, he said.

In a 40-minute interview on Friday, Mr. Panetta offered the most detailed description to date of his plans to cut and reshape the military to fit a smaller budget — while still protecting national security interests and taking care of military personnel and their families.

It was clear in the interview that the defense secretary was addressing a variety of audiences: enlisted personnel, officers and veterans, as well as members of Congress who approve Pentagon spending and an American public exhausted by a decade of war and now worried about the nation’s financial health.

Mr. Panetta spoke less than three weeks before a special bipartisan committee is supposed to produce a far-reaching deficit-reduction plan.

If the committee deadlocks and fails to find $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions, then automatic cuts go into effect and the Pentagon could face an estimated $500 billion in additional reductions over the next decade.

Mr. Panetta has called those additional cuts potentially ruinous. In that view, he has allies in Congress, especially Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, who are preparing legislation that would undo the automatic across-the-board cuts for military programs, or exchange them for cuts in other areas of the federal budget. The defense secretary’s stated views could well put more pressure on the committee to come up with a deal.

Apart from the prospect of the automatic cuts, some Republicans have already criticized the administration’s planned reductions as dangerously severe. Some Tea Party members and liberals, by contrast, have argued that the administration’s reductions are too modest.

The administration’s more than $450 billion in cuts would reduce the military budget by roughly 7 or 8 percent over the next 10 years, even beyond the spending reductions that would come from the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government budget projections.

Although Pentagon spending stands at about $700 billion this year, the Defense Department’s base operating budget is about $530 billion, with the rest allocated by Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon officials predict that total Defense Department spending will drop to $522.5 billion by 2017.

Mr. Panetta outlined a series of guiding principles for where to invest and where to cut. He pledged to maintain and even increase spending in areas that have redefined the American way of war in recent years. They include cyberoffense and defense, unmanned aircraft, known as drones, and Special Operations forces — like those who killed Osama bin Laden and who also train foreign militaries to battle insurgencies so the United States does not have to.

“We’re going from three cops to two cops in a pretty rough neighborhood,” Mr. Panetta said in his office, where a portion of one wall is devoted to mementos from the raid that killed Bin Laden, which he directed in his former role as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

“We’re going to be developing a smaller, lighter, more agile, flexible joint force that has to conduct a full range of military activities that are necessary to defend our national interests,” he said. “So even though they’re going to be smaller and lighter, we’ve got to make sure they always maintain a technological edge.”

Trimming Pentagon spending by eliminating waste and increasing productivity remains a goal, he said — but he acknowledged that that would not be enough.

“There will be some huge political challenges,” he said. “When you reduce defense spending, there’s likely to be base closures, possible reduction in air wings.”

Mr. Panetta cited North Korea and Iran as persistent threats, and said that the military had to maintain “the ability to deter and defeat them.” Still, he did not envision maintaining a ground force large enough to conduct a long, bloody war and then stability operations in North Korea or Iran, as the United States did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Under current plans, the Army is to drop to 520,000 troops, from 570,000, and the Marine Corps to 186,600, from 202,000, beginning in 2015, and Mr. Panetta said cuts could go below those levels. “There is a likelihood that there may be some additional reductions below that, but not very much at this point,” he said.

Mr. Panetta said he had met regularly at the White House with President Obama about the reductions to Pentagon spending. He described the president as closely involved and said Mr. Obama had met recently with the four armed services chiefs to discuss budget and strategy issues.

In what he described as the most sensitive of the potential cuts facing an all-volunteer force, Mr. Panetta said the Pentagon was considering raising fees for the military’s health insurance program, Tricare. Today, military retirees and families, who are guaranteed Tricare for life, pay only $460 a year in fees — far below what they would pay if they worked for a private employer — although a modest increase for new enrollees began last month.

The White House and Pentagon have made clear that Tricare fee increases would be phased in over a few years and would affect current retirees and troops serving today when they retire. Health care costs for the Pentagon, the nation’s largest employer, total $50 billion a year, or about a tenth of its base budget. Ten years ago, health care cost the Pentagon $19 billion, equal to about $25 billion in today’s dollars.

Mr. Panetta provided no details of potential reductions in military retirement pay for those who enlist in the future, but said he would consider supporting the creation of a binding commission to review such pay. He also indicated that he might support a change that would increase retirement spending, by offering some retirement pay to those who had served less than 20 years. Currently only those who have served at least 20 years receive retirement pay, which is 50 percent of their final annual base pay, for life.

“Are there ways, looking at the retirement piece, where those who serve 10 or 12 years might be able to take that retirement with them?” Mr. Panetta said.

In potential reductions to major weapons systems, Mr. Panetta said he was considering cutting the purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a radar-evading jet for the Air Force, Navy and Marines that is projected to cost nearly $400 billion for more than 2,400 planes over the next two decades. He suggested he might slow or cut back production, although the final decision may be to protect that jet program and identify cuts in other weapons purchases.

October 29, 2011

U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq:

By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS

MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

The size of the standby American combat force to be based in Kuwait remains the subject of negotiations, with an answer expected in coming days. Officers at the Central Command headquarters here declined to discuss specifics of the proposals, but it was clear that successful deployment plans from past decades could be incorporated into plans for a post-Iraq footprint in the region.

For example, in the time between the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States Army kept at least a combat battalion — and sometimes a full combat brigade — in Kuwait year-round, along with an enormous arsenal ready to be unpacked should even more troops have been called to the region.

“Back to the future” is how Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst, Central Command’s chief of staff, described planning for a new posture in the Gulf. He said the command was focusing on smaller but highly capable deployments and training partnerships with regional militaries. “We are kind of thinking of going back to the way it was before we had a big ‘boots on the ground’ presence,” General Horst said. “I think it is healthy. I think it is efficient. I think it is practical.”

Mr. Obama and his senior national security advisers have sought to reassure allies and answer critics, including many Republicans, that the United States will not abandon its commitments in the Persian Gulf even as it winds down the war in Iraq and looks ahead to doing the same in Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.

During town-hall-style meetings with military personnel in Asia last week, the secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, noted that the United States had 40,000 troops in the region, including 23,000 in Kuwait, though the bulk of those serve as logistical support for the forces in Iraq.

As they undertake this effort, the Pentagon and its Central Command, which oversees operations in the region, have begun a significant rearrangement of American forces, acutely aware of the political and budgetary constraints facing the United States, including at least $450 billion of cuts in military spending over the next decade as part of the agreement to reduce the budget deficit.

Officers at Central Command said that the post-Iraq era required them to seek more efficient ways to deploy forces and maximize cooperation with regional partners. One significant outcome of the coming cuts, officials said, could be a steep decrease in the number of intelligence analysts assigned to the region. At the same time, officers hope to expand security relationships in the region. General Horst said that training exercises were “a sign of commitment to presence, a sign of commitment of resources, and a sign of commitment in building partner capability and partner capacity.”

Col. John G. Worman, Central Command’s chief for exercises, noted a Persian Gulf milestone: For the first time, he said, the military of Iraq had been invited to participate in a regional exercise in Jordan next year, called Eager Lion 12, built around the threat of guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

Another part of the administration’s post-Iraq planning involves the Gulf Cooperation Council, dominated by Saudi Arabia. It has increasingly sought to exert its diplomatic and military influence in the region and beyond. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, for example, sent combat aircraft to the Mediterranean as part of the NATO-led intervention in Libya, while Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates each have forces in Afghanistan.

At the same time, however, the council sent a mostly Saudi ground force into Bahrain to support that government’s suppression of demonstrations this year, despite international criticism.

Despite such concerns, the administration has proposed establishing a stronger, multilateral security alliance with the six nations and the United States. Mr. Panetta and Mrs. Clinton outlined the proposal in an unusual joint meeting with the council on the sidelines of the United Nations in New York last month.

The proposal still requires the approval of the council, whose leaders will meet again in December in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and the kind of multilateral collaboration that the administration envisions must overcome rivalries among the six nations.

“It’s not going to be a NATO tomorrow,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic negotiations still under way, “but the idea is to move to a more integrated effort.”

Iran, as it has been for more than three decades, remains the most worrisome threat to many of those nations, as well as to Iraq itself, where it has re-established political, cultural and economic ties, even as it provided covert support for Shiite insurgents who have battled American forces.

“They’re worried that the American withdrawal will leave a vacuum, that their being close by will always make anyone think twice before taking any action,” Bahrain’s foreign minister, Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, said in an interview, referring to officials in the Persian Gulf region.

Sheik Khalid was in Washington last week for meetings with the administration and Congress. “There’s no doubt it will create a vacuum,” he said, “and it may invite regional powers to exert more overt action in Iraq.”

He added that the administration’s proposal to expand its security relationship with the Persian Gulf nations would not “replace what’s going on in Iraq” but was required in the wake of the withdrawal to demonstrate a unified defense in a dangerous region. “Now the game is different,” he said. “We’ll have to be partners in operations, in issues and in many ways that we should work together.”

At home, Iraq has long been a matter of intense dispute. Some foreign policy analysts and Democrats — and a few Republicans — say the United States has remained in Iraq for too long. Others, including many Republicans and military analysts, have criticized Mr. Obama’s announcement of a final withdrawal, expressing fear that Iraq remained too weak and unstable.

“The U.S. will have to come to terms with an Iraq that is unable to defend itself for at least a decade,” Adam Mausner and Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote after the withdrawal announcement.

Twelve Senators demanded hearings on the administration’s ending of negotiations with the Iraqis — for now at least — on the continuation of American training and on counterterrorism efforts in Iraq.

“As you know, the complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is likely to be viewed as a strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime,” the senators wrote Wednesday in a letter to the chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee.

Thom Shanker reported from MacDill Air Force Base, and Steven Lee Myers from Washington.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 6, 2011

An article last Sunday about plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after withdrawal from Iraq described incorrectly the political affiliations of a group of senators requesting hearings on the negotiations that led to the withdrawal. The group is made up of 11 Republicans and one independent (Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut) — not 12 Republicans.

Obama's Afghanistan Troop Levels 5X Bush's
In a previous post, I stated that Obama has doubled troop levels in Afghanistan over the levels Bush had deployed. Bush took a different approach to avoid additional casualties given the challenges of fighting a full-blown ground war in Afghanistan.

In reality, Obama has almost five times as many ground troops deployed than Bush. That light footprint approach was taken long before Iraq. Many believed that a massive deployment of ground troops in Afghanistan would be too great a risk. Obama's political challenge was to appease his get out of Iraq base, while not appearing like a McGovern. So, he came up with Afghanistan as the answer.

That sort of nation building, especially in a place as primitive as Afghanistan, has never been popular with American voters. It's especially unpopular when combined with highly restrictive rules of engagement that have tied the hands of the nearly 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, exposing them to danger from an enemy they're not allowed to strike.

Does that make it a prudent strategy? No, it was political, just as Steele suggested - it was being "cute." And does deploying 20k troops versus 100k sound like the same war to you? It's an entirely different approach. And Obama owns it. Steele is correct to make him do so, while continuing to support the troops himself.

As the first link above reports, 60% of Americans want to begin a withdrawal by July 2011. Meanwhile, we are being warned of increased fighting and causalities. The way Obama is prosecuting his war has risks far beyond the way Bush went forward. Pray for our soldiers and hope for the best result. But do not be surprised if incompetent present-dent Barry meets another very real Waterloo. He's managed to screw up almost everything else.

Obama's Choice: A Partial Exit, With Reelection in Mind
by Ron Fournier

Updated: June 23, 2011 8:53 a.m.
June 22, 2011 8:40 p.m.

Don't kid yourself. President Obama’s decision to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan before he stands for reelection is not driven by the United States’ “position of strength” in the war zone as much as it is by grim economic and political realities at home.

A sagging economy, a soaring national debt, and an increasingly restive Congress pushed Obama to order troop reductions that are both deeper and faster than recommended by his military commanders.

“America,” the president said in a prime-time address from the East Room, “it is time to focus on nation building here at home.”

In announcing his decision, which still leaves 68,000 troops in the country after the 2012 election, Obama focused on a set of numbers that pander to a war-weary nation—10,000 troops out this year and another 23,000 in 2012—keeping a promise he made in 2009 to begin winding down the “surge” by the middle of this year.

By 2014, Obama said, “this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.”

But the president’s eye is set on numbers that have little to do with battlefield strategy and everything to do with his reelection hopes. They include:

Fifty-six percent of Americans say U.S. troops should be brought home as soon as possible, up from 40 percent a year ago (Pew Research Center).

Fewer than a quarter of people see signs of improvement in the economy and two-thirds say the country is on the wrong track. A clear majority of Americans say their children are destined to a lower standard of living (Bloomberg News National Poll).

The United States has spent $1.3 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past decade. Afghanistan alone is costing about $120 billion this year.

“Now,” Obama said, “we must invest in America’s greatest resource—our people.” He called for more spending on infrastructure and new energies and urged Americans to “recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war.''

White House operatives went to great lengths to show Obama shifting focus from wars abroad to domestic issues at home. Their public-relations plan called for, among other things, leaking word that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, recommended a more limited withdrawal.

The usually leak-averse White House also made sure reporters were told that both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two hawks in the Obama cabinet, had accepted Obama’s decision—but only reluctantly.

The message as framed by the Obama political team: He knows it’s the economy, stupid; he’ll focus on it like a laser beam, even if it means “defying” his commanders and Cabinet.

In doing so, Obama laid out a “more centered course” in U.S. foreign policy. Without calling it a new doctrine, Obama said the United States must be “as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute.”

“When threatened, we must respond with force—but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas,” Obama said. He cited Libya as an example of the United States leading a coalition whose aim is to help a nation win freedom.

Obama does not need to worry as much as past Democratic presidents about being labeled soft on national security—not after giving the order that led to the assassination of Osama bin Laden. No, his biggest concern is being labeled tone deaf on joblessness and debt.

He saw the writing on the wall when a growing number of lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans alike, clamored for a drawdown in Afghanistan. The shift was most pronounced among the candidates seeking the GOP presidential nomination. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who entered the race on Tuesday, hammered Obama not from the right, but from the left.

“I think there is room to draw down more,” Huntsman told ABC.

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia was even more pointed about Obama’s choice—more war or steps toward peace? “We must choose,” Manchin said in a warning shot issued before Obama’s address, “and I choose America.”

In the end, Obama chose the clearest course to reelection.

Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis

2011-11-01T11:37:00.002-11:00

http://news.investors.com/Article/589858/201110311638/Housing-Crisis-Obama-Clinton-Subprime.htm

Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis

By PAUL SPERRY, FOR INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 10/31/2011 08:05 AM ET

President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a "broad-based frustration" among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.

"You're seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place," he complained earlier this month.

But what if government encouraged, even invented, those "abusive practices"?

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

Bubble? Regulators Blew It

The threat was codified in a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

"The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form," the document warned financial institutions.

Ludwig at the time stated the ruling would be used by the agen cies as a fair-lending enforcement "tool," and would apply to "all lenders" — including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies.

The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial "discrimination." But it was simply good underwriting.

It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower's credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.

The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants' net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.
When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.

Still, the study was used to support a wholesale abandonment of traditional underwriting standards — the root cause of the mortgage crisis.

For the first time, Washington's bank regulators put racial lending at the top of their checklist. Banks that failed to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities were denied expansion plans by the Fed in an era of frenzied financial mergers and acquisitions. HUD threatened to deny them access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which it controlled. And the Justice Department sued them for lending discrimination and branded them as racists in the press.

"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices," the official policy statement warned.

The regulatory missive, which had the effect of law, advised lenders to bend "customary" underwriting standards for minority homebuyers with poor credit.

"Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible," it said. "In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible."

To that end, lenders were directed to "make changes in marketing strategy or loan products to better serve minority segments of the market." They were also advised to "change commission structures" to encourage brokers and loan officers to "lend in minority and low-income neighborhoods" — a practice Countrywide Financial, the poster boy of the subprime scandal, perfected. The government now condemns the practice it once encouraged as "predatory."

FDIC warned banks that even unintentional discrimination was against the law, and that they should be proactive in making "multicultural" loans. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," the agency said in a separate advisory.

Confronted with the combined force of 10 federal regulators, lenders naturally toed the line, and were soon aggressively marketing subprime mortgages in urban areas. The marching orders threw such a scare into the industry that the American Bankers Association issued a "fair-lending tool kit" to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a "fair-lending" contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.

HUD also pushed Fannie and Freddie, which in effect set industry underwriting standards, to buy subprime mortgages, freeing lenders to originate even more high-risk loans.

"Lenders should ensure that their loan processors and underwriters are aware of the provisions of the secondary market guidelines that provide various alternative and flexible means by which applicants may demonstrate their ability and willingness to repay their loans," the policy statement decreed.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not infrequently purchase mortgages exceeding the suggested ratios" of monthly housing expense to income (28%) and total obligations to income (36%).

It warned lenders who rejected minority applicants with high debt ratios and low credit scores to "be prepared" to prove to federal regulators and prosecutors they weren't racist. "The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its enforcement authority."

It took a little more than a decade for the negative effects of the assault on prudent lending to be felt. By 2006, the shaky subprime mortgages began to default. In 2008, the bubble exploded.

Clinton's task force survived the Bush administration, during which it produced fair-lending brochures in Spanish for immigrant home-loan applicants.

And it's still alive today. Obama is building on the fair-lending infrastructure Clinton put in place.
As IBD first reported in July, Attorney General Eric Holder has launched a witch hunt vs. "racist" banks.

"It's a more aggressive fair-lending enforcement approach now," said Washington lawyer Andrew Sandler of Buckley Sandler LLP in a recent interview. "It is well beyond anything we saw during the Clinton administration."

Tom Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, recently testified that his division "continues to participate in the federal Interagency Fair Lending Task Force." And he and the task force are working with the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to "enhance fair-lending enforcement."

The fair-lending task force's original policy paper undercuts the notion the financial crisis was all about banker "greed," though it certainly played a role after the fact. Rather, it offers compelling evidence that the crisis evolved chiefly from government mandates and threats to increase lending to applicants who could not afford them.

Taxpayer Dollars Still Bailing Out Banks

2011-06-06T12:17:00.001-11:00

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43295623

Taxpayer Dollars Still Bailing Out Banks

Published: Monday, 6 Jun 2011 | 11:22 AM ET
By: John Carney
Senior Editor, CNBC.com

None of America's largest banks raise money on the free market. Every single one of them is propped up by an implicit taxpayer guarantee that is very similar to the backstops provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It is a huge subsidy by taxpayers to the banks, enabling them to be far more profitable than they would be otherise.

Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner (disclosure: we're brothers) explains:

Last week, the ratings agency announced a review of whether these bailout assumptions still apply after passage of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill. The Moody's review will be the truest test yet of President Obama's promise that the legislation—derided by Republicans as a bailout bill — can end the "Too Big To Fail" dynamic that has encouraged financial risk taking and given these banks an unfair advantage.

The implicit government guarantee these banks enjoy is a subsidy. The "five notches of uplift from government support assumptions" that Moody's gives to Bank of America translate into real profits for Bank of America. Without a presumed bailout, Bank of America's [BAC 10.83 -0.45 (-3.99%) ] senior debt would be rated Baa3, just barely on the right side of the "Investment Grade"/"Speculative Grade" boundary. The presumed "government support" raises the bank's debt rating to A2, which is "very low credit risk."

Even Wimpy from "Popeye" would be a "very low credit risk" if you could count on Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner to pay for his hamburger.

As a result, all the big banks pay lower interest rates than they would pay in a market environment. Put another way: Anyone lending money to big banks (by buying their bonds, for instance), does so on the assumption that if the bank cannot repay the loan, U.S. taxpayers will. It's hardly shocking that experts think our recently bailed-out and very politically connected banks are still too big to fail, but the Moody's report makes it official.

CBO: True Cost of Fannie, Freddie Bailouts $317 Billion, Not $130 Billion Obama Claims...

2011-06-06T12:15:00.001-11:00

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/true-cost-fannie-freddie-bailouts-317-bi

True Cost of Fannie, Freddie Bailouts: $317 Billion, CBO Says
Monday, June 06, 2011
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the real cost of the federal government guaranteeing the business of failed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is $317 billion -- not the $130 billion normally claimed by the Obama administration.

In a report delivered to the House Budget Committee on June 2, the CBO said a “fair value” accounting of guaranteeing the two defunct mortgage companies – known as Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) – was more than twice as high as the Office of Management and Budget had accounted for.

“Specifically, CBO treats the mortgages guaranteed each year by the two GSEs as new guarantee obligations of the federal government,” the CBO report said. “For those guarantees, CBO’s projections of budget outlays equal the estimated federal subsidies inherent in the commitments at the time they are made.”

“In contrast, the Administration’s Office of Management and Budget continues to treat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as nongovernmental entities for budgetary purposes, and thus outside the budget,” the report stated. “It records as outlays the amount of the net cash payments provided by the Treasury to the GSEs.”

The total of those cash payments is $130 billion, and is normally reported as the cost of the bailout of the GSEs to date. However, the CBO said that merely counting the cash payments, and not the cost of federal subsidies granted to the GSEs, obscures their real costs.

Essentially, the CBO is accounting for the cost of the federal government guaranteeing the loans bought and securitized by the GSEs.

Currently, Fannie and Freddie rely on explicit federal guarantees to continue to secure below-market financing rates. Because Fannie and Freddie are insolvent, the federal government must make up their losses when the loans they have guaranteed lose money in default.

However, the CBO counts not only the amount of federal funds spent to keep the GSEs operating but the cost to the federal government to subsidize the mortgage guarantees issued by Fannie and Freddie. In other words, the CBO counts as a federal spending commitment the subsidy given by the government to the GSEs.

The CBO calls this approach “fair-value” accounting because it treats the federal government’s actions just like the actions of any other market participant, taking into account the market risk of guaranteeing a mortgage.

Typically, federal accounting does not do this because it is argued that because the government can print its own money, its risk is zero.

The CBO says that even though the government can print money – technically by issuing Treasury bonds – this merely transfers the risk to the taxpayer, who will eventually have to pay off the bonds issued by the government.

As of March 31, the CBO calculated that the GSEs held a fair-value deficit of $187 billion, meaning that on a fair-value basis Fannie and Freddie held a combined $187 billion more in liabilities than they did in assets.

Added to the $130 billion in bailout payments the government has already made, the total cost of a bailout of Fannie and Freddie rises to $317 billion, which is far above the $130 billion usually cited by the OMB.

“As of March 31, 2011, the GSEs reported a fair-value deficit of approximately $187 billion,” the CBO report stated. “Adding to that the $130 billion in net payments already received from the Treasury implies a fair-value cost to the government of about $317 billion in obligations incurred through March 2011.”

That figure has grown since August 2009 when the CBO calculated that the cost of bailing out the GSEs was $291 billion, due mainly to further weakening in the housing market.

Further, the CBO expects these costs to rise by an additional $42 billion between 2011 and 2021, an average of $4 billion per year.

“CBO estimated that the subsidy costs of the GSEs’ new business would total about $42 billion over the 2012–2021 period, an average of about $4 billion a year,” the CBO said.

