Posts Tagged ‘big government’
Posted by Richard on July 18, 2013
Wow. Phillip Steel has certainly gotten a lot of media attention with the petition he’s circulated in tiny Deer Trail, CO (population 546). He already has enough signatures to put it on the ballot. The town council will consider his proposed ordinance at their Aug. 6 meeting. The ordinance would allow people to buy a drone hunting license for $25. It would pay a bounty of $25 to $100 for the downing of a US government drone over the sovereign air space of Deer Trail.
I love the idea! It’s fun and a nice fundraising vehicle for Deer Trail, but it also makes an important point.
7NEWS Reporter Amanda Kost asked Steel, “Have you ever seen a drone flying over your town?”
“No,” Steel responded. “This is a very symbolic ordinance. Basically, I do not believe in the idea of a surveillance society, and I believe we are heading that way.”
I hope they come up with a nice looking, real official drone hunting license certificate. Because I’ll buy one.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, privacy, surveillance | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on July 10, 2013
Wow. Just wow. Venezuela ain’t got nothin’ on us. We’ve truly become a banana republic (emphasis in original):
Document: DOJ Community Relations Service was deployed to Sanford, FL, “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old African American male.”
Washington, D.C. – Judicial Watch announced today that has obtained documents in response to local, state, and federal records requests revealing that a little-known unit of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Community Relations Service (CRS), was deployed to Sanford, FL, following the Trayvon Martin shooting to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman.
JW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requested with the DOJ on April 24, 2012; 125 pages were received on May 30, 2012. JW administratively appealed the request on June 5, 2012, and received 222 pages more on March 6, 2013. According to the documents:
- March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
- March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.
- March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”
- March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
- April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”
- April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?
No, the documents reveal that the employees were “Thomas Battles, Regional Director, and Mildred De Robles, Miami-Dade Coordinator and their co-workers at the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service,” so they were already stationed in the area, not “deployed” from Washington. The expenses (admittedly small potatoes as far as government expenditures go; but still …) were probably for things like meeting rooms, “working lunches,” and maybe sign printing.
Set up under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the DOJ’s CRS, the employees of which are required by law to “conduct their activities in confidence,” reportedly has greatly expanded its role under President Barack Obama. Though the agency claims to use “impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution procedures,” press reports along with the documents obtained by Judicial Watch suggest that the unit deployed to Sanford, FL, took an active role in working with those demanding the prosecution of Zimmerman.
On April 15, 2012, during the height of the protests, the Orlando Sentinel reported, “They [the CRS] helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The paper quoted the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for protestors, as saying “They were there for us,” after a March 20 meeting with CRS agents.
Separately, in response to a Florida Sunshine Law request to the City of Sanford, Judicial Watch also obtained an audio recording of a “community meeting” held at Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford on April 19, 2012. The meeting, which led to the ouster of Sanford’s Police Chief Bill Lee, was scheduled after a group of college students calling themselves the “Dream Defenders” barricaded the entrance to the police department demanding Lee be fired. According to the Orlando Sentinel, DOJ employees with the CRS had arranged a 40-mile police escort for the students from Daytona Beach to Sanford.
“These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.”
I wonder if Department of Justice Community Relations Service employees will be “providing support” for the riots that many in the media are expecting when George is Zimmerman is (quite properly) acquitted.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, demagoguery, dirty tricks, intimidation, justice, obama, propaganda, protests, racism | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on June 22, 2013
Blowing off the 4th Amendment, Senator Lindsey Graham (OR-SC) has defended the Obama administration’s increasingly powerful surveillance state and specifically NSA’s Prism program, arguing that if we have nothing to hide, it shouldn’t bother us that our email is being monitored. FreedomWorks is challenging Sen. Graham to “lead by example.” They’re collecting signatures on a petition requesting that the Senator release his email password. Go to www.lindseyspassword.com right now and sign. It only takes a few seconds. It costs nothing. And haven’t you always wanted to read Lindsey Graham’s email?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, civil liberties, fourth amendment, privacy, surveillance | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on March 17, 2013
A while back, people who worry about the growing mountains of sovereign debt pointed to Greece as the canary in the coal mine. We have a new canary, and he’s got a bad cough: Cyprus. The Eurocrats are funding a bailout of Cyprus by doing what debt-laden governments with no respect for the rule of law or the sanctity of contracts usually end up doing eventually: seizing the assets of savers.
