Bookeemonster: a voracious appetite for books, mostly crime fiction.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Current Events - March 5, 2013
Budget Politics
By Thomas Sowell Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to
ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with
only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2)
providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency's budget
were cut, what would it do?
The answer, of course, is that it
would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would
be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut
back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they
were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place.
The
example was deliberately extreme as an illustration. But, in the real
world, the same general pattern can be seen in local, state and national
government responses to budget cuts.
At the local level, the
first response to budget cuts is often to cut the police department and
the fire department. There may be all sorts of wasteful boondoggles that
could have been cut instead, but that would not produce the public
alarm that reducing police protection and fire protection can produce.
And public alarm is what can get budget cuts restored.
The Obama
administration is following the same pattern. The Department of Homeland
Security, for example, released thousands of illegal aliens from
prisons to save money -- and create alarm.
The Federal Aviation
Administration says it is planning to cut back on the number of air
traffic controllers, which would, at a minimum, create delays for
airline passengers, in addition to fears for safety that can create more
public alarm.
Republicans in the House of Representatives have
offered to pass legislation giving President Obama the authority to pick
and choose what gets cut -- anywhere in the trillions of dollars of
federal spending -- rather than being hemmed in by the arbitrary
provisions of the sequester.
This would minimize the damage done
by budget cuts concentrated in limited areas, such as the Defense
Department. But it serves Obama's interest to maximize the damage and
the public alarm, which he can direct against Republicans.
President
Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to
cut. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter
cynicism of this glib man.
The sequester creates more visible
damage and more public alarm than if the president were given the
authority to trim a little here and a little there in the vast trillions
of dollars spent by the government, in order to make a relatively small
"cut" that still leaves total federal spending higher than last year.
Only
in Washington is a reduction in the rate of growth of spending called a
"cut." Moreover, costly boondoggles not covered by the sequester can
continue and grow.
Obviously Obama wants public alarm, which he
can use to help defeat the Republicans in the 2014 elections, so that
Democrats can take back control of the House of Representatives.
When
Obama was offered the authority to make the spending cuts wherever he
chooses, anywhere in the government's multi-trillion dollar budget, it
was the only power that this power-grabbing president has rejected.
Why?
Because with this new power would go responsibility for the
consequences of his choices. And responsibility for consequences is
precisely what both the Obama administration and the Senate Democrats
have been avoiding for years, by refusing to pass a federal budget, as
required by the Constitution of the United States.
Democrats
prefer to get the political benefits from handing out goodies, while
Republicans can be blamed for not subsequently raising enough taxes to
pay for the Democrats' spending spree.
If Obama succeeds in
maneuvering the Republicans into positions that cause them to lose
control of the House of Representatives in the 2014 elections, then as a
president who never has to face the voters again, he would be in an
ideal position to create a big spending liberals' heaven.
But it
will be far from heaven for the economy, with Obama-appointed
bureaucrats burying businesses in red tape and job-killing costs, while
expanding the size and arbitrary powers of government. We could become
the world's largest banana republic.
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on Monday
cautioned airline passengers to get to the airport extra early because
U.S. spending cuts have already led to long lines at some security
checkpoints, and said the coming furloughs will only make the situation
worse.
Napolitano said mandatory spending cuts ordered on Friday by
President Barack Obama have led to the elimination of overtime for
Transportation Security Administration officers and customs agents. She
said TSA would begin sending out furlough notices to employees on
Monday. Hiring freezes have also prevented any open positions from being
filled.
“We are already seeing the effects at some of the ports of entry – at
the big airports, for example. Some of them had very long lines this
weekend,” Napolitano said at a “Politico Playbook” breakfast event.
She pointed to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, Los Angeles
International Airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International
Airport as examples of those with long lines. Napolitano said delays were between 150 percent and 200 percent at
certain airports, although the TSA website did not show any major delays
at any U.S. airport on Monday morning.
The impending sequester did not prevent the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from acting in late
February to seal a $50-million deal to purchase new uniforms for its
agents–uniforms that will be partly manufactured in Mexico.