However, this subsidy cost could grow if the housing market continues to be weak. While the CBO expects it to recover, the difference between the agency’s own 2009 and 2011 estimates show that this may not be the case.

How Welfare SHOULD Look:

2011-01-14T11:54:00.000-11:00

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX 18 Nov 2010

Put me in charge ...

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" -- Milton Friedman

2010-09-16T16:18:00.001-11:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" -- Milton Friedman

Here is a pretty interesting interview from him on Donahue:

Donahue asks: "When you see around the globe the mal-distribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in undeveloped countries … when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of dou...bt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?"

Friedman responds, "Is there some society out there that doesn't run on greed? Do you think Russia or China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; it's only the other fellow who's greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are the worst off, it is exactly in the kinds of society that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system."

Mr. Donahue: "But it seems to reward not virtue so much as ability to manipulate the system."

Friedman says, "And what does reward virtue? Do you think the communist commisary rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think American Presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? I think you are taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you're going to find these angels who are going to organize society for us? I don't even trust you to do that!"

Britain Plans to Decentralize National Health Care

2010-07-26T09:23:00.001-11:00

Most basic treatments to be rationed

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world/europe/25britain.html?_r=2&hp

By SARAH LYALL
Published: July 24, 2010

LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

The new British government’s plan to drastically reshape the socialized health care system would put local physicians like Dr. Marita Koumettou in north London in control of much of the national health budget.

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.

In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment.

The plan, with many elements that need legislative approval to be enacted, applies only to England; other parts of Britain have separate systems.

The government announced the proposals this month. Reactions to them range from pleased to highly skeptical.

Many critics say that the plans are far too ambitious, particularly in the short period of time allotted, and they doubt that general practitioners are the right people to decide how the health care budget should be spent. Currently, the 150 primary care trusts make most of those decisions. Under the proposals, general practitioners would band together in regional consortia to buy services from hospitals and other providers.

It is likely that many such groups would have to spend money to hire outside managers to manage their budgets and negotiate with the providers, thus canceling out some of the savings.

David Furness, head of strategic development at the Social Market Foundation, a study group, said that under the plan, every general practitioner in London would, in effect, be responsible for a $3.4 million budget.

“It’s like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant,” Mr. Furness said. “The government is saying that G.P.’s know what the patient wants, just the way a waiter knows what you want to eat. But a waiter isn’t necessarily any good at ordering stock, managing the premises, talking to the chef — why would they be? They’re waiters.”

But advocacy groups for general practitioners welcomed the proposals.

“One of the great attractions of this is that it will be able to focus on what local people need,” said Prof. Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, which represents about 40,000 of the 50,000 general practitioners in the country. “This is about clinicians taking responsibility for making these decisions.”

Dr. Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the general practitioner committee at the British Medical Association, said general practitioners had long felt there were “far too many bureaucratic hurdles to leap” in the system, impeding communication. “In many places, the communication between G.P.’s and consultants in hospitals has become fragmented and distant,” he said.

The plan would also require all National Health Service hospitals to become “foundation trusts,” enterprises that are independent of health service control and accountable to an independent regulator (some hospitals currently operate in this fashion). This would result in a further loss of jobs, health care unions say, and also open the door to further privatization of the service.

The government has promised that the new plan will not affect patient care and that the health care budget will not be cut. But some experts say those assertions are misleading. The previous government, controlled by the Labour Party, poured money into the health service — the budget is now about three times what it was when Labour took over, in 1997 — but the increases have stopped. The government has said the budget will continue to rise in real terms for the next five years, but it is unlikely that the increases will keep up with the rising costs of care and the demands of an aging population.

“The real mistake that is being made by the health secretary is to drive through an ideologically determined program of reorganization which is motivated by the principle of efficiency savings,” said Robin Durie, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Exeter. “History shows clearly that quality will suffer as a consequence.”

Dr. Durie added, “The gulf between the rhetoric of the white paper and the technicalities of what is involved in the various elements of the overall reorganization being proposed is just extraordinary.”

For example, he asked, how will the government make good on its promise to give patients more choice — a promise that seems to require a degree of administrative oversight — while cutting so many managers from the system?

“How will the delivery of all this choice be funded?” Dr. Durie asked. “And how will the management of the delivery of choice be funded?”

Dr. Vautrey said the country needed to have a “mature debate about what the N.H.S. can and cannot afford.”

He said: “It is a sign of the mixed messages that government sends out. They talk about choice and competition and increased patient expectations at the same time as they tell the service they need to cut costs and refer less and prescribe less. People need to understand that while the needs of everyone may be met, their wants will be limited.”

As they prepare for the change, many doctors are wondering whether it will be permanent this time around.

“Many of our colleagues have seen this cycle of change repeatedly,” Dr. Vautrey said. “Many would look at previous reorganizations and compare it to this one and wonder how long the current change will last before the next one comes along.”

Majority of Small Business Sector Facing Tax Rate Hike Under Obama Plan...

2010-07-26T09:20:00.001-11:00

http://www.atr.org/smallbusiness.html?content=5247

From Ryan Ellis on Monday, July 26, 2010

•The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have said that they want to raise taxes in the top two income tax rates in January 2011. Under their plan, the 33 percent rate will rise to 36 percent, and the 35 percent rate will rise to 39.6 percent automatically in January. These rates affect families and small business owners earning at least $200,000 per year

•Unlike corporations, small businesses usually don’t pay their own taxes. Rather, business profits flow through to the business owner. The business owner pays taxes on her small business by adding the profits to her income tax form. Therefore, personal income taxes are the same thing as small business taxes.

•According to the IRS, most small business profits pay taxes in households making more than $200,000 per year. The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corporations.

•All small businesses. There were 30 million tax returns reporting small business income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $981 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$488 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. A majority of small business profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan.

•Sole proprietors. There were 22 million tax returns reporting sole proprietor income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $264 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$90 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 34 percent of sole proprietor profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.

•S-corporations and partnerships. There were 8 million partners and S-corporation shareholders in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $717 billion. A majority of this profit--$398 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 55 percent of S-corporation and partnership profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.

•The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have said that they want to raise taxes in the top two income tax rates in January 2011. Under their plan, the 33 percent rate will rise to 36 percent, and the 35 percent rate will rise to 39.6 percent automatically in January. These rates affect families and small business owners earning at least $200,000 per year

•Unlike corporations, small businesses usually don’t pay their own taxes. Rather, business profits flow through to the business owner. The business owner pays taxes on her small business by adding the profits to her income tax form. Therefore, personal income taxes are the same thing as small business taxes.

•According to the IRS, most small business profits pay taxes in households making more than $200,000 per year. The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corporations.

•All small businesses. There were 30 million tax returns reporting small business income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $981 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$488 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. A majority of small business profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan.

•Sole proprietors. There were 22 million tax returns reporting sole proprietor income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $264 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$90 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 34 percent of sole proprietor profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.

•S-corporations and partnerships. There were 8 million partners and S-corporation shareholders in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $717 billion. A majority of this profit--$398 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 55 percent of S-corporation and partnership profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/smallbusiness.html?content=5247#ixzz0up1ABCS0

Bias and bigotry in academia

2010-07-20T18:54:00.001-11:00

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=181357

July 19, 2010
Pat Buchanan

A decade ago, activist Ron Unz conducted a study of the ethnic and religious composition of the student body at Harvard.

Blacks and Hispanics, Unz found, were then being admitted to his alma mater in numbers approaching their share of the population.

And who were the most underrepresented Americans at Harvard?

White Christians and ethnic Catholics. Though two-thirds of the U.S. population then, they had dropped to one-fourth of the student body.

Comes now a more scientific study from Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford to confirm that a deep bias against the white conservative and Christian young of America is pervasive at America's elite colleges and Ivy League schools.

Wake up! This is the reality of what Christian students face in the secular world of academia.

The Espenshade-Radford study "draws from ... the National Study of College Experience ... gathered from eight highly competitive private colleges and universities (entering freshman SAT scores: 1360)," writes Princeton Professor Russell K. Nieli, who has summarized the findings:

Elite college admissions officers may prattle about "diversity," but what they mean is the African-American contingent on campus should be 5 percent to 7 percent, with Hispanics about as numerous.

However, "an estimated 40 percent to 50 percent of those categorized as black are Afro-Caribbean or African immigrants, or the children of such immigrants," who never suffered segregation or Jim Crow.

To achieve even these percentages, however, the discrimination against white and Asian applicants, because of the color of their skin and where their ancestors came from, is astonishing.

As Nieli puts it, "Being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white ... equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1,600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310-point SAT advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points."

"To have the same chance of gaining admission as a black student with a SAT score of 1100, a Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have 1230, a white student a 1410 and an Asian student a 1550."

Was this what the civil-rights revolution was all about – requiring kids whose parents came from Korea, Japan or Vietnam to get a perfect SAT score of 1600 to be given equal consideration with a Jamaican or Kenyan kid who got an 1150? Is this what it means to be an Ivy League progressive?

What are the historic and moral arguments for discriminating in favor of kids from Angola and Argentina over kids whose parents came from Poland and Vietnam?

There is yet another form of bigotry prevalent among our academic elite that is a throwback to the snobbery of the WASPs of yesterday. While Ivy League recruiters prefer working-class to middle-class black kids with the same test scores, the reverse is true with white kids.

White kids from poor families who score as well as white kids from wealthy families – think George W. Bush – not only get no break, they seem to be the most undesirable and unwanted of all students.

Though elite schools give points to applicants for extracurricular activities, especially for leadership roles and honors, writes Nieli, if you played a lead role in Future Farmers of America, the 4-H Clubs or junior ROTC, leave it off your resume or you may just be blackballed. "Excelling in these activities is 'associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds on admissions.'"

Writes Nieli, there seems an unwritten admissions rule at America's elite schools: "Poor Whites Need Not Apply."

For admissions officers at our top private and public schools, diversity is "a code word" for particular prejudices.

For these schools are not interested in a diversity that would include "born-again Christians from the Bible belt, students from Appalachia and other rural and small-town areas, people who have served in the U.S. military, those who have grown up on farms or ranches, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, lower- and middle-class Catholics, working-class 'white ethnics,' social and political conservatives, wheelchair users, married students, married students with children or older students just starting into college and raising children."

"Students in these categories," writes Nieli, "are often very rare at the most competitive colleges, especially the Ivy League."

"Lower-class whites prove to be all-around losers" at the elite schools. They are rarely accepted. Lower-class Hispanics and blacks are eight to 10 times more likely to get in with the same scores.

That such bigotry is pervasive in 2010 at institutions that preen about how progressive they are is disgusting. That a GOP which purports to represents Middle America, whose young are bearing the brunt of this bigotry, has remained largely silent is shameful.

Many of these elite public and private colleges and universities benefit from U.S. tax dollars through student loans and direct grants. The future flow of those tax dollars should be made contingent on Harvard and Yale ending racial practices that went out at Little Rock Central High in 1957.

Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of seven books.

Interesting Comparison Between Bernie Madoff and Social Security:

2010-07-15T16:49:00.000-11:00

Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn't invest their money. As time rolled on, he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going.

Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America, and he is off to jail.

Some of you know this... but not enough of you. Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 70 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes, except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.

Do you need a side-by-side comparison here?

BERNIE MADOFF: Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later.

SOCIAL SECURITY: Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later.

BERNIE MADOFF: Instead of investing the money, Madoff spends it on nice homes in the Hamptons and yachts.

SOCIAL SECURITY: Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund, the politicians use it for general spending and vote buying.

BERNIE MADOFF: When the time comes to pay the investors back, Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.

SOCIAL SECURITY: When benefits for older investors become due, the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers.

BERNIE MADOFF: When Madoff's scheme is discovered, all hell breaks loose. New investors won't give him any more cash.

SOCIAL SECURITY: When Social Security runs out of money, they simply force the taxpayers to send them some more.

BERNIE MADOFF: Bernie Madoff is in jail.

SOCIAL SECURITY: Politicians remain in Washington .

Wall Street Bill Favors Interests Of Unions, Activists

2010-07-15T13:38:00.002-11:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/finance-bill-favors-interests-of-unions-activists/

GOP cries foul about its focus

By Patrice Hill
9:24 p.m., Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The financial reform bill expected to clear Congress this week is chock-full of provisions that have little to do with the financial crisis but cater to the long-standing agendas of labor unions and other Democratic interest groups.

Principal among them is a measure to make it easier for unions, environmental groups and other activist organizations that hold shares to put their representatives on the boards of directors of every corporation in the United States.

The so-called "proxy access" provision, which activist groups say they will use to try to improve oversight of corporate financial practices, has provoked a backlash from the Business Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other major non-Wall Street business groups.

"This legislation includes provisions totally unrelated to the financial crisis which may disrupt Americas fragile economic recovery" and lead to increasing political battles in the boardrooms, said John J. Castellani, president of the roundtable.

Business groups are also rankled that the legislation would impose costly new burdens on airlines, utilities and other non-financial businesses that were victims rather than villains in the crisis, simply because they use financial derivatives to hedge their businesses against risks such as fluctuations in oil prices, interest rates and currencies.

Such hedging practices played no role in the crisis, though they helped many businesses weather the financial turbulence and recession that followed in the aftermath of the Wall Street storm.

Other provisions of the financial legislation, which goes before the full Senate on Thursday for a vote and likely passage, favor Democratic constituencies directly by requiring banks and federal agencies to hire and do more business with them.

The bill would create more than 20 "offices of minority and women inclusion" at the Treasury, Federal Reserve and other government agencies, to ensure they employ more women and minorities and grant more federal contracts to more women- and minority-owned businesses.

The agencies also would apply "fair employment tests" to the banks and other financial institutions they regulate, though their hiring and contracting practices had little or nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis.

"The interjection of racial and gender preferences into America's financial sector deserves greater media exposure" before Congress debates and passes the massive 2,400-page bill, said Kevin Mooney, a contributing editor for Americans for Limited Government's daily newsletter.

The powerful new consumer protection agency that is the centerpiece of the reform bill also would provide substantial employment opportunities and funding for Democratic and social-activist groups such as the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), critics say.

Rather than focus on the abuses in the mortgage-lending market that led to the crisis, the new consumer agency would have broad-ranging powers to regulate and punish virtually any company that has a financial relationship with consumers - even those that had nothing to do with the crisis, said Sen. Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Republican.

Mr. Shelby, the ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, sought to craft a more tailored role for the agency in weeks of negotiation over the Senate bill.

"During our negotiations on the consumer bureaucracy, my Democrat friends were not focused on the mortgage market. Their sights were set on the rest of the economy," he said. "The new bureaucracy is an enormous reach across virtually every segment of our economy, and a massive expansion of government influence in our daily financial lives."

Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who also sought to help write a bipartisan Senate bill more narrowly focused on the problems that led to the crisis, said he fears that an activist director of the consumer agency could use agency power to direct loans to favored constituencies, regardless of whether the loans are sound or pose risks to the banking system.

"This may sound a little far-fetched, but you can have the wrong person in this position - there's no board, there's really no check and balance - that you can imagine could use this organization to try to create social justice in the financial system," he said.

Like the corporate boardroom provisions, many of the activities within the reach of the new consumer agency had "absolutely nothing - zero - to do with the financial crisis," Mr. Corker said. "But this has become a Christmas tree for those kinds of things, because people realize it's something that's going to pass."

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Refuting Charges Bush Lied US Into War

2010-07-15T04:03:00.002-11:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365793062101552.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

JULY 15, 2010

My Biggest Mistake in the White House
Failing to refute charges that Bush lied us into war has hurt our country.
By KARL ROVE

Seven years ago today, in a speech on the Iraq war, Sen. Ted Kennedy fired the first shot in an all-out assault on President George W. Bush's integrity. "All the evidence points to the conclusion," Kennedy said, that the Bush administration "put a spin on the intelligence and a spin on the truth." Later that day Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle told reporters Mr. Bush needed "to be forthcoming" about the absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Thus began a shameful episode in our political life whose poisonous fruits are still with us.

The next morning, Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards joined in. Sen. Kerry said, "It is time for a president who will face the truth and tell the truth." Mr. Edwards chimed in, "The administration has a problem with the truth."

The battering would continue, and it was a monument to hypocrisy and cynicism. All these Democrats had said, like Mr. Bush did, that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Of the 110 House and Senate Democrats who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force against his regime, 67 said in congressional debate that Saddam had these weapons. This didn't keep Democrats from later alleging something they knew was false—that the president had lied America into war.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham organized a bipartisan letter in December 2001 warning Mr. Bush that Saddam's "biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs . . . may be back to pre-Gulf War status," and enhanced by "longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Yet two years later, he called for Mr. Bush's impeachment for having said Saddam had WMD.

On July 9, 2004, Mr. Graham's fellow Democrat on Senate Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller, charged that the Bush administration "at all levels . . . used bad information to bolster the case for war." But in his remarks on Oct. 10, 2002, supporting the war resolution, he said that "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America."

Even Kennedy, who opposed the war resolution, nonetheless said the month before the vote that Saddam's "pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated." But he warned if force were employed, the Iraqi dictator "may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists."

Then there was Al Gore, who charged on June 24, 2004, that Mr. Bush spent "prodigious amounts of energy convincing people of lies" and accused him of treason, bellowing that Mr. Bush "betrayed his country." Yet just a month before the war resolution debate, the former vice president said, "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Top Democrats led their party in making the "Bush lied, people died" charge because they wanted to defeat him in 2004. That didn't happen. Several bipartisan commissions would later catalogue the serious errors in the intelligence on which Mr. Bush and Democrats relied. But these commissions, particularly the Silberman-Robb report of March 31, 2005, found that the "Bush lied" charge was false. Still, the attacks hurt: When they began, less than a third of Americans believed the charge. Two years later, polls showed that just over half did.

The damage extended beyond Mr. Bush's presidency. The attacks on Mr. Bush poisoned America's political discourse. Saying the commander-in-chief intentionally lied America into war is about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a president. The charge was false—and it opened the way for politicians in both parties to move the debate from differences over issues into ad hominem attacks.

At the time, we in the Bush White House discussed responding but decided not to relitigate the past. That was wrong and my mistake: I should have insisted to the president that this was a dagger aimed at his administration's heart. What Democrats started seven years ago left us less united as a nation to confront foreign challenges and overcome America's enemies.

We know President Bush did not intentionally mislead the nation. Saddam Hussein was deposed and eventually hung for his crimes. Iraq is a democracy and an ally instead of an enemy of America. Al Qaeda suffered tremendous blows in the "land between the two rivers." But Democrats lost more than the election in 2004. In telling lie after lie, week after week, many lost their honor and blackened their reputations.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Obama Admin OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under HealthCare Law...

2010-07-14T07:57:00.001-11:00

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69384

Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

By Susan Jones, Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) - If you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers."

President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

In a May 13 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Boehner asked if her department has provided guidance to the states on how to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding. Boehner also asked Sebelius if the new federal high-risk pools would exclude abortion coverage.

He says his questions remain unanswered.

"Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it,” Boehner wrote to Sebelius.
The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.

The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.

“For our efforts to remove the bill's abortion funding, we were called 'deceivers' by President Obama and 'liars' by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.

"This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama's Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.

"While the American people deserve an apology from President Obama for his deception, we should only be satisfied when this Pennsylvania abortion funding is rescinded and the health care law repealed.

McClusky noted that the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for co-ops, both of which can fund abortions. And some people will use tax credits to help them pay for plans that cover abortion.

Even before it’s fully implemented, the Democrats’ health care plan “is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity,” McClusky said.

Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans would codify the Hyde amendment, thus prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. Under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds.

New Regulations To Hit Farmers

2010-07-14T07:52:00.002-11:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704258604575361182317501188.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

JULY 13, 2010

Finance Overhaul Casts Long Shadow on the Plains

By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS

GILTNER, Neb.—Farmer Jim Kreutz uses derivatives to soften the blow should the price of feed corn drop before harvest. His brother-in-law, feedlot owner Jon Reeson, turns to them to hedge the price of his steer. The local farmers' co-op uses derivatives to finance fixed-price diesel for truckers who carry cattle to slaughter. And the packing plant employs derivatives to stabilize costs from natural gas to foreign currencies.

Far from Wall Street, President Barack Obama's financial regulatory overhaul, which may pass Congress as early as Thursday, will leave tracks across the wide-open landscape of American industry.

Senate Takes Final Steps on Financial Bill Video: The Big Interview: Sheila Bair Details: What's in the Bill Breakdown: How the senators plan to vote Vote: Should the bill pass? Financial Regulation Watch Designed to fix problems that helped cause the financial crisis, the bill will touch storefront check cashiers, city governments, small manufacturers, home buyers and credit bureaus, attesting to the sweeping nature of the legislation, the broadest revamp of finance rules since the 1930s.

Here in Nebraska farm country, those in the business of bringing beef from hoof to mouth are anxious, specifically about the bill's provisions that tighten rules governing derivatives. Some worry the coming curbs will make it riskier and pricier to do business. Others hope the changes bring competition that will redound to their benefit.

"Out here we like to cuss the large banking institutions because of the mortgage mess, but we also know that without them some of these markets don't work," says Mike Hoelscher, energy program manager for AgWest Commodities LLC, a Holdrege, Neb., brokerage that provides derivatives services to the farming industry.

Derivatives are financial instruments whose value "derives" from something else, such as interest rates or heating-oil prices. The first derivatives were crop futures, which appeared in the U.S. at the end of the Civil War and became a standard facet of business for companies across America.

During the financial crisis, they became notorious as American International Group Inc. and others were gutted by bad bets on derivatives linked to bad mortgages.

President Obama and other proponents say the financial overhaul will prevent the kind of reckless lending and borrowing that sank the financial system and left taxpayers with the check. They say non-financial companies are worrying unduly about the derivatives portion of the legislation. The Senate is expected to approve the financial regulatory overhaul on Thursday, sending it to the president.

The full impact won't be known for years, but in Nebraska nerves are already on edge.

Executives at Five Points Bank in Hastings think the new rules on mortgage lending will make the home-loan business less profitable. "When they create a new regulator, it really scares us," says Nate Gengenbach, vice president of commercial and agricultural lending.

Advance America Cash Advance Centers Inc. thinks the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will take aim at the payday-loan business, though it's not clear what steps the agency will take. Advance America's storefront at the Skagway Mall in Grand Island charges an effective 460.08% annualized interest rate on a two-week $425 loan.

But it's the derivatives portion—the part of the bill aimed directly at Wall Street—that might end up touching most lives in rural America.

The new law requires most derivatives transactions be standardized, traded on exchanges, just like corporate stocks, and funneled through clearinghouses to protect against default.

Faced with intense lobbying, Congress partially exempted businesses that use derivatives for commercial purposes. So, farmers and co-ops probably won't face new collateral requirements, for instance—although there remains a dispute over that section of the bill. Those that trade derivatives on regulated exchanges, such as the Chicago Board of Trade, are less likely to see immediate impacts than those conducting private over-the-counter deals, which will face federal regulation for the first time. The goal is to make such deals transparent.