I’m not shedding any tears for the Russian klepto-billionaires who parked their ill-gotten riches in Cyprus. And maybe only a few for the Cypriots who until now believed they could get something for nothing through the miracle of endless government borrowing. But prudent and frugal folks throughout the heavily-indebted nations of Europe must be wondering when the EU will come after their savings. Under the mattress or in a hole in the back yard must be starting to look like better options than a bank account.
Think it can’t happen in the good old USA? It already has. In April 1933, a month after taking office, FDR issued an executive order (under the ”Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917″) outlawing the private ownership of gold coins, bullion, and gold certificates. Owners had a month to turn it all in or face 10 years in prison. They were reimbursed at face value — the owner of a $20 gold double eagle (which contained gold worth $19.99 at the time) was given $20 in currency. But once all the gold had been turned in, FDR quickly devalued the dollar by 59%. That double eagle, had the owner been allowed to keep it, would have been worth $35. Essentially, this was a confiscation of wealth that makes the Cyprus “haircut” look picayune.
More recently and on a smaller scale, when the Obama administration turned GM into Government Motors, they abrogated contracts and confiscated the assets of bondholders in order to turn them over to their friends in the UAW.
And for some time now, left-wing activists and Obama administration officials (but I repeat myself) have been talking about how “unfair to poor people” 401k and IRA accounts are and suggesting that the government should do for retirement accounts what it’s doing for health care: take over.
Fiat money allows governments to confiscate wealth slowly and stealthily by inflating the currency, thus shrinking both your savings and their debt. But if (when) things start to go out of control and panic sets in, they’ll come after your savings more directly and immediately. You might want to be prepared.
HT: Instapundit (via email from David Aitken)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, economics, europe, property rights, saving | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 6, 2013
I feel like I’ve been transported to an alternate universe. Sen. Rand Paul asked Obama administration officials repeatedly over a period of weeks whether “the President has the power to authorize the use of lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.” After stonewalling for weeks, they finally responded by saying essentially that they haven’t assassinated anyone yet, they currently have no plans to do so, but they might in the future if an American posed, in the President’s judgment, an “imminent threat.”
AG Eric Holder maintained that “[a]s a policy matter” the administration rejects the use of military force against Americans on US soil when it isn’t necessary, and rejected Sen. Paul’s question as “entirely hypothetical.” In other words, they think the President has the authority to order Hellfire missile strikes on Americans in the United States if he decides it’s necessary.
Sen. Paul is filibustering the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director. He offered to end his filibuster if the Obama administration submitted a clear, concise statement outlining its position regarding the President’s authority and the legal basis for its position. No response. Earlier this evening, he offered to end his filibuster if the Senate by unanimous consent suspended the rules and voted on a “sense of the Senate” resolution declaring that the President may not use drones to assassinate Americans on US soil who don’t pose an imminent threat. Sen. Dick Durbin (who during a previous administration compared the guards at Gitmo to Nazis, Stalinists, and the Khmer Rouge) objected. Senate Democrats refuse to say that killing Americans on US soil who pose no threat is wrong; in fact, they refuse to go on record one way or the other on the question.
Does that sound like we’re still a free people? Does that sound like we still have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Does that sound like we’re still a government of laws and not of men?
I fear for my country. The spirit of Hugo Chavez is alive and well in Washington, D.C.
I can only hope that the outrage over this assertion of unlimited Presidential power and the support for Sen. Paul continue to grow and have significant and lasting effects. I #StandWithRand.
And I may have to go ahead and buy an AR-15 now, regardless of price.