Soon after this new investment in TSA uniforms, Homeland Security
Secretary Janet Napolitano warned Americans that the lines are already
lengthening at airports due to the sequester. …
On Feb. 27, the agency announced that
on Feb. 22 it had awarded a one-year contract to VF Imagewear, Inc.,
which owns the Lee brand and Wrangler Hero, to provide the uniforms.
“This contract will address the requirements of the TSA, Office of
Security Operations, TSA Uniform Program,” the award states.
The TSA employs 50,000
security officers, inspectors, air marshals and managers. That means
that the uniform contract will pay the equivalent of $1,000 per TSA
employee over the course of the year.
The most interesting part of this development is the fact that TSA only provides the initial uniforms
for new hires. TSA employees have to pay for their own replacements.
So why spend $50 million on uniforms if TSA has to cut back on employees
so significantly that it will interfere with airport operations? Why
not save some money and cut back on the uniform purchases, especially if
the cutbacks mean a lack of hiring? After all, TSA is apparently
committing to spending that money whether employees reimburse them or
not for replacement uniforms.
Credit rating agencies are shrugging off sequestration,
saying the U.S. government will need to do more to reduce the deficit if
it wants to prevent a downgrade of the nation’s credit rating. While the agencies say the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts
represent at least a step towards deficit reduction, they argue much
more is needed to prevent the United States from losing its “AAA”
rating.
“It’s not the most ideal outcome,” said David Riley, Fitch Rating’s
global managing director for sovereign ratings, on CNBC Europe. “You’d
rather have intelligent cuts and some revenue measures as well … but we
don’t live in an ideal world, and it’s better to have some deficit
reduction than none at all.”
The agencies view it as a positive sign that Congress did not simply
scrap the unpopular sequester. Erasing the cuts without coming up with
an alternative, something pushed by some liberal lawmakers, would have
added to the deficit and debt and further pressured agencies to
downgrade the nation’s credit rating.
At the same time, the agencies say they are worried that Washington’s
inability to replace the sequester with targeted deficit reduction
underlines concerns about the U.S. government’s dysfunction, a concern
that led Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the U.S. in 2011.
I’m sure that the ridiculous hysteria over a 2.3% reduction in federal spending isn’t exactly a confidence-builder, either.
PK'S NOTE: As stated by many: their ultimate goal: electing a Democratic House in 2014 so that
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid can go on another leftist spending
and regulatory binge
Obama's Pelosi II Strategy
The Washington Post reveals the real second-term priority.
Old Washington hands have been scratching their heads about the start of
President Obama's second term, with its aggressive liberal priorities
and attacks on Republicans. Whatever happened to governing? Well, the
answer arrived this weekend as the Washington Post reported that Mr.
Obama's real plan for the next two years is returning Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker in 2014.
"The goal is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic
control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun
control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final
two years in office, according to congressional Democrats, strategists
and others familiar with Obama's thinking," reports the Post, which is
hardly hostile to the President.
The article says that shortly after finishing his speech on Election Night last year, Mr. Obama called Mrs. Pelosi and Steve Israel,
who runs the Democratic House re-election campaign, to discuss 2014.
The strategy fits Mr. Obama's unprecedented new effort to raise $50
million in $500,000 chunks to fund Organizing for Action (OFA), which
will spend millions in GOP-held districts. Mr. Israel says he met in
January with Jim Messina, Mr. Obama's 2012 campaign manager who now runs
OFA, to discuss the 2014 races.
White House press secretary Jay Carney
pushed back against the article on Monday, saying 2014 is "not a focus"
for Mr. Obama. But that looks like an attempt at damage control after
the Post blew the White House's cover. Mr. Obama has to appear to want
bipartisan deals even as he prepares the ground for blaming Republicans
in 2014 when those efforts fail.
This is already clear on the budget, as
Mr. Obama insists on a second tax increase that Republicans can't
accept. We're also increasingly worried about White House sabotage on
immigration reform, as it pushes the bill left on a guest-worker program
and enforcement. Mr. Obama is doing exactly what you'd expect if he
doesn't want a deal and plans to use the issue to drive minority turnout
in 2014.