The question for these farmers is whether such rules will make hedging more expensive. Some say new requirements on big players will create higher costs for small players, including the cash dealers will have to put aside to enter into private derivatives transactions. Some brokers think restrictions on big-money banks and investors will drain the amount of money available to the everyday deals farmers favor.

Others predict the opposite effect, pushing money from the private market to the exchanges and creating more competition that will benefit farmers.

Uncertainty reigns in Giltner, a town of 400 residents 80 miles west of Lincoln. At first glimpse, Giltner's landscape seems featureless, a fading horizon of corn and soybeans. But its details are more subtle, including wildflowers and shaded creeks. Everywhere galvanized-steel sprinkler systems crawl across farm fields like giant stick insects.

Mr. Kreutz, an outgoing 36-year-old with a sandy crewcut and sunburned neck, gave up a career in finance and took over the 2,800-acre family farm after his father's death. As he works his fields, he checks the crop futures prices on his smart phone.

Here's how Mr. Kreutz does it: Say in early summer he sees that the price for a Chicago Board of Trade futures contract on corn for delivery later in the year is $3.56 a bushel. If he likes the price, and wants to lock it in, he calls AgWest and sells a futures contract for 5,000 bushels. The futures contract is a derivative in which the price for corn is set now for exchange in the future, though no kernels will change hands. Instead, when the contract nears expiration, Mr. Kreutz and the buyer of his contract will settle—in effect—by check.

By fall, when Mr. Kreutz is ready to deliver his crop to the local co-op, the market price might have fallen by 50 cents. He'll sell his actual corn for that lower amount. But he'll make up the difference through his financial hedge. (Mr. Kreutz buys a new futures contract at the lower price to make good on his earlier promise, making up the 50 cents.) In all, he'll have hit the price target he locked in earlier in the year, minus brokerage fees.

If the price rises during the summer, as it did during the food crisis two years ago, Mr. Kreutz has to pony up extra cash for his broker—a margin call—to maintain his positions. He recoups that by selling his actual corn at a higher price, but has to take a loss to meet the futures contract he signed earlier in the year, missing out on a windfall but ultimately meeting his target price.

Mr. Kreutz does this type of operation dozens of times a year, hedging about 70% of his 345,000-bushel corn harvest.

Such deals ripple through the local economy. When Mr. Kreutz gets a margin call from his broker, he turns to his banker, Mr. Gengenbach, for a loan to cover it. Mr. Gengenbach estimates that one quarter of his farm clients use derivatives.

"Somebody like Jim has a lot of money in his crop out here," says the 37-year-old Mr. Gengenbach. "If he can't protect that, it's not good for us."

Mr. Kreutz's brokerage, AgWest, thinks the new finance law will hurt both firm and farm. If big investors and dealers have to keep more cash on hand, there will be less liquidity in the market and therefore the cost of derivatives will increase, Mr. Hoelscher, the broker said.

A few minutes from the Kreutz family farm are the corrals of Jon Reeson's feedlot. Mr. Reeson, 43, is married to Mr. Kreutz's sister Jane. His feedlot holds as many as 1,500 steer, mostly Black Angus, which grow from 600-lb. calves into 1,300 pounders ready for slaughter.

Mr. Reeson uses derivatives to hedge both the price he pays for feed and the price he gets for selling his steer.

The fattening takes about 7,000 pounds of food for each animal. Mr. Reeson can't count on a favorable price from his brother-in-law's farm, in which he has a stake, so when he sees a feed price he likes, he seals it with a futures contract.

In April, he called AgWest and locked in a price with a futures contract for $95 per hundredweight of cattle. Since then the market price has dropped to $90. If the price stays there until October, he'll have made the right call, earning a higher price than if he'd relied on the market alone. If the price spikes higher, though, he'll miss out on potential gains.

Mr. Reeson is willing to live with that possibility in exchange for locking in a profit or a narrowed loss. Derivatives hedging helped him survive the recession of 2008-2009, when cash-strapped diners avoided steak and the price of beef plunged.

He's watching the new legislation warily and can't yet tell if it will hurt or help.

When his cattle have reached full weight, Mr. Reeson puts them on Roger and Barb Wilson's trucks for the trip to the slaughterhouse. The Wilsons have seven semi tractors and 16 trailers, and one of their biggest costs is diesel fuel to keep the fleet on the road.

In 2004, Cooperative Producers Inc., his local co-op, offered Mr. Wilson a price-protection plan for 10,000 gallons of diesel at about $2.50 a gallon, with 90 days to use it.

CPI had a choice. It could take its chances and hope the price of fuel would drop before Mr. Wilson took delivery on his full order, a windfall for the co-op. If diesel prices jumped, though, the coop would take a bath. "That falls under speculation," says Gary Brandt, CPI's vice president of energy. "But that's not what cooperatives do. That's what Goldman Sachs does."

Instead, CPI hedged on the New York Mercantile Exchange, buying a futures contract on heating oil, a close market substitute for diesel fuel. The co-op goes a step further and hedges also the difference between the prices of fuel traded in New York and delivered in Nebraska.

For the 57-year-old Mr. Wilson, the pricing plan proved a mixed blessing. The first year, the pump price shot up by another 20 to 25 cents, meaning he was getting a good deal. The following year the pump price dropped about a quarter a gallon, but Mr. Wilson was obliged to pay the higher price. "It hurt to have to pay for that fuel," he recalls sourly. He quit the program after that.

The finance law's imminence has prompted CPI's Mr. Brandt to warn his sales team and customers that the co-op may have to end its maximum-price fuel contracts. He's worried too that CPI might have to cut its fuel supplies if it can't hedge against price drops.

"We have to start making a game plan if they take away the ability for us to hedge that inventory," Mr. Brandt says.

The Wilsons deliver Mr. Reeson's steer to a low, cement-gray complex on the edge of Grand Island, Neb., where trucks arrive loaded with cattle, and others leave loaded with meat. Over the past year, Mr. Reeson has sold 1,125 steer to the packing plant, which is owned by JBS USA, a Greeley, Colo., unit of Brazilian-owned JBS SA.

JBS buys livestock two ways. Sometimes it pays cash for the following week's kill. Sometimes it buys further forward, agreeing in July, for instance, to a fixed price for steer delivered in December. JBS hedges on the derivatives market to make sure live cattle prices don't drop before it takes delivery.

The company also sells beef cuts forward to restaurant chains, promising delivery at set prices months ahead of time. JBS expects to have enough meat to fulfill the agreements. But if it runs short, it doesn't want to risk having to pay higher prices to buy meat to supply those restaurants.

So, it uses the derivatives market to play it safe. To do so, the company has to find a way to hedge different cuts of beef: Tenderloins might represent 1.5% of the total value of a steer. Strip loins might make up 3%. In a sense, JBS protects itself by reconstructing the steer through a derivatives trade on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. "We try to put the carcass back together financially," says company spokesman Chandler Keys.

The company hedges electricity for its refrigerators and natural gas for its boilers. It hedges currencies to stabilize its income from overseas. It hedges fuel for its fleet of thousands of trucks.
Even executives at a big firm such as JBS haven't been able to nail down the precise impact of the legislation on their business, introducing an unaccustomed level of uncertainty into their operations. They aren't changing the way they use derivatives, yet, hoping instead that exemptions for commercial users will insulate them.

"To get food, particularly highly perishable food like meat and poultry, through to the consumer, you have to manage your risk," says Mr. Keys.

Doctors Threaten to Pull Out of Texas Medicaid

2010-07-13T08:52:00.000-11:00

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/Doctors-Threaten-to-Pull-Out-of-Texas-Medicaid-98202569.html

Mon, Jul 12, 2010

Cuts to the reimbursements given to doctors who treat patients covered by the state's low-income health care program are raising fears that already declining physician participation will fall even further, according to a published report.

The health care and insurance industries fear that a 1 percent cut in Medicaid fees scheduled to take effect Sept. 1 will be the first in a series of cuts as state agencies are asked to trim their two-year budgets by 10 percent to help cover an expected $18 billion revenue shortfall, The Dallas Morning News reported Sunday.

About 3.3 million poor and disabled Texans depend on Medicaid for health care, but less than a third of the state's 48,700 practicing doctors accept patients covered by the federal program, according to Texas Health and Human Services Commission. And some doctors who do participate in the program limit the number and kind of patients they accept.

The commission, which administers the program in Texas, is among the state agencies that state leaders expect to cut spending. Thomas Suehs, the commission's top executive, said he realizes the bind that physicians find themselves in.

"No one ever wants to cut Medicaid," commission spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said. But, she noted, "it's 75 percent of our budget. So when you start to identify places to reduce our budget, it gets very hard to skip Medicaid."

Dr. Lou Montanaro, a suburban Dallas obstetrician, said he wanted to stay in the Medicaid program, but low reimbursement levels have prompted him to restrict the Medicaid cases he takes. He accepts pregnant patients, but not women seeking gynecological care.

Montanaro believes that reimbursement levels will continue to decline, which will prompt more doctors to decide to restrict or stop taking Medicaid patients.

"They're going to try to expand the rolls of Medicaid ... and at the same time they want to reduce the reimbursement to doctors," he said. "With the (pay) trend going downwards, I don't see additional physicians signing up. It's just not going to happen."

A survey by the Texas Medical Association, the state's largest physicians interest group, showed that 45 percent of its members who responded said they would limit how many Medicaid patients they would treat if the Medicaid fees were cut by 1 or 2 percent, while another 24 percent said they would stop accepting any Medicaid patients.

The issue is one of financial survival, said Tom Banning, the association's lobbyist. He said Medicaid pays about 70 percent of what Medicare, a federal insurance program for people age 65 or older, pays for the same service. Commercial insurers are also lowering their rates, he said.

In planning their business survival strategies, doctors "have tended to look at what is the lowest-paying part of the market, which is Medicaid. It's not a hard economic decision," Banning said.

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

2010-07-13T08:04:00.002-11:00

By THOMAS SOWELL

--Our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537967/201006211813/Is-US-Now-On-Slippery-Slope-To-Tyranny-.aspx

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

Report: Amnesty on White House's mind

2010-07-13T07:56:00.001-11:00

Sen. Grassley maintains that the Obama Administration is mulling over plans to "unilaterally extend deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States..." and "while deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used circumvent Congress' constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population of the United States."

Yes, President Obama does have the authority to pardon individuals for crimes they have been convicted of committing, but he does not have the moral right to undermine Congress' right to control the United States' immigration policy. The American people have elected Senators and Representatives, not a President, to pass legislation dealing with immigration. If President Obama is considering overriding the will of the American people in such a cavalier fashion, the American people have a right to be seriously concerned.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=1062748

Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 6/23/2010 2:25:00 PM
Is Barack Obama drafting an executive order that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens?

Fox News is reporting that a group of Republican senators have asked President Obama to clarify reports that he is drafting a plan to issue blanket amnesty for millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally. The plan would reportedly be unilateral in nature -- circumventing Congress entirely as the administration struggles to gain support on Capitol Hill for what the administration calls "comprehensive immigration reform" -- and be issued in the form of an executive order.

In a letter to the president, says Fox News, Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), David Vitter (Louisiana), Jim Bunning (Kentucky), Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Johnny Isakson (Georgia), James Inhofe (Oklahoma), and Thad Cochran (Mississippi) have urged the president to "abandon" what they describe as a plan to "unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens...."

The letter, sent to the White House on Monday, argues that such a move "would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books."

Fox News points out that an executive order granting a blanket amnesty would likely stem the high number of immigration-related protests across the country -- and would effectively make null and void the controversial bill signed into law recently by the governor of Arizona that allows state authorities to enforce federal laws regarding illegal immigration.

According to the report, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated last year almost 11-million people live in the United States illegally.

The Obama Plan For Socialist America (by Obama's College Classmate)

2010-07-13T07:42:00.000-11:00

Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

Analyst: Obama has U.S. economy in 'death spiral'

2010-07-13T07:38:00.001-11:00

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=173169

'Simple math' confirms unemployment won't be solved by government hiring

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 04, 2010

By Bob Unruh

A new analysis of the U.S. economy shows that since 2007, the private sector has lost 10.5 million jobs while the public sector has added 720,000 jobs, creating a "death spiral" for the nation's economy.

The study comes from The Free Enterprise Nation, a nonpartisan national membership/advocacy organization for individuals and businesses that make up the private sector.

The analysis was done using statistics about employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Don't wait until a collapse happens, get "Killing Wealth Freeing Wealth: How to Save America's Economy and Your Own" now!

The recession of the last two years exacerbated the larger problem that already was in place, it revealed.

"Over the 10-year period between March 2000 and March 2010, the private sector lost over three million jobs, while the public sector gained nearly two million jobs," the analysis concludes.

Among the changes were California's loss of 665,800 jobs in the private sector. But government in the Golden State added 163,800 jobs.

Also, Michigan lost 791,700 private-sector jobs, a "staggering" 20 percent. Government bureaucracies, however, kept all but 7 percent of their positions.

Jim MacDougald, president and CEO of The Free Enterprise Nation, recently appeared on the Fox News Channel to talk about a new campaign called "I own you."

North Carolina showed a 10-year loss of 138,200 private-sector jobs, or 4 percent of its private-sector workforce, while adding 127,100 government jobs, a 20 percent increase.

Colorado's population increased by 17 percent in the past decade while losing 3 percent of its private-sector jobs. Government employment increased by more than 17 percent during the same time frame.

Tennessee lost 157,300 private-sector jobs while adding 13,900 in government agencies.

While Texas added 616,000 private-sector jobs, it also added 295,200 government jobs, almost one bureaucratic position for every two positions in private enterprise.

Florida also added private-sector jobs overall – 39,600. But it also added 127,100 government positions.

Massachusetts lost 168,700 private-sector jobs but still found the need to add 7,500 government jobs.

Wisconsin lost 149,400 private-sector jobs; added 22,300 to government payrolls.

"The consequence of this employment shift is that a smaller number of private-sector employers and workers are saddled with the tax burden of financially supporting a growing government workforce," said MacDougald.

"Since public-sector workers are paid more on average in compensation and benefits than private-sector workers, it is financially unsustainable for the government to continue to grow while the private-sector workforce shrinks," he said.

He explained to WND that while the problem is massive, there is the potential for a solution.

"There are 89,000 taxpayer-supported entities that make up the 'public sector,' and no one is in charge of their collective efforts. About one-half of the 22 million public-sector workers are in public education. (And only about one-half of the people employed in public education are teachers!)" he said.

"It is possible that the federal government thinks it can solve the unemployment problem by hiring more people, but, if so, it would be another indication of just how far removed from reality the federal government's economic policies are," he said.

"Our population grew by 25 million from 2000 to 2010. We needed to create at least 20 million new jobs. Instead, we lost 3 million in the private sector. The 'shortfall' of 23 million jobs could not possibly be made up by government hiring, as they would have to double in size in order to do so," he said.

The real problem is not necessarily with the number of government jobs but the cost of their "huge pensions, early retirement and health-insurance benefits."

"That is where the real 'cost of government' is," he continued. "As numbers of workers in the private sector decrease, and public-sector hiring increases, it places an impossible burden on those individuals and businesses left who actually pay taxes.

"Unfortunately, the current approach is to charge more taxes to those who actually pay federal income taxes (one-half of tax filers), and businesses. Businesses (employers) have no choice but to reduce overhead, which means fewer domestic workers. A death spiral," he warned.

The solution would be a hard pill to swallow for many, he warned.

Among the moves that would help would be to terminate all government pension plans, "vesting everyone 100 percent in benefits accrued to date." Pensions could be replaced with a type of 401(k) retirement plan that is funded by employer contributions.

Then there would be need for a hard look at what government actually does.

"Do we NEED government to do that for us? If not, stop doing it," he said.

Next would be to ignore – or better yet banish – public-sector unions.

A "zero-based" staffing and budget plan would require officials to review what work is required and how many workers are needed to do it.

"Public policy-makers must ask: How many people do we NEED to do what we are hired to do? Do we really NEED one administrative/management employee for every teacher? Once those questions have been asked and answered, we must rebuild each public-sector entity from scratch," he said.

"We have to 'reinvent' the public sector, based on a fundamental requirement that it serves the taxpayer, not the other way around. It is a huge job to do, and it will take years. There is no silver bullet. But it can be done," he said.

WND columnist Dan Mangru also has criticized the government's "fuzzy math".

And longtime top-rated radio talk-show host Roger Hedgecock said more and more federal spending just depresses the economy.

"Three professors at the Harvard Business School, in a study titled 'Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?' have concluded, based on 40 years of data, that federal government spending does not stimulate local business spending. In fact, the opposite occurred. The more federal spending, the less corporate spending," he reported.

"And the same results show up whether the state is large or small, whether the firms are large or small over a period of 40 years. In fact, the study shows the results 'most pronounced in geographically concentrated firms and within the industries that are the target of the spending.' In plain speech, federal 'bacon' is toxic to economic growth in the private sector," he wrote.

Anatomy of a Failing Presidency

2010-07-13T07:25:00.000-11:00

Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist. He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes on Health projects. He is also a writer for American Thinker.

____________________________________________________

An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt

Anatomy of a Failing Presidency

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China .

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

New Taxes Coming Jan 1, 2011

2010-07-13T07:12:00.002-11:00

This is a partial list of new taxes that you will be facing in 2011. All compliments of our blue congress and president.

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011: http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3646

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

http://www.atr.org/obamacare-taxes-final-tab-a4744

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The "Medicine Cabinet Tax" Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The "Special Needs Kids Tax" This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. http://ncrcpreschool.org/page.php?pid=11http://ncrcpreschool.org/page.php?pid=11http://ncrcpreschool.org/page.php?pid=11

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2702

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated."

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs. http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3646

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/sixmonths.html?content=5171#ixzz0saAHMP4G

Climategate - Don't Believe The Independent Reviews!‏

2010-07-13T07:02:00.001-11:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html

JULY 12, 2010

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.

By PATRICK J. MICHAELS

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.

Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that "Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."

No links? One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton's school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others—one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann. Mr. Mann was one of the Climategate principals who proposed a plan, which was clearly laid out in emails whose veracity Mr. Mann has not challenged, to destroy a scientific journal that dared to publish three papers with which he and his East Anglia friends disagreed. These two reviews also saw no evil. For example, Penn State "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."

Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking. In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line "IPCC & FOI," "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise."

Mr. Jones emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, "Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."

The Russell report states that "On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data." Really? Here's what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]"

Then there's the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: "On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this."

Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann's work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.

But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."

Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.

Of course, Mr. Russell didn't look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That's because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.

Mr. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

FANNIE-FREDDIE Bailout Could Cost Taxpayers $1 Trillion...

2010-06-29T02:53:00.001-11:00

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37982580

Published: Tuesday, 29 Jun 2010

By: Reported by Steve Liesman, written by Michelle Lodge

For American taxpayers, now on the hook for some $145 billion in housing losses connected to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans, that amount could be just the tip of the iceberg.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, the cost to the taxpayer could hit as much as $1 trillion.

Two things are clear: Taxpayers don’t want to foot the bill, and Fannie and Freddie, taken over by the government in 2008 to stanch the financial bloodletting, need a major overhaul.

“Some of us who don’t even own homes are paying to support others and their home ownership, and they ask ‘why?’ said Robert J. Shiller, a Yale University economics professor and co-creator of the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices.

The indices measure the US residential housing market by tracking changes in the value of residential real estate both nationally and in 20 metropolitan regions.

Shiller added that the mission of Fannie and Freddie should be severely cut back “so that they’re not helping middle-class homeowners, [but] they’re helping poor people get into the housing market.”

At the crux of the financial crisis, the government took over Fannie and Freddie to avert possible massive losses for banks, money-market funds and, perhaps, most importantly, foreign institutions that purchased billions of Fannie and Freddie debt because of its implied government guarantee.

The Chinese, for example, had invested heavily, and the US decided it didn’t want them to take a loss on their investment.

One possible scenario for the entities is to turn them into utilities, said Sean Dobson, CEO and chair of Amherst Securities.

“Freddie and Fannie could be used to standardize the mortgage product,” Dobson said, “to completely describe what the risks are and then act as a conduit for the capital markets to take the risk.”

An American working in Mexico (his experience)

2010-06-10T08:18:00.001-11:00

From the other side of the fence...

Tom O'Malley, Director with S.W. BELL in Mexico City:

"I spent five years working in Mexico . I worked under a tourist Visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

"During that six months our Mexican and U.S. aattorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called an 'FM3'. It was in addition to my U.S. passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara's was the same, except hers did not permit her to work.

"To apply for the FM3, I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies):

1. Birth certificate for Barbara and me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.

6. A letter from the St. Louis Chief of Police indicating that I had no arrest record in the U.S. and no outstandingwarrants, and was "a citizen in good standing".

7. Finally, I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our 'I am the greatest person on Earth' letter. It was fun to write.

"All of the above were in English that had to be translatedinto Spanish and be certified as legal translations, and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side & Spanish on the right.

"Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours, accompanied by a Mexican attorney, touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times at each location, and we remember at least four locations where we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey theirlaws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by U.S. Customs in Laredo, Texas. this meant we had rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid."

"We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

"We were required to get a Mexican driver's license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and fingerprint equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our U.S. license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six-dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was to never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp.If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

"We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company's Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually.

"The FM3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.

"Leaving the country meant turning in the FM3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs."

"It was a real adventure and if any of our Senators or Congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitudetoward Mexico.

"The Mexican government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant.They never protest at their capitol or government offices, but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The U.S. Embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican military surrounds the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are neaver shown on U.S. or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas."

Please feel free to share this with everyone whothinks we are being hard on the illegals.

DEBT RISE TO $19,600,000,000,000.00 BY 2015: (Up from an astounding $13.6 trillion this year!!!)

2010-06-10T08:16:00.001-11:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN088462520100608

June 8 (Reuters) - The U.S. debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015, according to a Treasury Department report to Congress.

The report that was sent to lawmakers Friday night with no fanfare said the ratio of debt to the gross domestic product would rise to 102 percent by 2015 from 93 percent this year.

"The president's economic experts say a 1 percent increase in GDP can create almost 1 million jobs, and that 1 percent is what experts think we are losing because of the debt's massive drag on our economy," said Republican Representative Dave Camp, who publicized the report.

He was referring to recent testimony by University of Maryland Professor Carmen Reinhart to the bipartisan fiscal commission, which was created by President Barack Obama to recommend ways to reduce the deficit, which said debt topping 90 percent of GDP could slow economic growth.

The U.S. debt has grown rapidly with the economic downturn and government spending for the Wall Street bailout, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the economic stimulus. The rising debt is contributing to voter unrest ahead of the November congressional elections in which Republicans hope to regain control of Congress.

The total U.S. debt includes obligations to the Social Security retirement program and other government trust funds. The amount of debt held by investors, which include China and other countries as well as individuals and pension funds, will rise to an estimated $9.1 trillion this year from $7.5 trillion last year.