UPDATE: As of 11:20 PM (MT), the top trend on Twitter is no longer #StandWithRand (it had been for much of the day). It’s dropped to second — behind Sen. Rand Paul and just ahead of #filibuster.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, civil liberties, human rights, obama | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on June 8, 2012
The President held a press conference today, and he didn’t do himself any favors re-election-wise. In an incredibly clueless answer to a question about the economy, he argued that “the private sector is doing fine” and the only problem with our economy is that the government sector isn’t big enough. Here’s the key minute:
He again called on the Republicans to pass his “Jobs Act,” which he said would create a million new jobs for construction workers, policemen, firemen, and teachers — in other words, more government workers and more workers on government construction projects — and he lamented that fact that governors and mayors weren’t doing enough hiring.
Plenty of Republicans have responded forcefully to this nonsense, including Governors Christie, Jindal, and Walker. I especially liked Jindal’s pithy observation that the Obama administration is “at the nexus of liberalism and incompetence,” and Scott Walker’s summation of the difference between the Socialist Democrats and the rest of us:
“There are two very different views in the country,” Walker said. “The current administration seems to think that success is measured by how many people are dependent on the government. I think success is measured by how many are not.”
To me, there’s a certain irony to Obama’s recent remarks on the economy. In addition to an insufficiently large government sector, he blames our economic problems on the problems of Europe. But this is the man whose quest to “fundamentally transform” America is a quest to make us more like Europe, with its abundantly large government sector. A lot of good that’s done them.
Well, at least the finger-pointing at governors, mayors, and Europe has led to less “blame Bush” rhetoric.
UPDATE: Ever since I heard the President say “the private sector is doing fine,” something in the back of my mind has been bugging me about that statement, but I couldn’t put my finger on what it was. Finally, it came to me — this isn’t the first time I’ve heard almost exactly that phrase. It was last October that Senator Harry Reid (SD-NV) said:
“It’s very clear that private sector jobs have been doing just fine. It’s public sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers.”
I’ve got the whole story here.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, demagoguery, economy, obama, politics | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on May 29, 2012
A friend who owns a condo showed me the latest condo community association newsletter the other day. An article in it illustrates in a small way why the economy in general and the housing market in particular aren’t going to get healthy as long as the Obama administration is in office.
Because they often attract first-time buyers with limited funds for down payments, condos are frequently financed with FHA loans. Let’s set aside for the moment the issue of whether the FHA program should exist — or needs to. It’s been in place for many years, guaranteeing loans with low down payments. To offset the increased risk, the government requires buyers to carry mortgage insurance until their equity in the property reaches 20%, and there are stricter rules on what properties qualify for an FHA loan.
Apparently for condos, HUD requires the condominium association to apply for FHA certification of its properties. And the process has become much more onerous under the Obama administration. For one thing, in this area as in so many others, the Obama administration has made regulatory uncertainty a way of life, as the newsletter explains (emphasis in original):
In November 2009, the federal government decided to change EVERYTHING with respect to the process and approval requirements for condominium associations only. Then they changed again in February 2011. And again in June 2011. …
Through June 2011, Westwind Management (our management company) was successful in recertifying all of its qualified condominium clients within HUD standards. Now, condominium associations are required to be recertified every two years. This is a time consuming and costly burden that was not necessary before 2009.
But it’s not just constantly changing regulations and burdensome paperwork. The managing agent has to keep HUD informed continuously of any information changes, possible defects, disputes among owners, etc. There are no doubt scores, and perhaps hundreds, of pages of hard-to-understand regulations detailing what the management agent is obligated to provide. And he or she is personally responsible for failure to comply:
The language is vague and the penalties are untenable. The penalty for a fraudulent package or not reporting changes is up to $1,000,000 in fines and/or a maximum of 30 years in prison.
Would you want that job? Or invest in a condo management company in this regulatory climate?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, economy, obama, real estate, regulation | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on May 1, 2012
After being hospitalized with diabetes, Steve Cooksey adopted a low-carb, high-protein diet. Within 30 days his diabetes was under control without drugs, and in three months he lost 45 pounds. He decided to start blogging about his success. When the North Carolina Board of Dietetics and Nutrition (NCBDN) discovered what he was doing, they informed him that he was breaking the law by “providing nutritional counseling” without a license. His blog could be shut down and he could face fines and jail time.