It's important to understand how extraordinary this is. Presidents
typically try to secure major bipartisan deals in their fifth or sixth
years, before their political capital ebbs. That's what Bill Clinton and
Ronald Reagan did, and George W. Bush tried on Social Security. Mr.
Obama seems to think he can use the next two years mainly to set up a
Pelosi House that would let him finish his last two years with a liberal
bang.
The next time you hear Mr. Obama, House Democrats or one of their
media acolytes talk about GOP "obstructionism," refer them to the
Washington Post article that shows what they really intend for the
current Congress. Bipartisan failure is their strategy.
More obnoxious remarks for women from the Obama White House
Remember when the Republicans were accused of waging a “war on women”? Yeah…
In addition to the vile name-calling, the Washington Examiner’s Joel Gehrke highlights other offensive treatment of women in the Obama White House:
On the record, Carney
himself can be less than polite. He shocked the press corps last month
by slamming a reporter after she observed that the White House proposed
the sequester.
“Well, we’ve been through this a lot – I know you’re filling in —
but here’s the fundamental fact,” Carney said two weeks ago. “During
the deficit reduction of the debt ceiling negotiations, because the
Republicans refused to embrace balance, refused in the end to join hands
with the President and pursue a grand bargain, there was an absolute
necessity to avoid default, and both sides were looking for trigger
mechanisms — this is complicated budget-speak — to help
make this package possible.” Carney has since acknowledged that the
White House did, in fact, come up with the sequester.
Oh, silly me and my female brain. How
could I possibly understand all of this “complicated budget-speak”? I
should just get back to my needlepoint…
In January, he mocked CNN’s Jessica Yellin for asking why Obama doesn’t “go up there” to engage with Congress more often.
“Because there is such a
long history of Presidents going up there?” Carney responded. “I think
that’s in a television program . . . ‘West Wing’ — you know. Anyway, go
ahead.” Yellin replied, “I’m not going to indulge your West Wing
fantasies.”
Carney also suggested that
CBS’s Sheryl Atkinson wasn’t being a “tough” reporter because she
described a White House official “yelling and screaming” at her.
“First of all, I have no insight into
the conversations she may or may not have had,” Carney said. “Second of
all, I know that you guys are all hard-bitten, veteran journalists and
probably don’t complain when you have tough conversations with your
sources sometimes . . . what I think is that I know you are tough enough
to handle an extra decibel or two in a phone conversation. I’m not sure
that that happened here, but it’s a surprising complaint.”
Feds keep hiring with sequesters in place: 400 jobs posted on first day back
The sequester cuts are now officially in place, but many government agencies appear to be hiring freely anyway.
The U.S. Forest Service on Monday posted help-wanted ads for a few good men and women to work as “recreation aides” this summer, the Internal Revenue Service advertised for an office secretary in Maryland, the U.S. Mint wanted 24 people to help press coins, and the Agriculture Department said it needs three “insect production workers” to help grow bollworms in Phoenix.
Monday marked the first regular workday under sequestration, and federal agencies posted more than 400 job ads by 6 p.m.
At
a time when nearly all of those agencies are contemplating furloughs,
the help-wanted ads raised questions about how agencies should decide
between saving through attrition or letting people go.
“Every position you don’t fill that isn’t absolutely necessary is one less person that needs to be furloughed,” said Steve Ellis, vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense — though he said some positions that people leave need to be filled in order to meet agencies’ core missions.
Part of the problem is it’s often unclear exactly what those core missions are, said Paul C. Light, a professor at New York University who has studied government organization extensively.
“When
you say mission critical, it’s a phrase without meaning,” he said.
“Everything’s mission critical. Therefore, we have no way of knowing
what would be mission critical in a job description versus what is not.”
He said agencies become “very artful” in writing job descriptions to justify why they are hiring.
At the Homeland Security Department, which just days ago announced it was releasing some low-priority illegal immigrants from jails to await removal, the agency in charge of deportations advertised for an assistant to help with deportations.
The annual salary for the job is $60,765, enough to detain one immigrant for about 500 days. An official at U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement said the agency is filling only
mission-critical positions and may not end up hiring for every job it
advertises.