By 2015 the net public debt will rise to an estimated $14 trillion, with a ratio to GDP of 73 percent, the Treasury report said. (Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by Kenneth Barry)

Why the USA is Bankrupt - Where we spend $333.8 Billion Each Year!

2010-06-10T08:15:00.001-11:00

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:

I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts...

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report:

12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/PDF/deportation.PDF

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.

Verify at: http://www..rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14.. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'

Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml http://ww/%MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "ww" claiming to be 20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S.CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!

Debt under Obama increases $5 billion per day -- 3 times the Bush rate...

2010-06-10T08:11:00.001-11:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/2/federal-debt-tops-13-trillion-mark/

By Stephen Dinan
Wednesday, June 2, 2010

The federal government is now $13 trillion in the red, the Treasury Department reported Wednesday, marking the first time the government has sunk that far into debt and putting a sharp point on the spending debate on Capitol Hill.

Calculated down to the exact penny, the debt totaled $13,050,826,460,886.97 as of Tuesday, leaping nearly $60 billion since Friday, the previous day for which figures were released.

At $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion a day. That's almost three times the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration, and led Republicans on Wednesday to place blame squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.

"A $13 trillion debt is an alarm bell and a wake-up call combined, but Democrats are not even trying to pass a budget," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "How out of touch can Washington Democrats get? Instead of continuing to pay lip service to this issue, President Obama should call on congressional Democrats to pass a budget that provides the fiscal discipline economists say is needed to create jobs and grow our economy."

The White House would not comment for the record, but an official speaking on the condition of anonymity said the administration is "committed to restoring fiscal responsibility."

Spokesmen for the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees didn't return messages Wednesday.

In the budget he submitted to Congress in February, the president acknowledged that his plans are not enough to reduce annual deficits to sustainable levels, which he said amounted to a yearly shortfall of 3 percent of gross domestic product. Mr. Obama called for a fiscal commission to make recommendations to close the gap, and commission members at their meeting last week said even that may not be enough.

"I think we've got to be more ambitious than that," said Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "We really have to pick a trajectory that has the debt coming down. And there's probably no magic of whether it comes down 1 percent a year or 2 percent a year or whatever. But it's got to come down over time."

Underscoring the challenge of finding balance, Congress has not been able to pass a fiscal 2011 budget. The Senate Budget Committee has approved a proposed budget, but it has not been debated on the Senate floor, and House Democratic leaders have indicated that they may give up debt reduction altogether this year.

Several unofficial debt clocks had shown the debt crossing the $13 trillion threshold a week ago, though Treasury said those numbers were not official. Those clocks regularly recalibrate using Treasury numbers, but estimate growth rates in order to provide a per-second update on websites.

Treasury, meanwhile, reports numbers once a day and posts figures for the prior day. There was no figure for Monday because it was a federal holiday.

Total public debt includes two pots of money. One is normal government debt in the form of Treasury bills and bonds held by consumers, while the other is intragovernmental holdings, or money one part of the government borrows from another agency. That includes money borrowed from the Social Security trust funds.

Some analysts say the key measure is not the total public debt, but the debt in the hands of consumers.

That figure stood at $8.573 trillion on Tuesday, having jumped nearly $80 billion from Friday's number. By comparison, that one-day jump is well more than the $59 billion emergency war-spending bill that the Senate passed last week.

Mr. Obama charged the fiscal commission with finding ways to limit that number to 75 percent of gross domestic product.

The other half of the equation, intragovernmental debt to trust funds and the like, totaled $4.478 trillion as of Tuesday - a drop of about $20 billion from Friday's report.

The $13 trillion debt number is not significant other than that it's another milestone, but its tolling shows just how much debt has been amassed in a short time.

It took 197 days for the debt to rise from $12 trillion to $13 trillion, which is the second shortest trillion-dollar rise in history. The fastest trillion came at the end of 2008 and early 2009, when the Wall Street bailout created giant new obligations.

Congressional members and staffers, particularly on the Republican side, took a macabre interest as the debt flirted with $13 trillion all last week. Some lawmakers even jumped the gun in putting out statements based on the unofficial debt clocks.

At $13 trillion, that works out to an obligation of more than $42,000 for every U.S. resident.

"Throughout history, excessive debt has led to the demise of great nations," said Sen Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican. "This milestone should be a wake-up call for Congress. No one will bail out America if we continue to live beyond our means."

Earlier this year, Congress and Mr. Obama raised the country's debt limit to $14.3 trillion, hoping it would give the government enough room to spend through the end of this year.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model

2010-06-10T08:09:00.000-11:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3

By Claire Sibonney - Analysis Claire Sibonney
Mon May 31, 2:38 pm ET

TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.

It's likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

"There's got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years," said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.

"We can't continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.

"At some stage we're going to hit a breaking point."

MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE

In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.

Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.

Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.

But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.

"As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance ... one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed," said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.

Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto's Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including "means-testing" and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

"Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There's going to be a finer look at what we're paying for and, more importantly, what we're getting for it," he said.

Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.

Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.

"Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them," Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.

The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.

In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.

WINNERS AND LOSERS

The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.

"Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them," said U of T's Golden. "We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now."

Scotia Capital's Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. "(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it's costing," she said.

"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"

But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada's national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.

"It's an area that Canadians don't want to see touched," said TD's Burleton. "Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist's standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost."

($1=$1.05 Canadian)

(Reporting by Claire Sibonney; editing by Janet Guttsman and Peter Galloway)

OBAMA REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH VICTORY: PRIVATE PAY PLUMMETS, GOVT HANDOUTS SOAR:

2010-06-10T08:05:00.001-11:00

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-05-24-income-shifts-from-private-sector_N.htm

5/26/2010

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.
At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.

The recession has erased 8 million private jobs. Even before the downturn, private wages were eroding because of the substitution of health and pension benefits for taxable salaries.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that individuals received income from all sources — wages, investments, food stamps, etc. — at a $12.2 trillion annual rate in the first quarter.

Key shifts in income this year:

• Private wages. A record-low 41.9% of the nation's personal income came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December 2007.

•Government benefits. Individuals got 17.9% of their income from government programs in the first quarter, up from 14.2% when the recession started. Programs for the elderly, the poor and the unemployed all grew in cost and importance. An additional 9.8% of personal income was paid as wages to government employees.

The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"It's the system working as it should," Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says.

Economist Veronique de Rugy of the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University says the riots in Greece over cutting benefits to close a huge budget deficit are a warning about unsustainable income programs.

Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says.

Democrats run against President and his agenda

2010-05-22T18:13:00.000-11:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/21/anti-obama-tack-buoys-some-democrats/

May 21, 2010

Sean Lengell

Some Democrats on the campaign trail have hit upon a winning campaign tactic: Run against President Obama and his agenda -- especially the health care overhaul.

Democrat Mark Critz railed against the Obama administration's health care reforms while campaigning in his western Pennsylvania district -- and was easily elected to the House.

In West Virginia, Democratic stalwart Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, who voted against an administration-backed energy bill last year, was defeated in his primary after his challenger accused him of not having enough disdain for the measure that was wildly unpopular in his home district. He also was hammered for supporting health care reform.

Rep. Joe Sestak, in Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary, challenged the White-House-endorsed five-term incumbent, Sen. Arlen Specter, and was rewarded with a cushy eight percentage-point win.

While other factors and issues played key roles in Democratic primaries and special elections this year, shunning -- or even rebuking -- the White House so far has helped Democrats.

Presidents "really don't have a lot of coattails when they go out and campaign for people, so I think it's a little hard to say you can pin these losses directly on the administration's doorstep," said Michael D. Tanner, a political analyst with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

"On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that one of the reasons there's so much unhappiness out there [among voters] is that the administration's policies have upset people."

Democratic leaders say that voters' opinions of the president have taken a back seat to the economy and job issues during congressional elections this year.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- the recruiting and fundraising arm for House Democrats -- on Thursday said that Republican attempts to portray Mr. Critz as lockstep Democrat tethered to the White House failed miserably.

"Republicans tried to make [Mr. Obama] an issue. We know that from the campaign ads that they ran, and I think the message of the vote was that people were focused on the economic agenda, and the president's economic agenda has helped get the economy out of the ditch," Mr. Van Hollen said.

But Mr. Critz hammered Mr. Obama's signature legislative victory since taking office, health care reform, tapping into some Democratic voters' distaste for the measure and blunting Republican nominee Tim Burns' ability to capitalize on an issue still roiling voters. Despite the Republican Party's early calls of stealing the long-held Democratic seat, Mr. Critz craftfully moderated his message and rode a party-affiliation advantage to victory.

Mr. Van Hollen dismissed Mr. Critz's criticism of the president's health care reform package by saying that individual candidates are free to campaign on the "values and priorities of their district." He added that Mr. Critz's pro-life, pro-gun agenda was the same as that of the district's longtime Democratic congressman, John P. Murtha, who died in office in February.

Mr. Critz "was running as an independent-minded Democrat," Mr. Van Hollen said. Independent pollster Scott Rasmussen said that the public frustration over the unpopular Wall Street bailout "spun off" into anger for the administration's health care overhaul.

"It's a mistake to say that the health care bill is separate from the economy -- it's part of the same issue," said Mr. Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. "Where that leaves us for November, we don't really know -- other than the fact that there will be less Democrats in the House."

When White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked Thursday whether the president or his political team is concerned that four recent Democratic candidates supported by Mr. Obama lost, his response was one word: "No."

The other three losing Democratic candidates were gubernatorial hopefuls R. Creigh Deeds of Virginia and Jon Corzine of New Jersey, and Senate candidate Martha Coakley of Massachusetts. Ms. Coakley had hoped to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy -- a longtime advocate of health care reform -- but was swamped at the height of the health care debate in the bluest of Democratic states by Republican state Sen. Scott Brown.

Another Obama endorsee, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, failed to secure 50 percent of the vote in Arkansas' Democratic primary Tuesday and will face Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a runoff next month. She angered conservatives by supporting the Democrat-led health care overhaul, but frustrated liberals by opposing a government-run insurance option as part of the reform package.

In West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, a 14-term incumbent, took heavy flak for his vote in support of health care reform.

The anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List said it spent $78,000 on TV and radio ads and telephone "robocalls" in West Virginia criticizing Mr. Mollohan for his support of the measure, which included federal funding for abortions.

"We promised Rep. Mollohan and the other 'pro-life' Democrats that we would make their re-election incredibly painful if they voted 'yes' on the health care bill," said the group's president, Marjorie Dannenfelser. "The Susan B. Anthony List followed through on that promise."

Mr. Mollohan also was attacked by his opponent, state Sen. Mike Oliverio, for not coming out more forcefully against a White House-backed climate-change bill that included a "cap and trade" emissions program that many West Virginians say would cripple the state's economically vital coal mining interests.

But it's too soon to say how health care reform will play out in November's general elections, political analysts warn.

With many of the more controversial aspects of the law -- such as mandates requiring most Americans to carry insurance -- not kicking in for several years, voters may be fixated on other issues by November, particularly if the economy and unemployment rate don't improve.

"The one absolute certainty is that we over-interpret primary days like [Tuesday] because there was relatively low turnouts, and it was only a handful of states," Mr. Rasmussen said. "I think we need to be a little cautious in reading too much into this."

In Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary, the liberal Mr. Sestak campaigned on a platform that mirrored most of Mr. Obama's agenda, including the administration's health care reforms (though he preferred a government-run "public option" insurance plan, abortion rights and stem-cell research.

Yet while Mr. Sestak was much more closely aligned to the president ideologically and politically, the White House instead backed Mr. Specter -- a move seen by many as payback after the senator bolted the GOP for the Democratic Party last year and supported health care reform.

Democratic leaders since Tuesday's primary have been quick to back Mr. Sestak. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in a Wednesday morning news release, announced that he would "wholeheartedly support Congressman Sestak as the Democratic nominee."

This article was based in part on wire service dispatches.

Obamacare to overwhelm already crammed ERs

2010-05-18T04:48:00.000-11:00

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/98025-health-reform-threatens-to-overwhelm-already-crammed-emergency-rooms

By Jay Heflin - 05/15/10 12:20 PM ET

The new healthcare law will pack 32 million newly insured people into emergency rooms already crammed beyond capacity, according to experts on healthcare facilities.

A chief aim of the new healthcare law was to take the pressure off emergency rooms by mandating that people either have insurance coverage. The idea was that if people have insurance, they will go to a doctor rather than putting off care until they faced an emergency.

People who build hospitals, however, say newly insured people will still go to emergency rooms for primary care because they don’t have a doctor.

“Everybody expected that one of the initial impacts of reform would be less pressure on emergency departments; it’s going to be exactly the opposite over the next four to eight years,” said Rich Dallam, a healthcare partner at the architectural firm NBBJ, which designs healthcare facilities.

“We don’t have the primary care infrastructure in place in America to cover the need. Our clients are looking at and preparing for more emergency department volume, not less,” he said.

Some Democrats agree with this assessment.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) suspects the fallout that occurred in Massachusetts’ emergency rooms could happen nationwide after health reform kicks in.

Massachusetts in 2006 created near-universal coverage for residents, which was supposed to ease the traffic in hospital emergency rooms.

But a recent poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians found that nearly two-thirds of the state’s residents say emergency department wait times have either increased or remained the same.

A February 2010 report by The Council of State Governments found that wait times had not abated since the law took effect.

“That is not an unrealistic question about what’s going to happen in the next four years as you bring all these people on; who are they going to see?” McDermott said.

The Washington congressman tried to include a provision in the healthcare bill he thought would increase the number of doctors.

McDermott’s legislation would have required the government to pay for students’ medical education in return for students serving four years as a primary care physician. The measure did not make it on the final bill that eventually became law.

McDermott stressed that creating a “whole new cadre of doctors” needs to begin now to meet the rising need from patients in the future.

While the measure wouldn’t prevent the infrastructure crunch, it would have provided new doctors for people seeking care.

Richard Foster, Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told The Hill that the current dearth of primary care physicians could lead to greater stress on hospital emergency rooms.

“The supply of doctors can’t be increased very quickly – there’s a time lag,” he said, adding, “Is the last resort to newly covered people the emergency room? I would say that is a possibility, but I wouldn’t say anybody has a very good handle on exactly how much of an infrastructure problem there will be or exactly how it might work out.”

The Academy of Architecture for Health predicts hospitals will need at least $2 trillion over the next 20 years to meet the coming demand.

“As more people have access, you have to deal with the increased capacity,” said Andrew Goldberg, senior director of federal relations at the American Institute of Architects. “At the moment there is not a lot of building going on because of the economy and a lot of health care facilities can’t get the financing. We’ve been working on the Hill to try to address that issue.”

The group has called on Congress to beef-up bonding authorities and expand energy efficient tax breaks for professional buildings. The vehicle targeted is the green energy legislation making its way through the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance.

Dan Noble, a principal at the Dallas-based architecture firm HKS Inc., which also specializes in designing health care facilities, believes the only remedy to meet the coming demand on hospitals is to start projects immediately.

“We would have to get very busy soon,” he said. “It would take a fairly aggressive building campaign for the next decade.”

Texas doctors opting out of Medicare at alarming rate...

2010-05-18T04:47:00.000-11:00

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7009807.html

By TODD ACKERMAN
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
May 17, 2010, 11:02PM

Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.

Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren't taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year.

“This new data shows the Medicare system is beginning to implode,” said Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association. “If Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there'll be more and more doctors dropping out and Congress' promise to provide medical care to seniors will be broken.”

More than 300 doctors have dropped the program in the last two years, including 50 in the first three months of 2010, according to data compiled by the Houston Chronicle. Texas Medical Association officials, who conducted the 2008 survey, said the numbers far exceeded their assumptions.

The largest number of doctors opting out comes from primary care, a field already short of practitioners nationally and especially in Texas. Psychiatrists also make up a large share of the pie, causing one Texas leader to say, “God forbid that a senior has dementia.”

The opt-outs follow years of declining Medicare reimbursement that culminated in a looming 21 percent cut in 2010. Congress has voted three times to postpone the cut, which was originally to take effect Jan. 1. It is now set to take effect June 1.

Not cost-effective
The uncertainty proved too much for Dr. Guy Culpepper, a Dallas-area family practice doctor who says he wrestled with his decision for years before opting out in March. It was, he said, the only way “he could stop getting bullied and take control of his practice.”

“You do Medicare for God and country because you lose money on it,” said Culpepper, a graduate of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston. “The only way to provide cost-effective care is outside the Medicare system, a system without constant paperwork and headaches and inadequate reimbursement.”

Ending Medicare participation is just one consequence of the system's funding problems. In a new Texas Medical Association survey, opting out was one of the least common options doctors have taken or are planning as a result of declining Medicare funding — behind increasing fees, reducing staff wages and benefits, reducing charity care and not accepting new Medicare patients.

In 2008, 42 percent of Texas doctors participating in the survey said they were no longer accepting all new Medicare patients. Among primary-care doctors, the percentage was 62 percent.

The impact on doctors has not been lost on their patients. Kathy Sweeney, a Houston retiree, twice has been turned away by specialists because they weren't accepting new Medicare patients. She worries her doctors might have to drop her if Medicare cuts go through and they can't afford to continue in the program.

“I've talked to them about the possibility,” said Sweeney, who sent her legislators a letter calling on them to fix Medicare. “They're hanging in there as long as there's not a severe cut, but just thinking I couldn't continue doctor-patient relationships I built up over years is disturbing. Seniors should be able to see the doctors they want.”

The problem dates back to 1997, when Congress passed a balanced budget law that included a Medicare payment formula aimed at reining in spending. The formula, which assumed low growth rates, called for payment cuts if spending exceeded goals, a scenario that occurred year after year as health care costs grew. The scheduled cuts, expected to be modest, turned out to be large.

Congress would overturn the cuts, but their short-term fixes didn't keep up with inflation. The Texas Medical Association says the cumulative effect since 2001 already amounts to an inflation-adjusted cut of 20.9 percent. In 2001, doctors receiving a $1,000 Medicare payment made roughly $410, after taking out operating expenses. In 2010, they'll net $290. If the scheduled 21.2 percent cut goes through, they'd net $72, effectively an 83 percent cut since 2001.

The issue caused the Texas Medical Association to break ranks with the American Medical Association and oppose health care reform efforts throughout 2009. Then TMA President Dr. William Fleming said “reform is doomed to failure” without Medicare reform and called Congress' failure to devise a rational payment plan “an insult to seniors, people with disabilities and military families.”

No surprise to senator
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he isn't surprised by the new opt-out numbers, allowing that Congress' inability to reform Medicare is leaving “seniors without access and breaking the promise we made to them.”

“The problem has been how to eliminate the cuts without running up the deficit,” said Cornyn, responding to blame U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, placed on the Senate for not passing a House bill that would have provided a longer-term Medicare fix. “There hasn't been the political will, but we really have no choice but to fix it.”

Cornyn acknowledged the task is daunting. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that eliminating scheduled Medicare payment cuts through 2020 would cost $276 billion.

The growth in Texas Medicare opt-outs began in earnest in 2007, when 70 doctors notified Trailblazer Health Enterprises, the state's Medicare carrier, they would no longer participate, up from seven in 2006. The numbers jumped to 151 in 2008, fell back to 135 in 2009 and are on pace for 200 in 2010. From 1998 to 2002, by contrast, no more than three a year opted out.

Now, according to a Texas Medical Association new poll, more than four in 10 doctors are considering the move.

“I've been in practice 24 years, and a lot of my patients got old right along with me,” Culpepper said. “It's stressful to tell them you're leaving Medicare and they're responsible for payments if they want to stay with you. You feel like you're abandoning them.”

todd.ackerman@chron.com

Venezuela's Chavez orders takeover of iron-makers:

2010-05-17T04:22:00.001-11:00

In other news...US's Obama orders takeover of banks, auto companies, student loans, home loans, healthcare, etc. Hmmmmmm!

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FNMNMO2.htm

The Associated Press May 15, 2010,

CARACAS, Venezuela

President Hugo Chavez announced Saturday the expropriation of a group of iron, aluminum and transportation companies in Venezuela's mining region.

Among the expropriated companies is Materiales Siderurgicos, or Matesi, which is the Venezuelan subsidiary of Luxembourg-based steel maker Tenaris SA.

Venezuela's socialist president said in a televised that his government was going to take over Matesi because "we couldn't reach an amicable and reasonable settlement with the owners."

Chavez said production at the company has been paralyzed since midway through last year, when Venezuela's president announced plans to nationalize it.

Chavez said he was also going to expropriate Venezuelan-owned Orinoco Iron and aluminum-maker Norpro de Venezuela C.A., which is an affiliate of the U.S. company Norpro in association with France's Saint Gobain, among other companies.

As well, Venezuela will take over transport companies that ship raw materials in areas southeast of Caracas. He did not name the companies.

Since coming to power more than a decade ago, Chavez has nationalized major companies in the electricity, oil, steel and coffee sectors, as well as other private businesses.

OBAMA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THIS

2010-05-17T04:20:00.000-11:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHxb_vZe7Ao&feature=email

More On Obama Birth Certificate! Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. #:

2010-05-17T04:18:00.001-11:00

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152773

BORN IN THE USA?
Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number
3 experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 11, 2010

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama's earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

"Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office," the Social Security website explains. "The first three (3) digits of a person's social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number."

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president's history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

"I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don't live, but there's usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state," Siciliano told WND.

WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

"Yes," he replied. "In the case of President Obama, I really don't know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii."

Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.

To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama's were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

"There is obviously a case of fraud going on here," Daniels maintained. "In 15 years of having a private investigator's license in Ohio, I've never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly."

The hottest book in America is the one that exposes the real Obama and all his men (and women)! Get your autographed copy only from WND!

Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?

"Never," Daniels said. "It's against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued."

Daniels said she is "staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama's use of this Social Security number is fraudulent."

There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

Nor is there any suggestion in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," that he ever had a Connecticut address.

Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.

Sampson's affidavit specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, "it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence."

Daniels told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.

"I doubt this is President Obama's originally issued Social Security number," she told WND. "Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii."

The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama's inauguration.

Politifact.com, a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

"It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins," she insisted. "Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime."

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama's birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama's birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

Daniels disclosed to WND the name of the database she searched and produced a computer screen copy of the page that listed 1890 as a date associated with the 042 Social Security number.

Daniels said she can't be sure if the 1890 figure has any significance. But she said it appears the number Obama is using was previously issued by the Social Security Administration.

After an extensive check of the proprietary databases she uses as a licensed private investigator, Daniels determined that the first occurrence of Obama's association with the number was in 1986 in Chicago.

Daniels assumes, but cannot prove, that Obama took on a previously issued Social Security number that had gone dormant due to the death of the original holder.

Daniels has been a licensed private investigator in Ohio since 1995. Sampson formed his private investigations firm, CSI Consulting and Investigations, in 2008. He previously worked as a deportations law enforcement officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Daniels and Sampson affidavits were originally recorded by attorney Orly Taitz in an eligibility case against Obama last year.

Reality Check On Our Nation's Debt!!!