What kind of “nutritional counseling” did Cooksey offer? Responding to someone concerned about a diabetic friend, Cooksey wrote, “Your friend must first and foremost obtain and maintain normal blood sugars.” The NCBDN informed him that this kind of “assessing and advising requires a license.” It was OK for him to list the foods he ate, but if he recommended them to others, the NCBDN declared, he was “providing diabetic counseling which requires a license.”
This isn’t an isolated incident, according to WorldNetDaily. In fact, the FDA has gone much further and wants to go further still:
The actions against Cooksey are part of a growing trend by government officials to crack down on any groups or persons that offer alternatives to traditional medical treatment.
In 2010, the FDA raided the offices of Daniel Chapter One, a Christian ministry that promotes a diet based on the bible chapter that is its namesake after a federal judge refused to allow the FTC to level a massive fine against the company.
“They came in screaming and hollering, ‘This is a raid, hands up.’ I saw a gun in my face,” said Jim Feijo, founder of the company.
“They patted Jim down and removed him from the office. They didn’t show me a warrant. They came in very aggressively, that was needless,” said Tricia Feijo, Jim’s wife and partner and a trained homeopath.
Under Obamacare, the FDA has determined that a person’s own body is considered a drug and subject to regulation.
The Centeno-Schultz clinic in Denver pioneered Regenexx, a treatment in which a patient’s stem cells are removed, cultivated for two weeks in a lab then re-injected back into the body. The procedure is used to treat patients with knee injuries, partial rotator cuff tears in the shoulder and lower back disc bulges.
In 2008, the FDA informed Dr. Christopher Centeno that it considered the stem cells to be a drug and subsequently stopped the clinic from cultivating patients’ stem cells.
The FDA has even suggested that bottled water when used to treat dehydration should be regulated as a drug. Under the organization’s “Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration,” the agency said it should have the authority to regulate all vitamins, supplements, herbs and other natural substances, including water when used to “treat” dehydration.
Want to do something about outrageous nonsense like this? Life Extension Foundation’s Legislative Action Center is a good place to start.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, fda, paternalism, regulation | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 20, 2012
Chilling news from Simon Black:
Quietly, and with little fanfare, President Obama signed a “National Defense Resources Preparedness” Executive Order on Friday. As the name suggests, the order intends to shore up the country’s national defense resources in advance of a national emergency.
To be fair, this is not the first time that such an order has been written. Presidents Bush (II), Clinton, Reagan, and even Eisenhower provided directives in the same spirit as President Obama’s order– providing some level of government commandeering in times of national emergency.
In the past, these orders have related to things like production capacity for defense contractors, or giving FEMA authority to resolve disputes between other departments in federally designated emergency areas.
President Obama’s order, however, takes things much, much further.
Much, much further indeed! Read the whole disturbing thing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 14, 2012
That TSA story I just posted about reminded me of something David Aitken linked to that I meant to pass on. The TSA advertises for security screeners on pizza boxes and gas pumps. The people it hires are given a bit of classroom and on-the-job training (far less training than it takes to get a cosmetology license in the District of Columbia). It’s enough for the relatively simple work they do.
But now the Obama administration, in keeping with its “we don’t need no stinkin’ Act of Congress” way of governing (remember when liberals fretted about the imperial presidency?), has “administratively reclassified” these security screeners as Transportation Security Officers, complete with federal law enforcement uniforms and badges. All they lack is law enforcement training. And guns — but they’re already pushing to get those.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) details the whole story in an excellent Forbes op-ed column, including the way the TSA is extending its tentacles far beyond airports. Not content to rifle through luggage and grope genitals, the newly-minted TSOs can be found at train and subway stations, ferry terminals, and along Tennessee highways randomly inspecting cars and trucks.
Rep. Blackburn has introduced a bill to rescind this “administrative reclassification,” and it deserves your support:
In order to help rein in the TSA I introduced H.R. 3608, the Stop TSA’s Reach in Policy Act aka the STRIP Act. This bill will simply overturn the TSA’s administrative decision by prohibiting any TSA employee who has not received federal law enforcement training from using the title “officer,” wearing a police like uniform or a metal police badge. At its most basic level the STRIP Act is about truth in advertising.