The sequesters — $85 billion in spending cuts — were
set into motion by the 2011 debt deal and imposed across-the-board cuts
to most federal agencies. Social Security was spared, and other big
entitlements such as Medicare face only minor trims.
Homeland Security officials warned that they would have to furlough airport screeners, and the Defense Department has canceled deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region to save money. But the Obama administration also faces a decision about how painful it wants the cuts to be. Ahead of the sequesters, when the White House was still hoping for a deal, officials painted the most dire picture possible. Now that the cuts are a reality, the administration
must grapple with the possible downside of cutting something critical
while spending on something that voters might see as less important.
When it comes to furloughs, Mr. Light,
the NYU professor, said it would make sense to use job appraisals to
decide which employees to furlough — except that the appraisals aren’t
particularly useful anymore. He said it makes more sense to furlough senior managers and those near retirement,
while keeping lower-level workers — those who are doing the enforcement
or services such as air traffic controllers — on the job.
“What’s
amazing to me about all this is you’ve got the furloughs going on in
the agencies and they don’t seem to be linked to anything other than an
across-the-board strategy,” Mr. Light said.
About
a quarter of the job openings posted by Monday evening were in medical
or public health, 67 were in management or clerical services, and
another 21 were in information technology.
The Defense Department led the way with 123 jobs posted as of Monday evening, while the Department of Veterans Affairs was close behind with 119 jobs.
The
Justice Department, which has issued furlough notices to 115,000
employees, had a handful of job openings, including one to hire
“several” law librarians, with annual salaries up to $115,742, and
another posting for a student intern to answer phone calls and sort documents for up to $18.97 an hour.
There was one opening for a professor at the Army War College
in Pennsylvania, at a salary of up to $115,811 a year. A War College
spokeswoman said the professor’s post was deemed critical for their
academic mission.
The lowest-paying jobs were working at swimming
pools, golf courses and bowling alleys on Army bases. Each of those
began at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
An Army spokesman said those jobs are funded through fees paid to those facilities and don’t get taxpayer money.
But that explanation didn’t wash with some watchdogs.
“All
money is fungible,” said John Hart, spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn,
Oklahoma Republican and Congress’s top waste-watcher. “Mobilizing our
nation’s aircraft carriers seems to be a more pressing priority than
mobilizing our nation’s taxpayer-funded bowling alleys. The administration’s refusal to set priorities continues to make a mockery of their doomsday predictions.”
Mr.
Coburn last week called for the government to stop filling low-priority
jobs, pointing out a number of openings such as a museum director and
10 new drivers for State Department cars.
The White House at first seemed cool to the idea, but then issued a memo urging offices to be careful about any hires they made. The White House budget office also warned against hiring outside contractors to try to make up for the lost work from federal employees.
The budget office didn’t return messages seeking comment Monday, nor did the U.S. Forest Service or the Army Corps of Engineers.
One
decision agencies face is how to handle internships. A number of intern
openings were posted Monday, with duties ranging from answering phones
to taking part in intensive engineering programs.
The federal
Office of Personnel Management said agencies are allowed to make all
hiring decisions and furlough decisions and that includes hiring
interns, which the office said “is still an important part of an agency
meeting its mission.”
Celebrity is accomplishment. Yes, notoriety seems to have been equated with ability.
Popularity
is now par with wisdom. This is the world we live in, or at least it
is the world created, arranged and delivered to us via the media. Does
this explain the current Presidency?
There
certainly is a symbiotic relationship between entertainment and news
presentation. Hollywood embraces Washington and vice versa. Major
networks seem to blur the lines of entertainment and news presentation.
In fairness, news presentation can be entertaining. Maybe it should be
entertaining. But we should keep in mind that entertainment is not news.
Subliminally woven into the productions are the notions that
entertainers/celebrities are resultantly intelligent, able,
knowledgeable, capable or astute.
Who
really cares what Matt Damon, Daryl Hanna, and George Clooney think? I
suspect that those who actually do care, also can't answer the
question, "What country is just north of South Korea.?"