2010-05-17T04:16:00.001-11:00

Reality Check: Our nation's debt is currently over $12.9 TRILLION ($117,682 per taxpayer). We are in so deep that even if we seized 100% of the fortune's of Bill Gates $53B & Warren Buffett $47B, we would only be able to pay LESS THAN ONE PERCENT (.77%) of our total debt!
Our nation's debt is currently SO HIGH, (over $12.9 TRILLION, $117,682 per taxpayer) That even if we seized the ENTIRE FORTUNES of the ONE HUNDRED RICHEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ($1.4 trillion) we would still only be able to pay 10.8% of our total debt!

Even the entire vast fortune's of the ONE THOUSAND RICHEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, would come NO WHERE NEAR paying off our debt.

But you know who is expected to pay off the debt...YOU AND I, OUR CHILDREN, OUR GRANDCHILDREN!!!...

Time to stand up for ourselves don't you think?!

Special Report
The World's Billionaires
03.10.10, 06:00 PM EST
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html

Live US Debt Clock:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

CBO: Obama health overhaul to cost $115 Billion more:

2010-05-17T04:14:00.000-11:00

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FKQHJO0&show_article=1

May 11 02:58 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional budget referees say President Barack Obama's new health care law could potentially add another $115 billion over 10 years to government health care spending.

If Congress approves all the additional spending, that would push the 10-year cost of the overhaul above $1 trillion—an unofficial limit the Obama administration set early on.

The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday the added spending includes $10 billion to $20 billion in administrative costs to federal agencies carrying out the law, as well as $34 billion for community health centers and $39 billion for American Indian health care.

The additional spending is not automatic, however. Congress would have to specifically release the funds.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Great Letter To Editor On Immigration:

2010-05-17T04:13:00.001-11:00

(Sent but refused to publish in Orange County Register)

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

(signed)
Rosemary LaBonte

OBAMA PENTAGON GIVES $500M 'NO BID' CONTRACT TO HALLIBURTON...

2010-05-08T07:12:00.001-11:00

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-06/kbr-to-get-no-bid-army-work-as-u-s-alleges-kickbacks-update1-.html

KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks

May 06, 2010, 11:27 AM EDT

(Updates with General Casey’s comment in 10th and 11th paragraphs, McCaskill comment in third paragraph from end.)

By Tony Capaccio

May 6 (Bloomberg) -- KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said.

The Army announced its decision yesterday only hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work. The Army also awarded the work to KBR over objections from members of Congress, who have pushed the Pentagon to seek bids for further logistics contracts.

The Justice Department said the government will join a suit filed by whistleblowers alleging that two freight-forwarding firms gave KBR transportation department employees kickbacks in the form of meals, drinks, sports tickets and golf outings.

“Defense contractors cannot take advantage of the ongoing war effort by accepting unlawful kickbacks,” Assistant Attorney General Tony West said in a statement.

KBR, the Army’s largest contractor in Iraq, will review the litigation when it is received and “will continue to cooperate with the government,” company spokeswoman Heather Browne said in an e-mail. “Gifts of dinners, baseball tickets and similar items would violate KBR policies and KBR was not aware of these violations.”

KBR will continue to provide services in Iraq such as housing, meals, laundry, showers, water purification and bathroom cleaning under the new order, which was placed under a military contract KBR won in late 2001, shortly after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.

‘Appropriate Safeguards’

The Army has “reviewed the government’s notice to intervene” in the whistleblower lawsuit, Army spokesman Dan Carlson said. “We feel we have appropriate safeguards in place” to protect the government’s interests.

The no-bid work order is unusual because the Army, at the insistence of Congress, has since April 2008 put all logistics orders to bid, pitting KBR against Falls Church, Virginia-based DynCorp International Inc. and Irving, Texas-based Fluor Corp.

The Army didn’t put this work out for bids because U.S. commanders in Iraq advised against it, saying that enlisting a new company would be too disruptive as the U.S withdraws, Army program director Lee Thompson said in an interview before the Justice Department action was announced.

Odierno’s View

The view of General Ray Odierno, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, was crucial to the decision, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey told reporters today.

“Odierno said, ‘I’ve got three million pieces of equipment I’ve got to get out of Iraq, I’ve got 100 or so bases to close, I’ve got to move 80,000-plus people out of here and you want me to change horses in the middle of the stream?’” Casey recounted.

The U.S. force in Iraq is scheduled to shrink from 94,000 troops today to 50,000 by August, with a complete withdrawal by December 2011.

The Army, in its statement yesterday, said putting to bid an order for 18 months’ work and making the transition to a new contractor would cost at least $77 million. The KBR work order will be awarded by Aug. 31, said Mike Hutchison, deputy director of Army logistics contracting.

Earlier U.S. Lawsuit

The lawsuit is the second government action this year against KBR. The U.S. sued the company on April 1, alleging that it used private armed security guards in Iraq between 2003 and 2006 in violation of its Army contract and then improperly billed for their services.

Before yesterday’s Justice Department announcement, the Army had said in an e-mailed statement that it was aware of the April lawsuit and would use “additional oversight measures to ensure only reasonable, allowable costs are paid” under the new work order.

The new lawsuit, filed in a Texas federal court, was based on information from two whistleblowers who work in the air cargo industry, the Justice Department statement said. The whistleblowers can get a portion of any money the Justice Department obtains in the case.

Senate Objections

KBR’s no-bid work order drew criticism from two U.S. senators even before it was announced.

Senator Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat who heads a subcommittee that oversees military contracting, and the panel’s ranking Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates on April 30 urging the Army against “continued reliance” on KBR in light of the Justice Department’s April lawsuit.

“The Army has a big burden to demonstrate that a decision to not compete is in the best interest of the military and American taxpayers,” McCaskill said in a statement last night. “We will hold their feet to the fire and continue to demand accountability on this decision.”

Under the new competitive-bid approach, KBR on March 2 won a one-year, $571 million contract with four option years that, if exercised, could be worth as much as $2.77 billion.

That contract calls for KBR to provide services including transportation and postal operations. DynCorp initially protested the award and then dropped its objections.

--Editors: Bill Schmick, Ann Hughey.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jim Kirk at jkirk12@bloomberg.net

FREDDIE MAC seeks $11 billion dollars from feds to cover losses...

2010-05-06T08:01:00.001-11:00

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100505/tts-us-economy-property-finance-972e412.html

Thursday May 6, 2010

WASHINGTON (AFP) - – Troubled US government-backed mortgage firm Freddie Mac on Wednesday asked for an additional 10.6 billion dollars from the Treasury Department to cover losses.

Announcing a 6.7 billion dollar loss in the first quarter, Freddie Mac said it would need the new funding by June 30 this year.

The Washington-area company has already received more than 50 billion dollars in taxpayers cash to cover losses from toxic assets.

It warned that further demands would be on the way: "Freddie Mac expects to request additional draws," the firm said in a statement.

"The size and timing of such draws will be determined by a variety of factors that could adversely affect the company's net worth."

In 2008, the government pledged to ensure that Freddie Mac, and its larger sister organization Fannie Mae, kept a "positive net worth."

The deal was designed to prop up the vital US housing market from collapsing totally and pushing the economy over the precipice.

But in a sign that the US housing sector is still in difficulty, Freddie said the percentage of its loans not paid on time or in full rose to 4.13 percent in the first three months of the year.

In the final three months of last year the rate stood at 3.98 percent.

The future of Fannie and Freddie has become the latest bone of contention between Democrats who argue they must remain government-backed to aid low-income housing and Republicans who advocate their privatization.

In March, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner swatted aside pressure for a swift reform of the mortgage giants as data pointed to a still struggling real estate market.

Geithner told Congress any restructuring of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which received a 100-billion-dollar-plus government bailout at the height of the housing crisis, "must be done as part of a reform of the wider housing finance system."

Geithner argued reforms would "take several months" to develop and should only be "enacted and executed at a time of greater market stability."

Ted Nugent: Is the Kettle Black Enough - Trust Wall Street NOT Government!

2010-05-06T07:54:00.001-11:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/05/is-the-kettle-black-enough/

Originally published 12:00 a.m., May 5, 2010, updated 03:27 a.m., May 5, 2010

NUGENT: Is the kettle black enough?

Ted Nugent

If ever there was a case of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, it is the cluster of new financial "reform" regulations Washington politicians are trying to foist on the back of Wall Street.

In a typical political smoke-and-mirrors misdirection, President Obama wants us to believe greedy Wall Street bankers are to blame for our economy sinking in financial quicksand and that more government regulations and controls are the answer. Don't believe it.

The truth is that the federal government, as always, has overtly wasted, lost and blown far more of our hard-earned tax dollars than Wall Street crooks could have ripped off in their wildest Bernie Madoff imaginations. Our politicians are the real bandits and culprits of our economic calamity.

What our elected idiots willfully and with malicious forethought did not do - even when warned to do so by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in 2005 - was rein in the out-of-control, government-managed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Regarding Fannie and Freddie, Mr. Greenspan told Congress in 2005, "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

A significant Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee in 2005, but the Democrats prevented the bill from becoming law and thus set in motion the events that would steer our economy straight off the cliff. While this economic storm was brewing, then-Sen. Barack Obama collected more than $125,000 from Fannie and Freddie in political contributions.

The Democrats' pathetic, unethical and arguably criminal lack of control of Fannie and Freddie, coupled with their own pressure on banks to make high-risk home loans to people who couldn't afford them, is the reason for our economic meltdown. Believe it and blame the Democrats - and the Republicans who failed to do a thing.

Now those very same Democrats want to control Wall Street. Unbelievable. Welcome to the Planet of the Apes.

America is going bankrupt not because of crooked and unethical Wall Street investment bankers. We are in this financial morass because of a bloated, ineffective, unaccountable and wasteful Fedzilla.

Poll after poll finds Americans have little faith in our professional political windbags, who, in addition to causing our current economic meltdown, have robbed and plundered the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare over the years to the point that both these entities are not only broke, but massively in debt. President Obama's solution: more government borrowing, taxing and spending. Anti-social insecurity anyone?

No one in Washington ever accepts any blame or fault. There is always someone or something else to blame. This time, it's Wall Street's fault, but anyone with an ounce of common sense and a modicum of desire to know the truth understands that the underlying fault for all - yes, all - of our economic, social and cultural problems is Fedzilla and the political punks who feed it for their own political profit. To hell with America; they need votes.

How dare these political frauds shake their own corrupt finger at Wall Street. Where are the journalists who should be shouting daily questions at these political frauds and pouring buckets of hot ink on the editorial pages of newspapers and blogs across the country, exposing these elected frauds who are financially raping and plundering America? Our forefathers would encourage us to get a bucket of hot tar and some feathers and run these crooks out of town.

If we continue down this economically suicidal, massive-deficit-spending and higher-tax path that President Obama is intent on, our economy will continue to grind to a halt, unemployment will remain high, investments will dry up, and entrepreneurs will fade away. I'm just a guitar player, and I figured that out decades ago.

The Tea Party gets it. Its members understand that out-of-control and unsustainable government spending has put America on the path to financial ruin. And what does our lapdog media do? Castigate the Tea Party as being a bunch of illiterate racists. What a joke. I heard the circus is looking for some new clowns.

I'll bet the president a backyard beer at the White House that many more Americans would entrust their future to Wall Street bankers than to the elected frauds and idiots who have plundered the national treasury and put America's future on thin ice.

November is hunting season. No bag limit.

Ted Nugent is an unstoppable American rock 'n' roll, sporting and political-activist icon. He is author of "Ted, White & Blue: The Nugent Manifesto" and "God, Guns & Rock 'N' Roll" (Regnery Publishing).

Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen explains SB 1070 (anti-illegal immigration law)

2010-05-03T04:24:00.000-11:00

I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer.

Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states. We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop.
The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under? How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico, Canada or any of the other Central American or South American countries? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany. Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc.. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something and that something the Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the "Transformation" to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution the law of our land which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.

(Also, she doesn't mention that we hear regularly that Phoenix is the kidnap capitol of the country, and those who are being kidnapped are illegals who are being kidnapped by the coyotes. For those of you who are not familiar with the term coyotes, They are the ones who smuggle the illegals into the area and hide them in "drop houses".)

20 most stressed, least stressed counties in US

2010-05-03T04:09:00.002-11:00

YEAH...My hometown is in the 12 best county in the US economically!!! And #19 best county economically, Madison County is our neighboring county...just 10 miles away from my hometown!!!

Notice...all the worst counties economically are in blue states while the best are in red states! hmmmmm!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100503/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stress_map_list

By The Associated Press The Associated Press – 2 hrs 15 mins ago

Here are the 20 most economically stressed counties with populations of at least 25,000 and their March 2010 Stress scores, according to The Associated Press Economic Stress Index:

1. Imperial County, Calif., 31.27

2. Merced County, Calif., 28.29

3. Lyon County, Nev., 27.96

4. San Benito County, Calif., 27.26

5. Sutter County, Calif., 26.41

6. Yuba County, Calif., 25.8

7. Stanislaus County, Calif., 25.46

8. Iosco County, Mich., 24.89

9. San Joaquin County, Calif., 24.78

10. Nye County, Nevada., 24.19

11. Lapeer County, Mich., 24.03

12. Cheboygan County, Mich., 23.89

13. Luna County, N.M., 23.82

14. Lake County, Calif., 23.78

15. Kern County, Calif., 23.62

16. Tulare County, Calif., 23.17

17. Madera County, Calif., 23.04

18. Fresno County, Calif., 22.72

19. Clark County, Nevada, 22.65

20. Boone County, Ill., 22.59

A list of the 20 least economically stressed counties with populations of at least 25,000 and their March 2010 Stress scores, according to The Associated Press Economic Stress Index:

1. Ford County, Kan., 4.07

2. Ellis County, Kan., 4.17

3. Brown County, S.D., 4.6

4. Brookings County, S.D., 4.66

5. Finney County, Kan., 4.89

6. Riley County, Kan., 5.08

7. Buffalo County, Neb., 5.19

8. Ward County, N.D., 5.22

9. Grand Forks County, N.D., 5.30

10. Lafourche Parish, La., 5.31

11. Burleigh County, N.D., 5.36

12. Platte County, Neb., 5.49

13. Johnson County, Iowa, 5.5

14. Arlington County, Va., 5.54

15. Albany County, Wyo., 5.59

16. Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana, 5.67

17. Custer County, Okla., 5.7

18. Lincoln County, S.D., 5.72

19. Madison County, Neb., 5.74

20. Bryan County, Okla., 5.75

___

GM paid back government loan -- with taxpayer money -- to get more taxpayer money!

2010-05-01T02:38:00.002-11:00

"In short, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. And at a 2% lower interest rate at that. This is a nifty scheme to refinance GM's government debt--not pay it back!"

The General Accountability Office concluded, ""The Treasury is unlikely to recover the entirety of its investment in Chrysler or GM."

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

GM is paying back Uncle Sam to shake him down for more money.

Uncommon Sense
Still Government Motors
Shikha Dalmia, 04.23.10, 3:40 PM ET

GM CEO Ed Whitacre announced in a Wall Street Journal column Wednesday that his company has paid back its government bailout loan "in full, with interest, years ahead of schedule." He is even running TV ads on all major networks to that effect--a needless expense given that a credulous media is only too happy to parrot his claims for free. Detroit Free Press' Mike Thompson, for example, advises bailout proponents to start "warming up their vocal chords" to jeer their opponents with chants of "I told you so."

But before belting out their victory aria, GM-boosters ought to hear the whole story--not just the fairytale version about Government Motors' grand comeback that Mr. Whitacre is feeding them.

Uncle Sam gave GM $49.5 billion last summer in aid to finance its bankruptcy. (If it hadn't, the company, which couldn't raise this kind of money from private lenders, would have been forced into liquidation, its assets sold for scrap.) So when Mr. Whitacre publishes a column with the headline, "The GM Bailout: Paid Back in Full," most ordinary mortals unfamiliar with bailout minutia would assume that he is alluding to the entire $49.5 billion. That, however, is far from the case.

Because a loan of such a huge amount would have been politically controversial, the Obama administration handed GM only $6.7 billion as a pure loan. (It asked for only a 7% interest rate--a very sweet deal considering that GM bonds at that time were trading below junk level.) The vast bulk of the bailout money was transferred to GM through the purchase of 60.8% equity stake in the company--arguably an even worse deal for taxpayers than the loan, given that the equity position requires them to bear the risk of the investment without any guaranteed return. (The Canadian government likewise gave GM $1.4 billion as a pure loan, and another $8.1 billion for an 11.7% equity stake. The U.S. and Canadian government together own 72.5% of the company.)

But when Mr. Whitacre says GM has paid back the bailout money in full, he means not the entire $49.5 billion--the loan and the equity. In fact, he avoids all mention of that figure in his column. He means only the $6.7 billion loan amount.

But wait! Even that's not the full story given that GM, which has not yet broken even, much less turned a profit, can't pay even this puny amount from its own earnings.

So how is it paying it?

As it turns out, the Obama administration put $13.4 billion of the aid money as "working capital" in an escrow account when the company was in bankruptcy. The company is using this escrow money--government money--to pay back the government loan.

GM claims that the fact that it is even using the escrow money to pay back the loan instead of using it all to shore itself up shows that it is on the road to recovery. That actually would be a positive development--although hardly one worth hyping in ads and columns--if it were not for a further plot twist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Ann Arbor-based Center for Automotive Research, points out that the company has applied to the Department of Energy for $10 billion in low (5%) interest loan to retool its plants to meet the government's tougher new CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. However, giving GM more taxpayer money on top of the existing bailout would have been a political disaster for the Obama administration and a PR debacle for the company. Paying back the small bailout loan makes the new--and bigger--DOE loan much more feasible.

In short, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. And at a 2% lower interest rate at that. This is a nifty scheme to refinance GM's government debt--not pay it back!

GM boasts that, because it is doing so well, it is paying the $6.7 billion five years ahead of schedule since it was not due until 2015. So will there be an accelerated payback of the rest of the $49.6 billion investment? No. That goal has been pushed back, as it turns out.

In order to recover that investment, the government has to sell its equity. It plans to do that only when GM becomes a publicly traded company once again. GM was hoping to turn a profit by the end of 2010 and float an initial public offering this winter. However, GM Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell, when queried about that timeline a few days ago, demurred. The offering will be made, he said, "when the markets and the company are ready."

(Take that, taxpayers!)

The reality is that there is no certainty that GM will ever be able to make taxpayers whole. Some analysts such as Center for Automotive Research's Sean McAlinden and Global Insight's George Magliano believe that it will--eventually. McAlinden maintains that this will happen when the company's market capitalization touches $60 billion. (At GM's peak in 2000, this level was only $57 billion.) This is a challenging but not an impossible goal--provided the economy does not dip into another recession, he maintains. Magliano too maintains that the company will be able to pay back taxpayers if the industry is able to ramp up annual vehicle sales from the expected 10.8 million this year to 17 million in 2014 and GM captures 20% of these sales.

The General Accountability Office, on the other hand, remains deeply pessimistic. It concluded in a December report (which a more recent April report has said nothing to contradict, despite media spin to the contrary) that: "The Treasury is unlikely to recover the entirety of its investment in Chrysler or GM, given that the companies' values would have to grow substantially more than they have in the past."

Mr. Whitacre's bailout payback ploy is a desperate attempt to win back the car-buying public deeply disgusted by the spectacle of GM rattling its tin-cup before Uncle Sam. But the fact of the matter is that the company is still deep in the hole. It might claw its way back – or it might not. But surely it's premature for its media boosters to pop open the champagne bottle without getting their story straight?

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a biweekly Forbes columnist

Want to get rich? Work for feds

2010-04-29T07:37:00.000-11:00

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Want-to-get-rich_-Work-for-feds-92316619.html

Data shows the pay gap between state and local government and private sector workers. (Chris Edwards/Cato Institute)

For decades, public sector unions have peddled the fantasy that government employees were paid less than their counterparts in the private sector. In fact, the pay disparity is the other way around. Government workers, especially at the federal level, make salaries that are scandalously higher than those paid to private sector workers. And let's not forget private sector workers not only have to be sufficiently productive to earn their paychecks, they also must pay the taxes that support the more generous jobs in the public sector.

Data compiled by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis reveals the extent of the pay gap between federal and private workers. As of 2008, the average federal salary was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector employee. In other words, the average federal bureaucrat makes twice as much as the average working taxpayer. Add the value of benefits like health care and pensions, and the gap grows even bigger. The average federal employee's benefits add $40,785 to his annual total compensation, whereas the average working taxpayer's benefits increase his total compensation by only $9,881. In other words, federal workers are paid on average salaries that are twice as generous as those in the private sector, and they receive benefits that are four times greater.

The situation is the same when state and local government compensation data is compared with that of the private sector. As the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards notes in the current issue of the Cato Journal, "The public sector pay advantage is most pronounced in benefits. Bureau of Economic Analysis data show that average compensation in the private sector was $59,909 in 2008, including $50,028 in wages and $9,881 in benefits. Average compensation in the public sector was $67,812, including $52,051 in wages and $15,761 in benefits." Those figures likely underestimate the true gap on the benefits side because the typical government employee gets a guaranteed defined benefit pension under very generous terms, while the private sector norm is a 401(K) defined contribution plan that is subject to the ups and downs of the economy.

With the federal deficit and national debt heading into the stratosphere, taxpayers can no longer afford to support such lucrative government compensation. Public sector pay and benefits at all levels should be reduced to make it comparable to the wages and benefits earned by the average working taxpayer. The first politician to propose a five-year plan for this purpose is likely to be cheered mightily by taxpayers.!

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Want-to-get-rich_-Work-for-feds-92316619.html#ixzz0mW2o8u55

In 2014, IRS will become health insurance enforcer...

2010-04-29T07:18:00.000-11:00

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-04-29-healthirs28_CV_N.htm

IRS lacks clout to enforce mandatory health insurance

By Sandra Block, USA TODAY

The IRS processed more than 230 million tax returns last year, paid 127 million refunds and received about 68 million phone calls. The agency is responsible for enforcing a tax code that, at 71,000 pages, makes Anna Karenina look like a comic book.

Starting in 2014, the agency will have another task: making sure all Americans have health insurance. Under the law, Americans who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it will face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5% of their income, whichever is higher. More than 4 million Americans could be subject to penalties of up to $1,000 by 2016 if they fail to obtain health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office said last week.

The IRS will be the enforcer — sort of.

HEALTH CARE LAW: Some trapped in pricey state plans

While the IRS can impose liens or levies, seize property or seek jail time against people who don't pay taxes, it's barred from taking such actions against taxpayers who ignore the insurance mandate. In the arsenal instead: the ability to withhold refunds from taxpayers who decline to pay the penalty, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said this month.

Still, compliance with the health reform law will be largely voluntary, says Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. "By taking criminal sanctions and liens and levies off the table, the IRS' hands are tied, to a considerable extent."

The IRS is "being put in a position where it will be sending notices that will annoy people" and not much else, says James Maule, professor of law at Villanova University and author of the tax blog MauledAgain. "It's basically designed for failure."