As TSOs continue to expand their presence beyond our nation’s airports and onto our highways, every American citizen has the right to know that they are not dealing with actual federal law enforcement officers. Had one Virginia woman known this days before Thanksgiving she may have been able to escape being forcibly raped by a TSO who approached her in a parking lot in full uniform while flashing his badge.
Please contact your congresscritters and ask them to support H.R. 3608.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: airport security, big government, bureaucracy | 3 Comments »
Posted by Richard on March 14, 2012
Item: The federal government has exempted an Indian tribe from the Bald and Golden Eagle Act to accommodate their religious beliefs.
A pair of Wyoming bald eagles now qualify as a really endangered species.
The Northern Arapaho Tribe secured an extraordinarily rare permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowing the Native Americans to kill two of the national birds for religious use.
The national agency, in a 2009 report, said it has never issued a license for the killing of a bald eagle — making it likely that the tribe was the first group to ever get the legal go-ahead.
Federal law bars the killing of any bald eagle under almost any circumstance. The Wyoming tribe argued that the ban was a violation of their religious freedom.
Item: The federal government has refused to exempt Catholic institutions from the mandate to provide birth control and “morning-after” (abortifacient) pills to their employees. The Catholic institutions argued that the mandate was a violation of their religious freedom.
I’m not religious, or anti-abortion, or particularly pro-eagle. But I’d love to have someone explain to me on what rational basis the federal government can choose to accommodate one group’s religious beliefs, but not the others’.
Does the phrase “equal protection under the law” have any meaning at all anymore under the Obama administration?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, discrimination, obama, religion | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on March 13, 2012
In California, dairy farmer James Stewart is being prosecuted for selling unpasteurized milk to unsuspecting consumers. No, wait, I got that wrong. He sold it to consumers who eagerly sought him out and stood in line for the opportunity to buy it.
In France, you can buy raw, unpasteurized milk in vending machines, and Mark Perry noted the irony:
… We always hear about France being an example of heavy-handed government bureaucracy and “European-style socialism,” but that seems to more accurately describe California’s approach in this case while France takes the “laissez-faire” approach.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is putting pink slime in school lunches.
Because the government knows what’s best for us.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: agriculture, big government, paternalism, prohibition | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on February 15, 2012
According to Investor’s Business Daily, it’s not just the rich who’ll pay for the massive expansion of government envisioned by the latest Obama budget (no surprise; it can’t be just the rich because there aren’t enough rich people). And, typically, the administration is looking for an international way to cram their plans down America’s throat (emphasis added):
Discussing President Obama’s new budget, Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economist, said “we need a global minimum tax” so no one escapes paying “their fair share.”
This idea is not just bad; it’s likely unconstitutional. In any event, it starkly reveals the underlying premise behind Obama’s latest budget plan: To hike taxes massively on all Americans to pay for an unprecedented expansion of federal government.
To pay for it, the president and his aides are using class-warfare to build a case for a big tax hike on “the rich.” But beware: The Obama budget includes a $2.8 trillion jump in total taxes over the next 10 years, $1.5 trillion coming from income taxes alone. That amount is so large it can’t come solely from the well-off. It will require huge new taxes on all Americans.
Americans for Tax Reform has just totaled up the tax increases in Obama’s budget. It makes for scary reading:
• ObamaCare alone includes 20 separate tax hikes.
• Tax rates on most small businesses are expected to go up to 39.6% from 35%.
• Tax rates on capital gains, the fuel for economic and job growth, will jump to 23.8% from 15%.
• Rates on dividends surge to 43.4% from 15%.
• The death tax will jump to 45% from 35%.
• Large businesses will take a job-killing $147 billion tax hit as the U.S. double-taxes overseas profits.
• Families will pay a $100 billion energy tax over the next decade as oil, gas and coal companies get hit with new levies that they will simply pass on to consumers.
• The proposed new “Buffett Tax” will hit wealthy Americans with a marginal tax rate of 90% or higher.