There
has been no greater demonstration of the anointing of celebrity with
awards of accomplishment than the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama.
His accomplishment list was essentially empty at that point, merely
campaigning and speech delivery. Yet his persona and convention speech
created this image of perceived substantive success. Perhaps he should
have received the Nobel Prize for "promising progressive accomplishments".
The Kardashians and their mysterious popularity and wealth seem rooted in nothingness.
Vapid
conversations about social dysfunction provide mental chewing gum for
the glassy eyed masses. Have we gone from church services for "shut
ins" to stupid conversational discourse for "shut ins"? Sex tapes are
now a credit to ones reputation rather than a career ending event. When did we jump that shark? And now the literati and enlightened at Harvard summons Oprah Winfrey to deliver the commencement speech. Was Jerry Springer busy?
Oprah
is certainly astute, wealthy, successful, engaging, and popular. What
does she have to do with higher learning? Is there a marquee at Harvard
on which they search for the biggest name? Will this be just like a TV show special event? Should not the speaker of the commencement be more in the vein of a serious nature rather than in depth interviewing and show biz?
Hopefully
no greater hills to climb than these domestic political tasks for our
President. He stumbles here, and one wonders what leadership and tough
decision making would ensue in the event of a national emergency.
The
Dennis Rodman to North Korea story sadly became a side bar in celebrity
politics. Certainly, when George Stephanopoulos interviewed the "worm"
on his diplomatic mission, the celebrity as news absurdity reached a
new high. Great rebounder, bad wedding gown model. Can it end there?
Please?
One
of the necessary features of any law is enforcement. Taxes are laws,
and if you don't pay your taxes, the government swoops down on you like a
raptor on a rodent. You then must either pay up or prove that you don't
owe the money the government says you owe. Otherwise, government can
garnish your wages, take your house, or maybe even put you in prison.
None of that applies to the "tax" that Chief Justice John Roberts
"discovered" in the Affordable Care Act, which the legislation had
mistakenly labeled a "penalty" for noncompliance with the mandate to buy
health insurance. To help dissuade the judiciary from "legislating from
the bench," this newfangled tax/penalty should forevermore be referred
to as the "RobertsTax." (CAUTION: reading further may make you a
"subversive.")
If
having provisions for enforcement is necessary for a "tax" to really be
a tax, then the RobertsTax isn't a tax at all -- it's a suggestion.
That's because ObamaCare expressly forbids the IRS from prosecution for nonpayment of the RobertsTax. However, the IRS can deny the taxpayer his income tax refund if he owes the RobertsTax. (This has been addressed at The American, Forbes, Reason, NPR, Businessweek and elsewhere.) But if denial of one's income tax refund
is the only mechanism available to the IRS to enforce the RobertsTax,
then the RobertsTax can be easily avoided by simply not overpaying one's
income tax throughout the tax year.
For
those Americans just emerging from the 47 percent who don't pay income
taxes into the 53 percent who do, ObamaCare becomes an issue. If they
have a federal income tax bill of even a single dollar, they become
subject to the RobertsTax.
Line 40 of Form 1040 shows that the Standard Deduction for an unmarried person is $5,950 and Line 42 shows the exemption as $3,800. In the Tax Table on page 79 of the 1040 instructions booklet,
we see that if one has a Taxable Income of $5 (the threshold of
taxability) that one owes $1 in federal income tax. So unless I'm
missing something, an income of $9,755 would have made one subject to
the RobertsTax had it been in effect in 2012. One's last penny of income
can come at a rather steep price if it triggers the RobertsTax, which
starts at $695.
It
seems every time that tax rates go up, it's hailed as the largest tax
hike in history. But when a $1 tax bill becomes a $696 tax bill, it's
safe to say we have a new all-time winner. The RobertsTax may not only
be the largest tax hike in history, it may also be the most regressive
tax hike in history, as it's much more likely to hurt low-income
earners. (That's what happens when the judiciary starts writing tax
law.)