Shulman said he believes most Americans will comply with the law. The experience of Massachusetts, which has required residents to have health insurance since 2006, would appear to support that view. In 2008, 98% of state tax filers who were required to provide health insurance information with their state tax returns met that filing requirement, and 96% had coverage, according to a preliminary report issued in December by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.

But Massachusetts' health care law gives the Department of Revenue the authority to use its regular tax-collection powers to enforce the insurance mandate, says spokesman Robert Bliss. Through September 2009, the state had collected $12.9 million of the $16.4 million in penalties assessed in 2008.

'A dangerous expansion of the IRS' power'

In this political environment, even a defanged IRS stirs up powerful emotions. Among the concerns about the IRS' role in the health care reform law:

•The law will lead to a dramatic expansion of the IRS. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the IRS will need an additional $5 billion to $10 billion over the next 10 years to administer the health care law. That projection has fired up activists who believe the IRS should be downsized, or abolished.

Some Republican lawmakers have extrapolated from that estimate that the IRS will need to hire an additional 16,500 agents to enforce the health insurance mandate. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., ranking minority member of the House Ways and Means Committee, called the law "a dangerous expansion of the IRS' power and reach into the lives of virtually every American."

The CBO report refers to the $10 billion figure as "administrative costs" and makes no reference to the number of employees the agency will need to hire. And enforcement is only one part of the IRS' responsibilities under the law. The agency will also be in charge of providing tax credits to small businesses, along with refundable tax credits to individuals who can't afford health insurance.

"The IRS is going to need additional resources, but in terms of health reform, probably the main focus is going to be on processing" the credits, Jost says.

The IRS has already started some of its administrative tasks. Last week, it began mailing postcards to more than 4 million small businesses and tax-exempt groups with information about a provision in the law that provides tax credits for small businesses. The tax credit, which takes effect this year, is designed to encourage small businesses to offer health insurance to their employees or keep the coverage they already have.

•The law will make it more difficult for the IRS to carry out its primary job of collecting taxes. Only 64% of taxpayers who called the IRS during last year's tax-filing season reached an IRS representative, according to a report by the IRS' national taxpayer advocate. The IRS' modest goal for this year was to answer 71% of taxpayer calls. Even more callers could have trouble getting through when the IRS takes on its obligations under the health care law, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said at an April 15 Senate Finance Committee hearing.

"Taxpayers trying to do the right thing regarding their tax responsibilities shouldn't have to be put on hold — or have to call back — because the IRS is now answering questions about health insurance," Grassley said.

The new responsibilities could also force the IRS to cut back on complex audits of sophisticated tax-avoidance schemes, such as illegal offshore accounts, Maule says. To handle the administrative tasks associated with the law, the IRS may need to divert experienced IRS agents who typically conduct these audits, he says. "This is going to make it easier for people who want to play the audit lottery game to get away with it."

Another potential problem: Administering the health care law will strain the IRS' already outdated computer and data-storage systems, says Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, an advocacy group that supports lower taxes. "The IRS customer-service front end is already sagging, and the back end is not looking so hot, either," he says.

•The IRS does a poor job of managing social programs. Critics of the legislation say problems with the Earned Income Tax Credit, a federal program that provides tax rebates to low-income working families, illustrate the pitfalls of putting the IRS in charge of administering health care reform. The EITC program "has one of the highest fraud and abuse rates of any tax provision out there," Grassley said at the April 15 hearing. In tax year 2006, the latest year available, IRS made $10 billion to $12 billion in erroneous EITC payments, according to a study by the Treasury Department's inspector general.

IRS officials argue that the two programs are vastly different. The health care subsidies will go directly to insurers, not taxpayers, giving individuals little incentive to cheat, says IRS spokesman Frank Keith.

Jost maintains that the tax credits could encourage compliance, because taxpayers who refuse to provide information about their health care coverage will be ineligible for federal health insurance subsidies. That subsidy "is going to be pretty significant for lower-income people," he says.

Under the law, millions of middle- and low-income taxpayers will be eligible for subsidies to help pay for their health insurance. Taxpayers with incomes of up to four times the poverty level — currently $43,320 for an individual and $88,200 for a family of four — would qualify.

Matching documents

Starting in 2014, insurers will be required to send the IRS a document showing that the taxpayer has insurance coverage. The IRS will match taxpayers' returns with information it receives from insurers, and individuals who don't have insurance will receive a letter explaining how much they owe in penalties.

Those who ignore the letter could have the penalty withheld from their refunds — but that will only be effective if they're due a refund. Self-employed taxpayers, who are among the individuals most likely to go without insurance, often don't get refunds because their wages aren't subject to withholding.

Still, Jost believes the actual number of insurance scofflaws will be relatively small. People who receive health insurance through their jobs — about 57% of workers — won't be affected. Taxpayers older than 65 won't be subject to the new requirement because they're covered by Medicare. And many self-employed people, along with workers who don't have employer-provided coverage, meet the income requirements for tax credits, so they'll have an incentive to get insurance, he says.

That leaves doctors, lawyers, accountants and other self-employed people with high incomes, Jost says. Many of these taxpayers have complex tax returns that include numerous tax deductions and credits, Jost says. "Unless they are just deeply principled people who think this is the greatest offense in the history of this country, they are not going to want to mix it up with the IRS," he says.

And what will happen to taxpayers who defy the mandate? Not much, Jost predicts:

"I think it's going to be a small number of wealthy people who are going to be determined to fight this, and the IRS will just ignore them."

Keith disputes the notion that taxpayers who disregard the law will get a free pass. The IRS will have up to 10 years to withhold refunds from individuals who owe penalties, he says. Even if they aren't ordinarily due a refund, he says, "any time they overpay, those monies will be available."

VIDEO: STING UNLEASHED: 'We want big government'...

2010-04-26T07:47:00.001-11:00

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/04/25/nr.sting.trudie.earthday.cnn

Global Warming skeptics are 'crazy'...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/04/25/nr.sting.trudie.earthday.cnn

Economists: The stimulus didn't help

2010-04-26T07:46:00.001-11:00

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

By Hibah Yousuf, staff reporterApril 26, 2010: 3:56 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government's stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday.

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years -- but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.

NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.

That sentiment is shared for the recently passed $17.7 billion jobs bill that calls for tax breaks for businesses that hire and additional infrastructure spending. More than two-thirds of those polled believe the measure won't affect payrolls, while 30% expect it to boost hiring "moderately."

But the economists see conditions improving. More than half of respondents -- 57% -- say industrial demand is rising, while just 6% see it declining. A growing number also said their firms are increasing spending and profit margins are widening.

Nearly a quarter of those surveyed forecast that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, will grow more than 3% in 2010, and 70% of NABE's respondents expect it to grow more than 2%.

Still, the survey suggested that tight lending conditions remain a concern. Almost half of those polled said the credit crunch hurts their business.

Obama Asst Secretary of Energy has huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from 'green' policies...

2010-04-26T07:44:00.000-11:00

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/more-global-warming-profiteering-by-obama-energy-official/

More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official

Posted By Christopher Horner On April 26, 2010 @ 12:00 am

Surprising documents [1] made available to this author reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.

Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.

Among Zoi’s holdings are shares in Serious Materials, Inc., the previously sleepy, now bustling, friend of the Obama White House [2] whose public policy operation is headed by her husband. Between them, Zoi and her husband hold 120,000 shares in Serious Materials, as well as stock options. Reporter John Stossel has already explored what he sees as the “crony capitalism [3]” implied by Zoi being so able to influence the fortunes of a company to which she is so closely associated.

In addition, the disclosure forms reflect that Zoi holds between $250,000 and $500,000 in “founders shares” in Landis+Gyr, a Swiss “smart meter” firm. She also still owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in ordinary shares.

“Smart meters,” put simply, are electric meters that return information about customer power usage to the power company immediately and allow a power company to control the amount of power a customer can consume. These smart meters are a central component of the Obama administration’s plans to reduce electricity consumption as part of the “smart grid.”

In a rare moment of candor, Obama “Energy Czar” Carol Browner said to US News & World Report [4] last year: “We need to make sure that …[e]ventually, we can get to a system where an electric company will be able [sic] to hold back some of the power so that maybe your air conditioner won’t operate at its peak, you’ll still be able to cool your house, but that’ll be a savings to the consumer.” (emphasis added)

Clearly, DoE funding to encourage the adoption of “smart meters” would very likely lead to much increased sales by Landis+Gyr — and a potential windfall for Zoi. But surely Zoi doesn’t participate in the relevant “energy efficiency” policy?

In fact, as a condition of her employment with the Obama administration, while Ms. Zoi maintained significant security holdings in Serious Materials and Landis+Gyr, she promised to “not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on the[ir] financial interest” without obtaining a waiver first.

But then, if she doesn’t participate in decisions that could have a “direct and predictable effect” on her Landis+Gyr holdings and she doesn’t participate in decisions that could have a “direct and predictable effect” on her holdings in Serious Materials, it seems worth asking in which decisions she can participate.

Doesn’t Zoi’s involvement in these issues raise serious ethical [5] or legal [5] issues?

Given her position and the breadth of the decisions and duties from which she would have to recuse herself if someone with the rather glaring conflicts as Ms. Zoi has follows through on her promises to avoid participating in decisions that would impact companies in which she oddly has retained a substantial financial interest — what decisions and policies is she participating in? Has she obtained waivers? If so, on what; if not, why not? Re-read her title. Re-review her investments. What, precisely, is she doing on our dime and how come she is permitted to carry such obvious conflicts of interest that either preclude her from working on nearly any matter of substance under her purview, or trigger automatically serious ethical and other considerations? And, what happened to that whole ethical, transparency thing?

HELP A BILLIONAIRE: WILL DEMS GIVE IN TO BUFFET DEMANDS?...

2010-04-26T07:37:00.002-11:00

Warren Buffett brands derivatives, "financial weapons of mass destruction.", then asks the White House to make an exception for his company! (through his stooge Sen. Ben Nelson). Another Cornhusker Kickback anyone?!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703441404575206252252365076.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

APRIL 26, 2010

Deal Near on Derivatives
Berkshire Presses Lawmakers to Roll Back Proposed Curbs, Avoiding Potential Hit

By DAMIAN PALETTA And SCOTT PATTERSON

WASHINGTON—Democrats took a step toward their goal of overhauling financial regulation, reaching a tentative deal to set restrictions on trading in exotic financial instruments known as derivatives.

Among the considerations still in the balance: A big provision being sought by Warren Buffett in recent weeks. A key Senate committee had changed its proposed overhaul of derivatives regulation after lobbying by Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., potentially helping the famed investor avoid a financial hit, congressional aides say.

A key Senate committee had changed its proposed overhaul of derivatives regulation after lobbying by Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. John Bussey and David Weidner discuss.
Sunday night's deal, hammered out by Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) and Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.) reflects the populist, anti-bank sentiments simmering on Capitol Hill. A Senate Democratic official said the two have "worked out a deal," which is expected to be folded into a broader Democratic measure that revamps the U.S. system of financial regulation in the wake of the catastrophic financial collapse that occurred in 2008. The agreement includes a proposal that could force banks to spin off their lucrative derivative trading operations, reshaping Wall Street.

The fate of Berkshire's effort to influence the legislation remains uncertain. Senate officials said Sunday night that most of the details of the agreement haven't yet been finalized.

The provision, sought by Berkshire and pushed by Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson in the Senate Agriculture Committee, would largely exempt existing derivatives contracts from the proposed rules. Previously, the legislation could have allowed regulators to require that companies such as Nebraska-based Berkshire put aside large sums to cover potential losses. The change thus would aid Berkshire, which has a $63 billion derivatives portfolio, according to Barclays Capital.

Mr. Buffett's push is especially notable because he has warned of the potential dangers of derivatives, famously branding them "financial weapons of mass destruction."

The White House has been trying to kill the Berkshire provision on the grounds that it would weaken the government's ability to regulate the enormous market for derivatives. Berkshire Hathaway argued that it shouldn't be made to redo existing contracts and that it is already healthy enough to cover its obligations. The battle over the provision shows how lobbying by businesses and lawmakers to insert just a few words into a complex bill can have a major impact on the country's biggest companies.

President Barack Obama is close to securing his revamp of financial-market rules, a package aimed at preventing a repeat of the financial crisis. Tightening the regulation of derivatives—complex financial instruments used across finance and business—is a central element. The Senate could begin debate on Democrats' broader package of changes to financial regulation Monday.

Related Article
Deal May Affect Banks' Trading Desks The change Mr. Buffett has sought would apply only to existing contracts, assuming the bill becomes law. It would apply broadly, not just to Berkshire. Many newly written derivatives contracts, including Berkshire's, would have to post collateral.

Mr. Buffett has been a vocal critic of how some in the financial markets use derivatives. In making his case for regulation, Mr. Obama in a New York speech last week quoted Mr. Buffett's "financial weapons of mass destruction" remark, which was made in Berkshire's 2002 annual report. In his letter to investors this year, Mr. Buffett, an Obama supporter, wrote that while Berkshire has "long invested in derivatives," the contracts "can be dynamite."

A fracas over the measure could hurt Democrats. The Obama administration wants to avoid the home-state horse-trading that almost sank its health-care overhaul. Berkshire is based in Omaha, Neb., and has longstanding ties to the state's Sen. Nelson.

Derivatives are bets between two parties on the future price of a good, such as oil or mortgages. They are typically used by companies to manage risks; airlines use derivatives to lock in future fuel prices. In addition, investors trade them for profit.

In the financial crisis, American International Group Inc. was nearly felled by trading in derivatives related to mortgage securities. The company wasn't required to hold significant cash in reserve for the deals and couldn't meet its obligations when the housing market tanked, threatening to kill its trading partners and prompting a federal bailout.

The legislation under consideration would require certain companies to put up a chunk of cash, known as collateral, when they enter such contracts to cover possible losses. The legislation could require that derivatives trade more like stocks or bonds—on exchanges, instead of in private deals.

Berkshire has argued Congress doesn't have authority to make it redo existing contracts, especially since the company is sitting on about $20 billion in cash. Mr. Buffett has said he rarely has to post collateral, which is why for Berkshire the new rules could hurt.

Berkshire representatives declined to comment. But the company's position, said a person close to Berkshire, is that the new language will aid the majority of companies that legitimately use derivatives to insure against risks. Under the original wording, hundreds of major U.S. businesses, not just Berkshire, might have been hurt by the requirement that collateral be posted for existing contracts, said the person close to Berkshire. If the language isn't amended, the big beneficiaries would be Wall Street firms that create the derivatives. That's because if the businesses have to post collateral, the Wall Street firms can dispense with buying their own insurance against a default on the instruments.

Lawmakers began considering the Berkshire proposal after Sen. Nelson relayed concerns raised by David Sokol, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Sokol is a close lieutenant of Mr. Buffett and is considered the investor's likely successor.

A representative for Mr. Sokol didn't respond to telephone calls and written messages seeking comment.

Mr. Buffett has accumulated huge positions in derivatives through Berkshire. MidAmerican, one of the nation's largest utility operators, uses derivatives to hedge against changes in the price of energy.

Capitol Hill aides from both parties said Berkshire's lobbying campaign has been forceful. Mr. Sokol often invoked his boss's name, saying how important the issue was to Mr. Buffett, aides say.

Mr. Sokol told lawmakers the Senate bill would force Berkshire to post collateral against good-faith contracts into which it had already entered, for a total congressional aides put in the billions of dollars. Renegotiating those contracts would be a logistical headache, people familiar with his arguments said.

He met scores of lawmakers, aides and government officials, including the offices of Sens. Dodd, Richard Shelby (R., Ala.), Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) and Mike Johanns (R., Neb.).

In March, Nebraska's other senator, Mr. Johanns, pushed a similar amendment in the Senate Banking Committee. It wasn't formally offered after Republican lawmakers decided to pull all their amendments. "There is bipartisan agreement that changing the requirements of existing contracts midstream is wrong and unreasonable," Mr. Johanns said in a statement.

The Senate Agriculture Committee shares jurisdiction over derivatives because it oversees the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Berkshire officials approached Mr. Nelson, a member of that committee, to press their concerns.

Berkshire officials have long supported Mr. Nelson. Berkshire employees, including Mr. Buffett, have given Sen. Nelson $75,550 over his political career, more than any other company, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks such data.

The derivatives bill passed the Senate Agriculture Committee on a 13-8 vote last week with Mr. Nelson in favor. Mr. Johanns opposed, citing the potential impact on farmers.

Jake Thompson, a spokesman for Mr. Nelson, said arguments made by Berkshire officials are consistent with the senator's philosophy: New rules shouldn't apply retroactively.

Mr. Thompson said political contributions had no bearing on the matter. "There might be a perception of a big company having some effect, but I think it's more the argument and the principle they were making that had the effect," he said.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Lincoln, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, said the change was a "technical correction to the legal certainty issue" after "a number of parties" raised concerns about the impact on such long-term contracts.

Berkshire often isn't required to post collateral on derivatives because of its strong financial position. That means the company can use the upfront cash it gets from these deals for other investments. At the end of 2009, that capital totaled $6.3 billion.

Analysts say Berkshire may deserve an exemption. In the financial crisis, the company's strength allowed it to invest in shaky firms such as Goldman Sachs, bolstering the financial system. The new regulations would punish Berkshire for the bad behavior of others, they say. "Claiming Berkshire poses a risk to the financial system is a difficult case to make," says Morningstar analyst Bill Bergman.

—Susan Pulliam contributed to this article.
Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com and Scott Patterson at scott.patterson@wsj.com

1970 Predictions From 1st Earth Day...

2010-04-26T01:51:00.002-11:00

These are Predictions from the 1st Earth Day, made in 1970

"We have about five more years at the outside to do something."
- Kenneth Watt, ecologist

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
- George Wald, Harvard Biologist

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation."
- Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction."
- New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."
- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation."
- Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India ; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India , Pakistan , China and the Near East, Africa . By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions....By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."
- Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...."
- Life Magazine, January 1970

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."
- Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone."
- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones."
- Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate...that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am very sorry, there isn't any.'"
- Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." (even this was said in 1970)
- Sen. Gaylord Nelson (Al Gore must have read his book)

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." - Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

I guess by now we are all supposed to be dead or at least gasping for breath. . “are we there yet?”

PS Challenge everything you read and half of that which you are told, irrespective of the source. In fact, the more credible the source, the more suspicious one should become. And yes, ride your bicycle more, turn off unused lights and don’t waste water. Oh, and one more thing, cut your toilet paper usage to one sheet per bowl movement. Now the smell will kill us.

Report says Obamacare will increase nation's healthcare tab

2010-04-24T10:04:00.001-11:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.

"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

Millions face tax increases under Dems budget plan

2010-04-24T10:03:00.000-11:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_budget

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer – Wed Apr 21, 7:06 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Senate promise to cut the deficit by almost two-thirds over the next five years, but their budget plan could threaten about 30 million people with tax increases averaging $3,700 in 2012 and after because of the alternative minimum tax.

The alternative is tax increases elsewhere in the revenue code averaging up to $100 billion a year after 2011 to continue alternative minimum tax relief and also curb taxes on people inheriting large estates.

The Democratic plan released Wednesday by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota relies on such boosts in revenues to carve the deficit from $1.4 trillion last year down to $545 billion by 2015.

The minimum tax, or AMT, was enacted four decades ago to make sure wealthy people couldn't avoid taxes altogethe. But it wasn't indexed for inflation in people's incomes, so it gets "patched" every year or so in order to prevent people from being surprised by multi-thousand-dollar tax bills at tax time.

Estates larger than $7 million would also be threatened with higher taxes after 2011 if Conrad's plan is carried out.

Conrad says lawmakers will have to find revenues elsewhere in the budget to pay for AMT and estate tax relief after 2011, which could require tax increases averaging up to $100 billion a year elsewhere in the code if Congress is going to keep its promises under tough new budget rules.

Conrad says he hopes the dilemma will force Congress to overhaul the complicated and inefficient U.S. tax code. The Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, says that 33 million taxpayers would face the AMT in 2012, adding $3,700 on average to their tax liabilities.

Extending AMT and estate tax relief would cost $300-$400 billion over 2012-2015, Conrad said. Many observers say it'll be virtually impossible for Congress to produce offsetting revenues to extend the tax relief. GOP Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire predicted that when Congress confronts the problem in two years it will blink and simply borrow the money as it has done in the past.

The looming tax hikes result from the structure of President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax bills, whose provisions generally expire at the end of this year. Obama promises to fully extend them except for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couple making $250,000 a year. They include lower income tax rates, a $1,000 per-child tax credit, and tax breaks for investments and reductions in the estate tax, and their five-year cost of almost $800 billion would be covered by adding to the nation's $12.8 trillion debt.

But in the case of the AMT and estate tax, congressional Democrats have broken with Obama and promise that after two years of deficit-financed alternative minimum tax and estate tax cuts, Congress will have to come up with the money.

"If we want those things taken care of ... they've got to be paid for," Conrad said.

That's easier said than done.

Gregg said the Democratic plan is "a budget that kicks the can down the road. More spending. More deficits. More debt. Less prosperity."

The annual congressional budget is a nonbinding blueprint for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 and sets the parameters for subsequent tax and spending bills. This year, that means a cut of almost $9.5 billion from domestic agency budgets and foreign aid and a freeze, on average, of those accounts for the following two years.

Conrad's plan, to be approved by the Budget panel Thursday, would permit Democrats to advance legislation on priorities such as taxes, energy and job creation without fear of a Republican filibuster. That could boost clean energy programs and revive Obama's stalled jobs agenda.

Democrats haven't decided exactly what to include in the filibuster-proof measure, though Conrad promised it wouldn't be used to pass deeply controversial legislation to curb global warming.

Value Added Tax (VAT) For USA From Obama

2010-04-24T10:01:00.001-11:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_tax

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – Wed Apr 21, 7:14 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.

Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, "I want to get a better picture of what our options are."

After Obama adviser Paul Volcker recently raised the prospect of a value-added tax, or VAT, the Senate voted 85-13 last week for a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" resolution that calls the such a tax "a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery."

For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.

"I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn't something that the president had under consideration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.

After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is "not considering" a VAT.

Many European countries impose a VAT, which taxes the value that is added at each stage of production of certain commodities. It could apply, for instance, to raw products delivered to a mill, the mill's production work and so on up the line to the retailer.

In the CNBC interview, Obama said he was waiting for recommendations from a bipartisan fiscal advisory commission on ways to tackle the deficit and other problems.

When asked if he could see a potential VAT in this nation, the president said: "I know that there's been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It's something that would be novel for the United States."

"And before, you know, I start saying 'this makes sense or that makes sense,' I want to get a better picture of what our options are," Obama said.

He said his first priority "is to figure out how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide. And then we decide how do we pay for that."

Volcker has said taxes might have to be raised to slow the deficit's growth. He said a value-added tax "was not as toxic an idea" as it had been in the past.

Since then, some GOP lawmakers and conservative commentators have said the Obama administration is edging toward a VAT.