Such massive tax increases will cripple the American economy, retarding economic growth and ensuring high unemployment for the next decade. It’s hard to imagine that all the brilliant Ivy-league-educated people in the Obama administration don’t understand that. Either that’s their goal — to preside over the decline of America, to diminish this country — or they simply don’t care as long as their redistributionist goals are achieved.
The current administration and the Democratic Party leadership are going to destroy this country in the name of egalitarianism if they aren’t stopped. If only there were an opposition party leadership and an opposition party presidential candidate capable of passionately, articulately, and with conviction making that point and offering an alternative of freedom, opportunity, limited government, and individual sovereignty. If only there were someone capable of contrasting their own vision of a “shining city on the hill” with the grim future of dependence and shared poverty offered by the leftists/progressives. If only there were another Reagan.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, economy, obama, taxes | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on February 14, 2012
The Fiscal Year 2008 Bush budget (the year before Hank Paulson panicked Bush into bailout mode with warnings of impending economic collapse):
- Spending: $2.9 trillion (that’s $2,900 billion)
- Deficit: $455 billion
- New taxes: None
- Federal debt: $9.99 trillion
February 23, 2009 Obama speech to the National Governors Association:
“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to next budget, the next administration, or the next generation,” he said. “That’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”
Obama said he would reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule requiring any new expenditure to be set off by a cut in spending.
The Fiscal Year 2013 Obama budget:
- Spending: $3.8 trillion (that’s $3,800 billion) in FY2013; $5.8 trillion in 2022; $47 trillion over 10 years
- Deficit: $901 billion in 2013 (but AFP says “if we strip out the budget’s unrealistic assumptions, yet another trillion-dollar-plus deficit is nearly certain. … The past three years the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued an analysis of the President’s budget. They found the deficits were actually 20 percent higher than the President claimed.)
- New taxes: $1.9 trillion over 10 years
- Federal debt: $16.2+ trillion for 2013; over $25 trillion by 2021, according to ALG’s Bill Wilson
So how can the administration claim to be cutting the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years and yet have annual spending grow from $3.8 trillion to $5.8 trillion (a 53% increase)? There’s the double-counting of last year’s “cuts” and a good helping of what AFP calls tricks and gimmicks. But mainly it’s the baseline budgeting scam, which I explained last August. ALG’s Bill Wilson has some numbers (emphasis added):
The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) baseline for 2013-2022 says outlays will total $47.053 trillion. Obama’s proposed budget takes that to $46.959 trillion. Since spending actually increases every year under Obama’s proposal, the only cut is off of the baseline — and that’s just $94 billion of so-called “cuts”.
Meanwhile, OMB says revenues over the next ten years will total $38.391 trillion. Under Obama’s proposal, that goes up to $40.274 trillion — an increase of $1.883 trillion in taxes, mostly on job creators.
By our count, that’s about $20 of tax increases for every dollar of “cuts,” and those are not even real cuts to the actual budget. Spending would still increase every single year under Obama’s proposal. Meanwhile, the tax hikes are real.
The latest Obama budget would be laughable if the numbers weren’t so sobering and the consequences of continuing down this path weren’t so dire.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, budget, deficit, obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on February 14, 2012
At the behest of the First Lady, the federal government has been creating lots of new “guidelines” regarding school lunches. But did you know that these “guidelines” apply not just to the lunches that the schools serve, but to the lunches that the parents pack for the kids to bring to school? This shouldn’t be a surprise, since more than a year ago, Michelle Obama declared that “We can’t just leave it up to the parents” what their children eat.
In North Carolina, at least, the “guidelines” are more than just guidelines — there are state inspectors examining lunches from home to ensure compliance. Carolina Journal reports (emphasis added):
RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” the girl’s mother told CJ. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.
So, thanks to the government’s school lunch nazi, instead of eating a turkey sandwich and a banana, the kid ate chicken nuggets. But at least what was on her plate conformed to the government “guidelines.”
Rush Limbaugh called the USDA guidelines and enforcement program “Michelle’s ‘No Child’s Behind Left Alone’ program.”
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: big government, education, nanny state | Leave a Comment »