It may be that the IRS has more latitude in enforcing the RobertsTax than is commonly thought. Quin Hillyer writes:
"[The IRS] can choose to apply ordinary income taxes to the penalty
first [i.e., the RobertsTax], before crediting the citizen with having
paid his due income taxes -- and then the IRS can impose a penalty for
failing to pay those taxes, and then prosecute or garnish wages for
failing to pay that penalty."
Such
a tactic would seem to violate the letter of ObamaCare. But regardless
of whether the IRS has other means to collect the RobertsTax than
keeping refunds, not overpaying your income taxes during the tax year is
perfectly legal and may save you money. But if you take that tack, be
sure to owe the IRS less than $1,000 on January 15, or you'll get hit by
the Estimated Tax Penalty on Line 77 of the 1040. (If you have
questions about the Line 77 penalty, refer to Form 2210.)
To
Americans who are on the cusp of taxability and have new worries, I say
welcome to the club. Congress, through the IRS, has already drafted 53
percent of Americans into their army of unpaid tax accountants,
complicating their lives and making them all into potential lawbreakers.
And President Obama is continually saying that he needs "a little bit
more." Enough of this malarkey! It's time for government to get a little
bit less. So adjust your withholding and quarterly payments
accordingly. All Americans, not just those with low incomes, should stop
overpaying their taxes.
ObamaCare
was awful law to begin with. But now with the RobertsTax, America seems
to have a law that can't be enforced and a tax that can't be collected.
Enjoy.
Rotten to the Core, Part III: Lessons from Texas and the Growing Grassroots Revolt by Michelle Malkin Texas is a right-minded red state, where patriotism is still a virtue
and political correctness is out of vogue. So how on earth have
left-wing educators in public classrooms been allowed to instruct Lone
Star students to dress in Islamic garb, call the 9/11 jihadists “freedom
fighters” and treat the Boston Tea Party participants as “terrorists”? Here’s the dirty little secret: Despite the best efforts of vigilant
parents, teachers and administrators committed to academic excellence,
progressive activists reign supreme in government schools. That’s because curriculum is king. The liberal monopoly on the modern
textbook/curricular market remains unchallenged after a half-century.
He who controls the textbooks, teaching guides and tests controls the
academic agenda. That is how the propagandistic outfitting of students in Islamic garb
came to pass in the unlikely setting of the conservative Lumberton,
Texas, school district. As Fox News reporter Todd Starnes noted this
week, a 32-year veteran of the high school led a world geography lesson
on Islam in which hijab-wrapped students were banned from using the
words “suicide bomber” and “terrorist” to describe Muslim mass murderers
in favor of the term “freedom fighter.” Madelyn LeBlanc, one of the students in the class, “told Fox News
that it was clear her teacher was very uncomfortable lecturing the
students. ‘I do have a lot of sympathy for her. … At the very beginning,
she said she didn’t want to teach it, but it was in the curriculum.’” But the headline-grabbing injection of moral equivalence into social
studies and American history is just the tip of the education iceberg. Top-down federalized “Common Core” standards are now sweeping the
country. It’s important to remember that while teachers-union control
freaks are on board with the Common Core regime, untold numbers of
rank-and-file educators are just as angered and frustrated as parents
about the Big Ed power grab. The program was concocted not at the
grassroots level, but by a bipartisan cabal of nonprofits (led by
lobbyists for the liberal Bill Gates Foundation), statist business
groups and hoodwinked Republican governors. As I’ve reported previously,
this scheme, enabled by the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top”
funding mechanism, usurps local autonomy in favor of lesson content and
pedagogical methods. One teacher described a thought-control training seminar in her
school district titled “Making the Common Core Come Alive.” A worksheet
labeled “COMMON CORE MIND SHIFTS” included the following rhetorical muck: —The goal of curriculum should not be the coverage of content, but
rather the discovery of content. … If done well, Common Core will
elevate our teaching to new heights, and emphasize the construction of
meaning, while deepening our understanding of our students.” —”In our classrooms, it is the students’ voices, not the teachers’, that are heard.” Blah, blah, blah. In practice, Common Core evades transparency by
peddling shoddy curricular material authored by anonymous committees. It
promotes faddish experiments masquerading as “world-class” math and
reading goals. Instead of raising expectations, Common Core is a Trojan
horse for lowering them. California, for example, is now citing Common
Core as a rationale for abandoning algebra classes for 8th graders.