Iran boosts troops in Venezuela

2010-04-24T09:59:00.000-11:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/21/iran-boosts-qods-shock-troops-in-venezuela/

Originally published 04:00 a.m., April 21, 2010,

Bill Gertz

Iran is increasing its paramilitary Qods force operatives in Venezuela while covertly continuing supplies of weapons and explosives to Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the Pentagon's first report to Congress on Tehran's military.

The report on Iranian military power provides new details on the group known formally as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), the Islamist shock troops deployed around the world to advance Iranian interests. The unit is aligned with terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, North Africa and Latin America, and the report warns that U.S. forces are likely to battle the Iranian paramilitaries in the future.

The Qods force "maintains operational capabilities around the world," the report says, adding that "it is well established in the Middle East and North Africa and recent years have witnessed an increased presence in Latin America, particularly Venezuela."

"If U.S. involvement in conflict in these regions deepens, contact with the IRGC-QF, directly or through extremist groups it supports, will be more frequent and consequential," the report says.

The report provides the first warning in an official U.S. government report about Iranian paramilitary activities in the Western Hemisphere. It also highlights links between Iran and the anti-U.S. government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has been accused of backing Marxist terrorists in Colombia.

The report gives no details on the activities of the Iranians in Venezuela and Latin America. Iranian-backed terrorists have conducted few attacks in the region. However, U.S. intelligence officials say Qods operatives are developing networks of terrorists in the region who could be called to attack the United States in the event of a conflict over Iran's nuclear program.

Qods force support for extremists includes providing arms, funding and paramilitary training and is not constrained by Islamist ideology. "Many of the groups it supports do not share, and sometimes openly oppose, Iranian revolutionary principles, but Iran supports them because they share common interests or enemies," the report says.

Qods force commandos are posted in Iranian embassies, charities and religious and cultural institutions that support Shi'ite Muslims. While providing some humanitarian support, Qods forces also engage in "paramilitary operations to support extremists and destabilize unfriendly regimes," the report says.

The report links Qods force operatives and the larger IRGC to some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past 30 years: the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983, the bombing of a Jewish center in Argentina in 1994, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and many insurgent attacks in Iraq since 2003.

Qods forces in Afghanistan are working through nongovernmental organizations and political opposition groups, the report says. Tehran also is backing insurgent leaders Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Ismail Khan.

"Arms caches have been recently uncovered [in Afghanistan] with large amounts of Iranian-manufactured weapons, to include 107 millimeter rockets, which we assess IRGC-QF delivered to Afghan militants," the report says, noting that recent manufacture dates on the weapons suggest the support is "ongoing."

"Tehran's support to the Taliban is inconsistent with their historic enmity, but fits with Iran's strategy of backing many groups to ensure that it will have a positive relationship with the eventual leaders," the report says.

In Iraq, Qods forces are supporting terrorists through Iranian embassies. The report says the outgoing Iranian ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, is a member, as well as the new ambassador in Baghdad, Hassan Danafar.

Iranian support for Shi'ite militants in Iraq has included the supply of armor-piercing explosively formed projectiles, as well as other homemade bombs, anti-aircraft weapons, rockets, rocket-propelled grenades and explosives.

The report says the elite Iranian fighters are controlled by Iran's government, despite efforts by the group to mask Tehran's control.

"Although its operations sometimes appear at odds with the public voice of the Iranian regime, it is not a rogue outfit," the report says. "It receives direction from the highest levels of the government and its leaders report directly, albeit informally, to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei," the report says.

Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East specialist with the Congressional Research Service, said the report's identification of Qods force operatives in Venezuela is significant.

"The new information on an increased Qods Force presence in Venezuela … amplifies the warnings of some experts about an increasingly close, anti-U.S. relationship between Iran and the government of Hugo Chavez," Mr. Katzman said.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently played down the growing Iranian influence in the Chavez government. Asked about Iran's ties to Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, Mr. Gates said, "I think it makes for interesting public relations on the part of the Iranians, the Venezuelans."

"I certainly don't see Venezuela at this point as a military challenge or threat," Mr. Gates said during a visit to the region.

The report also states that Iran could conduct a test of a long-range missile by 2015 and now has missiles that can strike all of Israel.

"Iran continues to develop a ballistic missile that can (reach) regional adversaries, Israel and central Europe, including Iranian claims of an extended range variant of the [620-mile-range] Shahab-3 and a [1,242-mile] medium-range ballistic missile, the Ashura," the report says.

The report notes that Iran has the largest missile force in the Middle East, with about 1,000 missiles with ranges of between 90 miles and 1,200 miles. The missile program was developed and expanded with extensive help from North Korea and China, the report says.

The missiles have grown in sophistication with increased accuracy, warhead lethality and advanced technology that includes solid propellent for quick launches and anti-missile-defense capabilities for warheads.

The report says Iran is developing its military forces with some asymmetric weapons, including armed unmanned aircraft and coastal anti-ship missiles that can hit targets throughout the Strait of Hormuz, where up to 40 percent of the world's crude oil passes.

Iran's military is growing but "would be relatively ineffective against a direct assault by well-trained, sophisticated military such as that of the United States or its allies," the report says.

However, Iranian special forces, like the Qods force, "would present a formidable force on Iranian territory," the report says.

The report provides no new details on Iran's covert nuclear program that was described as geared toward developing nuclear weapons. Iran's purchase of advanced Russian S-300 air defense missiles, which so far have not been delivered, are for use at nuclear sites, the report says.

The U.S. is leading a U.N. Security Council effort to sanction Iran for its presumed attempts to develop an atomic weapon in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Chavez: China to devote $20B to Venezuela projects

2010-04-24T09:58:00.000-11:00

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100418/D9F58C5G0.html

Apr 18, 12:10 AM (ET)

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez has announced an agreement with China that would have the Asian economic giant devote $20 billion to financing long-term development projects in Venezuela.

The Venezuelan president says the financing would go toward industrial and infrastructure projects, among other development plans.

He spoke Saturday during a televised appearance attended by China's natural resources minister.

Chavez is providing few other details about the investments.

U.N.'s Ballooning $732 Million Haiti Peacekeeping Budget Goes Mostly to Its Own Personnel

2010-04-24T09:55:00.001-11:00

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/20/uns-massive-haiti-budget-goes-staff/

By George Russell

The United Nations has quietly upped this year's peacekeeping budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti to $732.4 million, with two-thirds of that amount going for the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.

The United Nations has quietly upped this year's peacekeeping budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti to $732.4 million, with two-thirds of that amount going for the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.

The world organization plans to spend the money on an expanded force of some 12,675 soldiers and police, plus some 479 international staffers, 669 international contract personnel, and 1,300 local workers, just for the 12 months ending June 30, 2010.

Some $495.8 million goes for salaries, benefits, hazard pay, mandatory R&R allowances and upkeep for the peacekeepers and their international staff support. Only about $33.9 million, or 4.6 percent, of that salary total is going to what the U.N. calls "national staff" attached to the peacekeeping effort.

Presumably, the budget also includes at least part of some $10 million that the U.N. has spent on renting two passenger vessels, the Sea Voyager (known to some U.N. staffers as the "Love Boat") and the Ola Esmeralda, for a minimum of 90 days each, as highly subsidized housing for some of its peacekeepers and humanitarian staff. The tab for the two vessels, which offer catered food, linen service and comfortable staterooms and lounges, is about $112,500 per day.

Under a cost-sharing formula, the U.S. pays a 27 percent share of the entire $732.4 million peacekeeping tab for Haiti during this 12 month period, or about $197.7 million.

The ultimate size of the peacekeeping bill for Haiti this year has been a source of much concern among the three dozen or so of the U.N.'s 192 members who pick up roughly 96 percent of the U.N.'s overall peacekeeping bill.

That concern rose sharply about a month ago, when U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office issued an updated peacekeeping estimate that used a $700 million figure strictly as a placeholder for the final Haiti post-quake number.

The new figures take some of the uncertainty out of that estimate, but even so, the U.N. was taking no chances of raising concerns higher with its new tally; rather than take a new vote on the expanded peacekeeper budget, the U.N. Secretariat simply issued its revised tally as an extension of the previous $611 million allotment it had voted for Haiti.

The Haitian peacekeeping budget is relatively unique among U.N. efforts, because there was no civil war or widespread bloodletting to inspire the original peacekeeping force, which arrived in 2004. Instead, the mission has mainly been intended to bolster political order in a society crushed by hurricanes, political turbulence, and grinding misery.

The revised peacekeeping tab is over and above the roughly $15 billion in short- and long-term aid that the international community — led by the U.S. and European Union — pledged to Haiti at an international donor's conference last month.

It is also over and above the $773 million in humanitarian aid raised from donor nations and private citizens in a "flash" appeal in the days after the Jan. 12 earthquake — which is about half the total hoped for by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs when it raised the appeal.

Moreover, the revised Haiti peacekeeping budget only covers a period that ends in about 10 more weeks — on June 30, 2010 — at which time, Ban's office will have to formulate another peacekeeping estimate for the stricken island, not to mention the remainder of its global peacekeeping effort.

Given the temporary nature of this year's sudden 20 percent boost in Haiti peacekeeping costs, there is some possibility that next year's budget will mark a decrease from the $732.4 million figure.

Since the U.N. installed peacekeepers on the island in 2004, however, the budgeted cost of peacekeeping has roughly doubled, from an original $372.8 million.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News.

President Obama’s Wall Street Friends All Benefit From The Democrats’ Bailout Bill

2010-04-24T09:54:00.000-11:00

http://gopleader.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=181829

Washington, Apr 20 -

Follow @GOPLeader on Twitter for updates.

President Obama likes to say we need to clean up Wall Street. But let’s be clear: He is pushing a job-killing bailout bill for Wall Street that benefits his top financial contributor from the 2008 campaign – a firm that just happens to be under investigation by the SEC for defrauding investors.

Despite the President’s rhetoric, his support for the Democrats’ bailout bills gives big Wall Street banks a permanent, taxpayer-funded safety net by designating them “too big to fail.” Just whose side is President Obama on? Here are the facts:

WALL STREET GIVES GENEROUSLY TO THEN-CANDIDATE OBAMA:

• Goldman Sachs, recently charged with defrauding investors, was President Obama’s top Wall Street contributor during the 2008 election cycle, donating nearly $1 million to his campaign.
• Securities & investment firms in general were the fifth largest contributor to President Obama’s 2008 campaign, donating nearly $15 million.
• Big banks also donated more than $3 million to Obama during the 2008 election cycle.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RHETORIC SAYS “GET TOUGH ON WALL STREET”:

“We will hold Wall Street accountable. We will protect and empower consumers in our financial system. That’s what reform is all about. That’s what we’re fighting for.” (Weekly Address, 4/17/10)

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ACTIONS PUSH PERMANENT BAILOUTS FOR HIS WALL STREET FRIENDS:

• The Dodd Gives Wall Street a Pre-Existing $50 Billion Bailout Slush Fund. Sen. Dodd’s financial bailout bill would create a $50 billion ‘orderly resolution fund’ ($150 billion in Rep. Barney Frank’s bill) that could be repeatedly replenished from industry assessment.
• The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street a Treasury-Backed Credit Line. The FDIC would be authorized to borrow from Treasury up to the amount of cash left in the ‘resolution fund’ plus 90 percent of the value of the assets of any and all too-big-to-fail firms in its control.
• The Dodd Bill Provides a Government-Guaranteed to Wall Street Debt. The FDIC would be authorized to guarantee the debt of any solvent bank, bank holding company, or affiliate in any amount subject only to an aggregate debt limit set by the Treasury Department.
• The Dodd Bill Institutionalizes Unlimited Wall Street Bailouts. The FDIC, as the resolution agency for too-big-to-fail firms, would be given wide latitude to use resources to make payments to anyone in any amounts, at their own discretion.
• The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street Bridge Bank Authority. The FDIC would be authorized to create a bridge institution as part of resolving a covered institution and vest the FDIC with broad authority to use the orderly resolution fund in connection with the bridge institution.

While President Obama and congressional Democrats push job-killing legislation that gives permanent bailouts to their top campaign contributors, Republicans are fighting to end the bailouts and create jobs for families and small businesses. Republicans believe the best way to protect taxpayers is by reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that sparked the meltdown by giving high-risk loans to people who couldn’t afford it.

Divorce Agreement For Our Nation:

2010-04-24T09:52:00.000-11:00

American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.... I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood ..

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley MacClaine. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find..

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you..

P. S. S. And we won't have to press 1 for English.

Dem Congessman: Dodd bill 'contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority' for Wall Street

2010-04-24T09:49:00.001-11:00

http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/brad_sherman.html

Congressman Brad Sherman, born and raised in southern California, represents California’s San Fernando Valley, and has served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997. Congressman Sherman is serving his seventh term in Congress.

Congressman Sherman is the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. He is a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

During his tenure in Congress, Sherman has developed a reputation as a strong advocate for fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, federal aid to education, the interests of working families, strong environmental standards, the protection of Social Security and Medicare, and policies to expand U.S. exports.

According to USA Today and The Washington Post, Congressman Sherman led the effort to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used for unlimited bailouts to Wall Street giants. In 2009, he took an important role in crafting legislation that ended bailouts putting taxpayers on the hook for risky Wall Street behavior, by successfully defeating the Treasury Department’s proposal for permanent, unlimited TARP.

A consumer rights advocate, Sherman was among the leaders behind the formation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which protects consumers from financial institutions issuing credit cards and offering costly overdraft protection. Sherman also protected families’ retirement funds and college savings and put controls on companies which reward corporate CEOs multi-million dollar bonuses for bad performance. Sherman’s collective efforts for financial reform brought about transparency and accountability to a financial system that thrived on greed and risk.

Serving on the House Budget Committee in 1997, Congressman Sherman authored the Sherman Amendment to the Budget Resolution providing an additional $700 million for the acquisition of environmentally important lands in FY ‘98. The Sherman Amendment was included in the Joint Budget Resolution and effectuated by a $699 million appropriation. Sherman also secured $20 million to acquire land and to complete the Backbone Trail through the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

Congressman Sherman’s public service career includes serving on the California State Board of Equalization from 1990 to 1995. He was Chairman of the Board from 1991 to 1995. As a board member Sherman led the successful fight to repeal the snack tax, which previously required grocers to differentiate between a cupcake and a muffin, imposing an inconsistent tax burden on needy Californians.

Before joining Congress, Sherman was on staff at one of the nations’ big-four CPA firms. Sherman is a Tax Law Specialist and a CPA. While at the firm, he audited large businesses and governmental entities, provided tax law counsel on multi-million dollar transactions, advised entrepreneurs and small businesses on tax and investment issues, and helped represent the Government of the Philippines under President Aquino in a successful effort to seize assets of deposed President Marcos. Sherman was also an instructor at Harvard Law School’s International Tax Program.

Sherman is married to Lisa Kaplan Sherman and is the father of 2 daughters, Molly and Naomi.

Sherman received his law degree from Harvard and his Bachelor’s degree from UCLA.

(Photo by AP)

WILL OBAMA RETURN $994,795 IN GOLDMAN SACHS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?

2010-04-20T14:25:00.002-11:00

http://images.opensecrets.org/obama_top_contribs.htm?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Top Contributors
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

Iranian missile may be able to hit USA by 2015

2010-04-20T14:24:00.000-11:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J04H20100420?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Mon, Apr 19 2010
By Phil Stewart and Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, according to an unclassified Defense Department report on Iran's military sent to Congress and released on Monday.

"With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015," said the April report, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

A classified version was also submitted to Congress.

The timing of advances in Iran's long-range missile technology is being closely watched in Washington, which accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons and is pushing for a new round of sanctions. Iran denies the charges and says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

"Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy," the report said.

The U.S. military tried and failed to shoot down a simulated Iranian missile strike on the United States in January, in a botched $150 million exercise over the Pacific Ocean. That attempt failed because of a malfunction in a radar built by Raytheon Co.

It was not immediately clear whether the latest estimate on Iran's missile technology was a departure from a May 2009 National Intelligence Estimate, which deemed Tehran unlikely to have a long-range missile until between 2015 and 2020, according to U.S. officials who saw the report at the time.

The 2009 estimate was revised from an earlier range of between 2012 to 2015.

Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, called the report a "comprehensive view of the military situation in Iran."

LEBANON RE-ARMED, TALIBAN SUPPORT

The report also included an assessment of Iran's broader military capabilities and support for insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as groups like Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

With Iranian support, Hezbollah has replenished its arsenal beyond levels it had in the 2006 war with Israel, the report said, without offering specifics.

"Iran, through its long-standing relationship with Lebanese (Hezbollah), maintains a capability to strike Israel directly and threatens Israeli and U.S. interests worldwide," it said.

The report cited recently uncovered caches of weapons that Iran's Qods Force gave to Afghan militants. They contained "large amounts of Iranian-manufactured weapons," including 107 mm rockets.

It estimated the size of Iran's "Ground Force" at 220,000 personnel and the Revolutionary Guard Corps's "Ground Resistance Forces" at 130,000 personnel. It said Iran had between 1,800 and 1,900 tanks.

President Barack Obama's national security advisers are considering a broad range of options to curb Iran's nuclear program, among them military strikes, if diplomacy and sanctions fail.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Sunday the military options available to Obama would go "a long way" to delaying Iran's nuclear progress but may not set the country back long-term.

He called a military strike his "last option" right now and has repeatedly warned of potential, unintended consequences of any action against Iran.

(Editing by Philip Barbara)

ARIZONA BILL TO REQUIRE BIRTH CERTIFICATE FROM OBAMA FOR 2012

2010-04-20T14:23:00.001-11:00

http://www.kpho.com/news/23202195/detail.html

Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship

POSTED: 7:15 pm MST April 19, 2010
UPDATED: 10:23 pm MST April 19, 2010

PHOENIX -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection.

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona "the laughing stock of the nation."

Mesa Republican Rep. Cecil Ash said he has no reason to doubt Obama's citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.

U.N.'s Ballooning $732 Million Haiti Peacekeeping Budget Goes Mostly to Its Own Personnel

2010-04-20T14:20:00.001-11:00

REPUBLICAN LEADER: OBAMA'S WALL ST FRIENDS ALL BENEFIT FROM THE DEMS' BAILOUT BILL

2010-04-20T14:19:00.001-11:00

http://gopleader.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=181829

President Obama’s Wall Street Friends All Benefit From The Democrats’ Bailout Bill

Washington, Apr 20 -

Follow @GOPLeader on Twitter for updates.

President Obama likes to say we need to clean up Wall Street. But let’s be clear: He is pushing a job-killing bailout bill for Wall Street that benefits his top financial contributor from the 2008 campaign – a firm that just happens to be under investigation by the SEC for defrauding investors.

Despite the President’s rhetoric, his support for the Democrats’ bailout bills gives big Wall Street banks a permanent, taxpayer-funded safety net by designating them “too big to fail.” Just whose side is President Obama on? Here are the facts:

WALL STREET GIVES GENEROUSLY TO THEN-CANDIDATE OBAMA:

• Goldman Sachs, recently charged with defrauding investors, was President Obama’s top Wall Street contributor during the 2008 election cycle, donating nearly $1 million to his campaign.
• Securities & investment firms in general were the fifth largest contributor to President Obama’s 2008 campaign, donating nearly $15 million.
• Big banks also donated more than $3 million to Obama during the 2008 election cycle.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RHETORIC SAYS “GET TOUGH ON WALL STREET”:

“We will hold Wall Street accountable. We will protect and empower consumers in our financial system. That’s what reform is all about. That’s what we’re fighting for.” (Weekly Address, 4/17/10)

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ACTIONS PUSH PERMANENT BAILOUTS FOR HIS WALL STREET FRIENDS:

• The Dodd Gives Wall Street a Pre-Existing $50 Billion Bailout Slush Fund. Sen. Dodd’s financial bailout bill would create a $50 billion ‘orderly resolution fund’ ($150 billion in Rep. Barney Frank’s bill) that could be repeatedly replenished from industry assessment.
• The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street a Treasury-Backed Credit Line. The FDIC would be authorized to borrow from Treasury up to the amount of cash left in the ‘resolution fund’ plus 90 percent of the value of the assets of any and all too-big-to-fail firms in its control.
• The Dodd Bill Provides a Government-Guaranteed to Wall Street Debt. The FDIC would be authorized to guarantee the debt of any solvent bank, bank holding company, or affiliate in any amount subject only to an aggregate debt limit set by the Treasury Department.
• The Dodd Bill Institutionalizes Unlimited Wall Street Bailouts. The FDIC, as the resolution agency for too-big-to-fail firms, would be given wide latitude to use resources to make payments to anyone in any amounts, at their own discretion.
• The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street Bridge Bank Authority. The FDIC would be authorized to create a bridge institution as part of resolving a covered institution and vest the FDIC with broad authority to use the orderly resolution fund in connection with the bridge institution.

While President Obama and congressional Democrats push job-killing legislation that gives permanent bailouts to their top campaign contributors, Republicans are fighting to end the bailouts and create jobs for families and small businesses. Republicans believe the best way to protect taxpayers is by reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that sparked the meltdown by giving high-risk loans to people who couldn’t afford it.

Wall Street suspects Goldman charges 'not coincidental' to financial reform effort

2010-04-20T14:15:00.001-11:00

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/thespread/wall_street_suspects_goldman_charges_KE4YoDNxaxrZFSkHea0MqI

2:16 PM, April 16, 2010 ι By KAJA WHITEHOUSE

Wall Street is more than a little suspicious of today’s charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has accused Goldman Sachs of lying to investors about who was really behind junk mortgages securities it sold to clients.

Barclays banking analyst Roger Freeman comes right out and blasts the SEC effort as “a well-timed, and perhaps not coincidental, effort to sway some on-the-fence Republicans” to get tough on financial reform.

“Targeting GS, given the flurry of anti-Wall Street press that has centered around that firm, offers the publicity that the administration needs at this critical juncture,” Freeman says in a note to clients today.

He says Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chris Dodd has targeted a vote on the Senate bill for April 26, “and given the short span of time between now and the end of the month, we are not surprised to see the stepped up support for the bill.”

Defaults Rise in Loan Modification Program

2010-04-20T14:13:00.000-11:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/business/15mortgages.html

April 14, 2010
Defaults Rise in Loan Modification Program
By DAVID STREITFELD

The number of homeowners who defaulted on their mortgages even after securing cheaper terms through the government’s modification program nearly doubled in March, continuing a trend that could undermine the entire program.

Data released Wednesday by the Treasury Department and the Housing and Urban Development Department showed that 2,879 modified loans had been ended since the program’s inception in the fall, up from 1,499 in February and 1,005 in January.

The Treasury Department said it could not explain the growing number of what it called cancellations, almost all of which were apparently prompted by the borrower’s being unable to make the new payment. A scant number — 37 — were because the loan had been paid off, presumably because the borrower sold the house.

About seven million households are behind on their mortgage payments.

The Obama administration’s modification program has been widely criticized for doing little to help them. The program received another bad review on Wednesday with the release of a report from the Congressional Oversight Panel.

The Treasury’s stated goal is for the modification program to help as many as four million households, the oversight report said, “but only some of these offers will result in temporary modifications, and only some of those modifications will convert to final, five-year status.”

The report continued: “Even among borrowers who receive five-year modifications, some will eventually fall behind on their payments and once again face foreclosure. In the final reckoning, the goal itself seems small in comparison to the magnitude of the problem.”

The Treasury took issue with the report and said the pace of modifications was picking up. The number of active permanent modifications in March was 227,922, an increase of 35 percent from those in February. An additional 108,212 permanent modifications are awaiting borrower approval.

Shaun Donovan, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said in an interview that those were the important numbers to focus on.

“One percent of these loans defaulting is a tiny fraction,” Mr. Donovan said. “Given how stressed these borrowers are, even in the best situation, there will be redefaults. But I don’t think there is any evidence that would cause us to worry at this point.”

Julia R. Gordon, senior policy counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending in Washington, said she expected the number of post-modification defaults to continue to rise.

“It’s definitely alarming to look at those statistics,” she said. “The current model for modifications doesn’t necessarily produce sustainable results.”

While the program is too new to predict its long-term success, the data on previous modification efforts is not encouraging.

Sixty percent of modifications undertaken by banks in late 2008 were in default a year later, according to the latest Mortgage Metrics Report compiled by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the comptroller of the currency.

Many of these private plans either kept the payments the same or increased them. Inevitably, those mortgages suffered the highest failure rate: about two-thirds of the borrowers defaulted again.

Loans for which the payments were decreased by at least 20 percent failed at a slower but still significant rate of about 40 percent.

The government program takes a more aggressive approach, lowering the interest rates for all loans. On many loans, terms are also extended or principal payments put off for years. Treasury data shows that the median savings for borrowers receiving permanent modifications is $512 a month.

Many borrowers remain deeply indebted, however. They owe not only on the house, but on homeowner association fees, home equity loans, car loans, alimony and credit card interest.

Even after modification, $61 out of every $100 earned by the borrower goes to servicing debt, government figures show. For increasing numbers of modification recipients, mortgage relief is apparently not enough to stave off financial collapse.

“If you can help 60 percent, and 40 percent have to fall back, is that worthwhile?” asked John Courson, president of the Mortgage Bankers Association. “Clearly for the 60 percent it was, and the 40 percent weren’t going to make it anyway.”

The Treasury said on Wednesday that it had always anticipated that some homeowners would not sustain a modification, which was one reason the program had been greatly expanded. New elements focus on allowing distressed homeowners to sell their properties for less than they owe and on shaving the principal owed by borrowers.

The notion of cutting principal, however, has already run into some resistance from the big banks, which do not want borrowers to get the idea that their mortgage can be chopped on a whim.

Bryan Baumgart Unemployment encouraged! Incentives NOT to Work!!

2010-04-20T14:12:00.000-11:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303828304575180243952375172.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

APRIL 13, 2010.

Incentives Not to Work

Larry Summers v. Senate Democrats on jobless benefits.

"The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a 'reservation wage'—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer."

Any guess who wrote that? Milton Friedman, perhaps. Simon Legree? Sorry.

Full credit goes to Lawrence H. Summers, the current White House economic adviser, who wrote those sensible words in his chapter on "Unemployment" in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, first published in 1999.

Mr. Summers should give a tutorial to the U.S. Senate, which is debating whether to extend unemployment benefits for the fourth time since the recession began in early 2008. The bill pushed by Democrats would extend jobless payments to 99 weeks, or nearly two full years, at a cost of between $7 billion and $10 billion. As Mr. Summers suggests, rarely has there been a clearer case of false policy compassion.

View Full Image
Associated Press Larry Summers
.
Mr. Summers is merely reflecting what numerous economic studies have shown. Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute has found that the average unemployment episode rose from 10 weeks before the recession to 19 weeks after Congress twice previously extended jobless benefits—to 79 from 26 weeks. Even as initial unemployment claims have fallen in recent months, the length of unemployment has risen. Mr. Reynolds estimates that the extensions of unemployment insurance and other federal policies have raised the official jobless rate by nearly two percentage points.

Or consider the Brookings Institution, whose panel on economic activity reported this March that jobless insurance extensions "correspond to between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points of the 5.5 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate witnessed in the current recession."

Or perhaps the Senate should listen to another Obama Administration economist, Alan Krueger of the Treasury Department, who concluded in a 2008 study that "job search increases sharply in the weeks prior to benefit exhaustion." In other words, many unemployed workers don't start seriously looking for a job until they are about to lose their benefits.

And, sure enough, the share of unemployed workers who don't have a job for more than 26 weeks has steadily increased, reaching a record 44.1% in March. The average spell of unemployment is now 31 weeks, even though the economy is once again creating more new jobs than it is losing. Democrats are slowly converting unemployment insurance into a welfare program.

Despite all of this evidence, Democrats seem to think that extending jobless benefits for another 20 weeks is a big political winner. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin recently roared, "Is there any compassion at all left with Republicans for people whose checks are going to run out?" New York's Chuck Schumer calls Republicans "inhumane."

But do these Senators really think it's compassionate to give people an additional incentive to stay out of the job market, losing crucial skills and contacts? And how politically smart is it for Democrats to embrace policies that keep the jobless rate higher than it would otherwise be? How many Democrats share Mr. Harkin's apparent desire to defend a jobless rate near 9% (today it is 9.7%) in the fall election campaign.

We should add that Republicans would rather not fight on these incentive grounds and are instead opposing the new benefits only because Democrats refuse to pay for them and want to add to the deficit. In other words, the GOP is merely asking Democrats to live up to their own "pay as you go" fiscal promises, since the total bill for these jobless benefits has now hit nearly $90 billion.

If Republicans were really cynical, they'd let the new benefits pass and run against the higher jobless rate in the fall. In any case, no one should be surprised that when you subsidize people for not working, more people will choose not to work.

An earlier WSJ.com version of this editorial contained a quote from the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee's January minutes that was accurate but taken out of context. It was removed during the editing process and wasn't published in the print version of the Wall Street Journal. However, due to a production error, the quote made it into the initial online version of the editorial.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com
More In Opinion
EmailPrinter FriendlyOrder ReprintsShare: facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Viadeo
Orkut
Yahoo! Buzz
Fark
Reddit
LinkedIn
del.icio.us
MySpace
.
Related Stories.Consider Government's Many Disincentives to Hiring21 hrs ago .Unemployment Benefits Aren't Keeping Us From WorkYesterday 12:01 A.M. .Don't Blame High Unemployment on the Unemployed4/16/2010 .Summers on Demand4/15/2010 .Don't Blame Extension of Jobless BenefitsYesterday 01:44 P.M. .The SEC vs. Goldman Yesterday 12:01 A.M. Subscriber Content Read Preview
.Immigration Reform: The New Third Rail 4/16/2010 Subscriber Content Read Preview
.New Data Will Give Clues To U.K. Election13 hrs ago . .
Related Videos. 2/23/2010 AM Report: Jobless Rate Hits New High . 2/23/2010 AM Report: Job Losses Accelerate . 2/23/2010 News Hub: Health-Care Debate Moves to Senate Floor . .
.Back To . .
Back To..MSN Money Homepage.MSN Money Investing. .Video .previous next JER: Nuclear Security Summit, Are We Any Safer? 5:25 . JER: N.J. Governor Takes on Teachers' Union 5:45 . He's a Dreamer, He's a Realist 3:15 . .
More in Opinion.Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr.: An Economy of Liars .Peter J. Wallison: Fannie and Freddie Amnesia .The SEC's Impeccable Timing .The Toxic VAT .Clunkers for Caulkers . .
Most Popular.ReadEmailedVideoCommented.1.IPad Struggles on Campus .2.Opinion: Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr.: An Economy of Liars .Subscriber Content Read Preview
3.Opinion: Michio Kaku: What Next From Iceland's Volcano? .4.Opinion: Best of the Web Today: Why the Left Needs Racism .5.Site's Account of iPhone Fuels Buzz .1.Opinion: Peter J. Wallison: Fannie and Freddie Amnesia .2.Everyone Really Does Hate Reviews .3.Opinion: Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr.: An Economy of Liars .4.Honey, Do You Have to ... ? .Subscriber Content Read Preview
5.Opinion: The SEC's Impeccable Timing .1.Inside a Russian Billionaire's $300 Million Yacht.2.Lewis Black: I Don't Understand the Tea Partiers.3.Clip: OWN's 'Life Is Not a Straight Line'.4.AM Report: Goldman Earnings Soar.5.digits: iPad's College Admissions Problem.1. Opinion: Americans Are More Skeptical of Washington Than Ever388 comments .2. Gun Advocates Open a New Front187 comments .3. Opinion: The View From Jerusalem170 comments .4. Opinion: An Economy of Liars137 comments .5. Opinion: The SEC vs. Goldman136 comments .Most Read Articles FeedMost Emailed FeedMost Popular Video FeedMost Commented Feed .Editors' Picks. The Birth-Control Riddle . GOP Split Over How to Win in Fall . For Penguins, a Satellite Census . Dance Mix: Funk Meets Mrs. Marcos .Subscriber Content Read Preview
Wind Farms Catch Gust on Great Lakes .
.

Dems Have Increased Taxes by $670 Billion and Counting... (Pretty sweet little list put together).

2010-04-20T14:11:00.001-11:00

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DemTaxIncreases1.pdf

US Faces Sever Shortage Of Doctors!

2010-04-20T14:08:00.001-11:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

APRIL 12, 2010.
Medical Schools Can't Keep Up

As Ranks of Insured Expand, Nation Faces Shortage of 150,000 Doctors in 15 Years.

By SUZANNE SATALINE And SHIRLEY S. WANG

The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.

Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.

The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

Related VideoMedical Training in Second Life (04/12/10)Getting Doctors, Hospitals to Use Electronic Medical Records (01/26/09)Faces of Health Care: A Doctor is in the House (12/22/09).
A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.

Proponents of the new health-care law say it does attempt to address the physician shortage. The law offers sweeteners to encourage more people to enter medical professions, and a 10% Medicare pay boost for primary-care doctors.

Meanwhile, a number of new medical schools have opened around the country recently. As of last October, four new medical schools enrolled a total of about 190 students, and 12 medical schools raised the enrollment of first-year students by a total of 150 slots, according to the AAMC. Some 18,000 students entered U.S. medical schools in the fall of 2009, the AAMC says.

But medical colleges and hospitals warn that these efforts will hit a big bottleneck: There is a shortage of medical resident positions. The residency is the minimum three-year period when medical-school graduates train in hospitals and clinics.

There are about 110,000 resident positions in the U.S., according to the AAMC. Teaching hospitals rely heavily on Medicare funding to pay for these slots. In 1997, Congress imposed a cap on funding for medical residencies, which hospitals say has increasingly hurt their ability to expand the number of positions.

Medicare pays $9.1 billion a year to teaching hospitals, which goes toward resident salaries and direct teaching costs, as well as the higher operating costs associated with teaching hospitals, which tend to see the sickest and most costly patients.

Doctors' groups and medical schools had hoped that the new health-care law, passed in March, would increase the number of funded residency slots, but such a provision didn't make it into the final bill.

"It will probably take 10 years to even make a dent into the number of doctors that we need out there," said Atul Grover, the AAMC's chief advocacy officer.

While doctors trained in other countries could theoretically help the primary-care shortage, they hit the same bottleneck with resident slots, because they must still complete a U.S. residency in order to get a license to practice medicine independently in the U.S. In the 2010 class of residents, some 13% of slots are filled by non-U.S. citizens who completed medical school outside the U.S.

One provision in the law attempts to address residencies. Since some residency slots go unfilled each year, the law will pool the funding for unused slots and redistribute it to other institutions, with the majority of these slots going to primary-care or general-surgery residencies. The slot redistribution, in effect, will create additional residencies, because previously unfilled positions will now be used, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

From the ArchiveOpinion: How to Fix the Doctor Shortage (01/04/10)Health Blog: Would Adding Residency Slots Solve the Primary-Care Shortage? (11/27/09)Opinion: The Coming Shortage of Doctors (11/06/09)Health Blog: Obama: 'Severe Shortage' of Primary Care Doctors (08/11/09).
Some efforts by educators are focused on boosting the number of primary-care doctors. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences anticipates the state will need 350 more primary-care doctors in the next five years. So it raised its class size by 24 students last year, beyond the 150 previous annual admissions.

In addition, the university opened a satellite medical campus in Fayetteville to give six third-year students additional clinical-training opportunities, said Richard Wheeler, executive associate dean for academic affairs. The school asks students to commit to entering rural medicine, and the school has 73 people in the program.

Journal Communitydiscuss..“ As a specialist physician I will suggest that until primary care physicians can earn 70-80% of what most specialists make without killing themselves, there will be no incentive for the best and the brightest to go into primary care. ”
.—Michael Brennan.
"We've tried to make sure the attitude of students going into primary care has changed," said Dr. Wheeler. "To make sure primary care is a respected specialty to go into."

Montefiore Medical Center, the university hospital for Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, has 1,220 residency slots. Since the 1970s, Montefiore has encouraged residents to work a few days a week in community clinics in New York's Bronx borough, where about 64 Montefiore residents a year care for pregnant women, deliver children and provide vaccines. There has been a slight increase in the number of residents who ask to join the program, said Peter Selwyn, chairman of Montefiore's department of family and social medicine.

One is Justin Sanders, a 2007 graduate of the University of Vermont College of Medicine who is a second-year resident at Montefiore. In recent weeks, he has been caring for children he helped deliver. He said more doctors are needed in his area, but acknowledged that "primary-care residencies are not in the sexier end. A lot of these [specialty] fields are a lot sexier to students with high debt burdens."

Bryan Baumgart REPORT: 60 Hospitals Cancelled Due to New Health Law...

2010-04-20T14:06:00.000-11:00

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64034

Health Law Bans New Doctor-Owned Hospitals, Blocks Expansion of Existing Ones

Monday, April 12, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – The new health care overhaul law, which promised increased access and efficiency in health care, will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds, says a group that advocates physician involvement in every aspect of health care delivery.

Physician-owned hospitals are advertised as less bureaucratic and more focused on doctor-patient decision making. However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves.

The new health care rules single out such hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Existing doctor-owned hospitals will be grandfathered in to get government funds for patients but must seek permission from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand.

To get the department’s permission, a doctor-owned hospital must be in a county where population growth is 150 percent of the population growth of the state in the last five years; inpatient admissions must be equal to all hospitals located in the county; the bed-occupancy rate must not be greater than the state average, and the hospital must be located in a state where hospital bed capacity is less than the national average.

The rules fall under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The provision is titled “Physician Ownership and Other Transparency – Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals.”

More than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).

“That’s a lot of access to communities that will be denied,” Sandvig told CNSNews.com. “The existing hospitals are greatly affected. They can’t grow. They can’t add beds. They can’t add rooms. Basically, it stifles their ability to change and meet market needs. This is really an unfortunate thing as well, because we are talking about some of the best hospitals in the country.”

The organization says physician-owned hospitals have higher patient satisfaction, greater control over medical decisions for patients and doctor, better quality care and lower costs. Further, physician-owned hospitals have an average 4-1 patient-to-nurse ratio, compared to the national average of 8-1 for general hospitals.

Further, these 260 doctor-owned hospitals in 38 states provide 55,000 jobs, $2.4 billion in payroll and pay $509 million in federal taxes, according to the PHA.

In one ironic aspect, President Barack Obama’s two largest legislative achievements clashed. The Hammond Community Hospital in North Hammond, Ind., got $7 million in bond money from the federal stimulus act in 2009. It will likely be scrapped because of the new rules on physician-owned hospitals, according to the Post-Tribune newspaper in Merrillville, Ind.

Doctor-owned hospitals have long been a target of the American Hospital Association, which represents corporate-owned hospitals as well as non-profit hospitals.

An AHA study from 2008 says that physician-owned hospitals “lessen patient access to emergency and trauma care;” “damage the financial health of full-service hospitals and lead to cutbacks in service;” “are not more efficient than full service community hospitals;” “use physician-owners to steer patients;” “cherry pick the most profitable patients;” and “provide limited or no emergency services.”

One AHA fact sheet asserts that physician-owned orthopedic and surgical hospitals costs are 20-30 percent higher than average hospitals. Further, these hospitals lead to higher profits just for doctors, the AHA asserts.

“We don’t cherry pick patients, period, end of story. We take patients based on their need for care, not on their ability to pay,” Sandvig said. “It [the health care reform] puts control outside the hand of physicians and patients and into bureaucrats’ hands really.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is one of many organizations suing to have the law declared unconstitutional on the grounds that the federal government cannot compel someone to buy a product.

While the provision on physician hospitals is not part of the lawsuit, it will affect it, said Dr. Jane Orient, AAPS executive director.

“If the law is declared unconstitutional, then the prohibition is part of the bill,” Orient told CNSNews.com. “There are vested interests in getting rid of physician-owned hospitals because they do a better job and are more affordable.”

The provision in the legislation and efforts opposing these hospitals can be simply explained from Sandvig’s view.

“It’s anti-competitive. I think it’s pretty clear,” Sandvig said. “We’re a model that makes sense that’s affecting innovation. We’re trying to do something better than it has been done. Anytime you do that, there’s going to be a clash between the existing and the new. Unfortunately, it’s a real David and Goliath battle."

Top 10 Reasons To Vote Democrat!

2010-04-20T14:05:00.001-11:00

10. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

8. I voted Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

7. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

5. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

4. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

3. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

1. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

545 vs 300,000,000

2010-04-20T14:03:00.000-11:00

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems..

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

ROB THY NEIGHBOR: HALF OF HOUSEHOLDS PAY NO FED INCOME TAX!

2010-04-20T14:02:00.000-11:00

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

Recession, new tax credits have nearly half of US households paying no federal income tax

.Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer, On Wednesday April 7, 2010, 5:38 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it's still almost always better to file: That's the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.

That helps explain the country's aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.

"It's not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes," Stretch said.

The federal income tax is the government's largest source of revenue, raising more than $900 billion -- or a little less than half of all government receipts -- in the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. But with deductions and credits, especially for families with children, there have long been people who don't pay it, mainly lower-income families.

The number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery.

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200. Last year, Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others. Most targeted low- and middle-income families.

Obama's Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400 to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.

There are also tax credits for college expenses, buying a new home and upgrading an existing home with energy-efficient doors, windows, furnaces and other appliances. Many of the credits are refundable, meaning if the credits exceed the amount of income taxes owed, the taxpayer gets a payment from the government for the difference.

"All these things are ways the government says, if you do this, we'll reduce your tax bill by some amount," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

The government could provide the same benefits through spending programs, with the same effect on the federal budget, Williams said. But it sounds better for politicians to say they cut taxes rather than they started a new spending program, he added.

Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

Internal Revenue Service: http://www.irs.gov

Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org

Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care

2010-04-20T13:59:00.001-11:00

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orlandosentinel.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fbreakingnews%2Fos-mount-dora-doctor-tells-patients-go-aw20100401%2C0%2C6040296%2Cfull.story&h=d6615

MOUNT DORA — A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients who voted for President Barack Obama to seek care "elsewhere."

"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

The sign reads: "If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

Estella Chatman, 67, of Eustis, whose daughter snapped a photo of the typewritten sign, sent the picture to U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, the Orlando Democrat who riled Republicans last year when he characterized the GOP's idea of health care as, "If you get sick, America … Die quickly."

Chatman said she heard about the sign from a friend referred to Cassell after his physician recently died. She said her friend did not want to speak to a reporter but was dismayed by Cassell's sign.

"He's going to find another doctor," she said.

Cassell may be walking a thin line between his right to free speech and his professional obligation, said William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine.

Allen said doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law. By insisting he does not quiz his patients about their politics and has not turned away patients based on their vote, the doctor is "trying to hold onto the nub of his ethical obligation," Allen said.

"But this is pushing the limit," he said.

Cassell, who has practiced medicine in GOP-dominated Lake County since 1988, said he doesn't quiz his patients about their politics, but he also won't hide his disdain for the bill Obama signed and the lawmakers who passed it.

In his waiting room, Cassell also has provided his patients with photocopies of a health-care timeline produced by Republican leaders that outlines "major provisions" in the health-care package. The doctor put a sign above the stack of copies that reads: "This is what the morons in Washington have done to your health care. Take one, read it and vote out anyone who voted for it."

Cassell, whose lawyer wife, Leslie Campione, has declared herself a Republican candidate for Lake County commissioner, said three patients have complained, but most have been "overwhelmingly supportive" of his position.

"They know it's not good for them," he said.

Cassell, who previously served as chief of surgery at Florida Hospital Waterman in Tavares, said a patient's politics would not affect his care for them, although he said he would prefer not to treat people who support the president.

"I can at least make a point," he said.

The notice on Cassell's office door could cause some patients to question his judgment or fret about the care they might receive if they don't share his political views, Allen said. He said doctors are wise to avoid public expressions that can affect the physician-patient relationship.

Erin VanSickle, spokeswoman for the Florida Medical Association, would not comment specifically.

But she noted in an e-mail to the Sentinel that "physicians are extended the same rights to free speech as every other citizen in the United States."

The outspoken Grayson described Cassell's sign as "ridiculous."

"I'm disgusted," he said. "Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, ‘Do no good.' If this is the face of the right wing in America, it's the face of cruelty. … Why don't they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?"

Stephen Hudak can be reached at shudak@orlandosentinel.com or 352-742-5930.
Copyright © 2010, Orlando Sentinel

BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE HEALTH BILLS REQUIRE THE MICRO CHIPPING OF AMERICANS

2010-04-20T13:57:00.001-11:00

http://goldfuture.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/both-house-and-senate-health-bills-require-the-micro-chipping-of-americans-31810/

Required RFID implanted chip
Sec. 2521, Pg. 1000 – The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. What does a National Medical Device Registry mean?

National Medical Device Registry from H.R. 3200 [Healthcare Bill], pages 1001-1008:

(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that— ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; ‘‘(B)and is— ‘‘(i) a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”

Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1,

section B:
‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to information respecting a device described in paragraph (1), including claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary”

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is an “implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”

See it for yourself: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072191.pdf

This new law – when fully implemented – provides the framework for making the United States the first nation in the world to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country.

Don’t believe it? Look it up yourself. Healthcare Bill H.R. 3200: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

Pages 1001-1008 “National Medical Device Registry” section.
Page 1006 “to be enacted within 36 months upon passage”
Page 503 “… medical device surveillance”

Why would the government use the word “surveillance” when referring to citizens? The definition of “surveillance” is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people and often in a secret manner. The root of the word [French] means to “watch over.”

In theory, the intent to streamline healthcare and to eliminate fraud via “health chips” seems right. But, to have the world’s lone superpower (America, for now) mandate (page 1006) a device to be IMPLANTED is scary!

Microchiping included in Healthcare Bill?
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/105079

Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip?
http://current.com/items/90842279_coverage-under-obamacare-will-require-an-implantable-microchip.htm