Common Core’s “constructivist” approach to reading is now the rationale
for abandoning classic literature for “informational texts.” [See Dr. Sandra Stotsky's alternative English language standards here, which she is offering to any school district/educators for free.] Claims that Common Core bubbled up from the states are bass-ackward. A
shady nonprofit group called “Achieve Inc.” stocked with
federal-standards advocates who’ve been around since the Clinton years,
designed the materials. They were rubber-stamped by the National
Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) and subsidized by the Gates Foundation. [See the Pioneer Institute here for background on how the money game works and how some conservative groups have been duped/bought off.] In states like Texas, which rejected Common Core, similar secretive alliances prevail. The Texas
Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative, a nonprofit group
led by government officials, designed the “CSCOPE” curriculum now
used in 80 percent of the state’s schools. The state Board of Education,
local schools and parents were denied access to the online CSCOPE
curriculum database — which was exempted from disclosure rules. In fact,
dissemination of the lessons was considered a crime until earlier this
month. Only after parents and teachers across the state blew the whistle
on radical CSCOPE lesson plans (including designing a new flag for a socialist lesson) did the state take steps to rein in the CSCOPE zealots. Grassroots activists in Indiana, Alabama, Utah and nearly a dozen
other states are now educating themselves and their state legislatures
about the centralized education racket, whether it’s under the guise of
Common Core or any other name. Last week, in response to a passionate
parent-driven protest, the Indiana state Senate passed legislation to halt Common Core implementation. Anti-Common Core bills are moving through the Alabama state legislature, where lawmakers are especially concerned about how Common Core’s intrusive database gathering would violate student privacy. As Texas goes, so goes the nation. The fight against the federalization of academic standards is a national education Alamo. http://michellemalkin.com/2013/03/01/rotten-to-the-core-part-iii-lessons-from-texas-and-the-growing-grassroots-revolt/
The Rural Housing Bubble
USDA program’s mismanagement led to nine-figure losses, IG report says
A federal program that guarantees home loans to rural borrowers has
seen taxpayer losses and foreclosure rates skyrocket, problems federal
watchdogs attribute to bureaucratic mismanagement but others say are
more fundamental.
President Barack Obama used $10.5 billion in stimulus funds in 2009
to increase federal spending on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program.
USDA spent $27.8 billion on the program, which reimburses private
lenders for up to 90 percent of the cost of default for loans made to
low- and moderate-income borrowers in rural areas, in the four fiscal
years ending in 2011.
The department’s loss claims—its reimbursements for loans in
default—increased dramatically in recent years, according to a recent report
from USDA’s inspector general. The program paid $103 million in loss
claims in fiscal year 2008; that figure had nearly tripled, to $295
million, by fiscal year 2011.
The number of guaranteed loans increased by 131 percent from FY 2008
to FY 2011, while the number of foreclosures increased by 458 percent.
The IG in part blames bureaucratic mismanagement, noting that USDA
did not put in place measures to ensure that borrowers were actually
eligible for the program and did not undertake required steps to
minimize taxpayer losses.
However, financial experts say the program’s losses speak to an
inherent problem in federal efforts to extend credit to borrowers who
might not qualify absent government intervention.
“Structurally, these programs will always lose money,” said Mark
Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato
Institute, because they exist to encourage banks to lend to borrowers
who would not qualify for home loans if the risk of losses from those
loans were not borne by taxpayers.
USDA did not respond to a request for comment. The agency did propose
a host of corrective actions in response to the IG’s concerns.
The IG report estimates that USDA staff did not undertake all
necessary steps to minimize taxpayer losses for about 70 percent of
guaranteed loans. As a result, the report questions another $254 million
in loss claims.
Because “the agency did not take steps to verify that lenders had
considered all options for assisting the borrower without having to
resort to foreclosure,” the report states, taxpayers “cannot be assured
that losses from these loans were minimized as much as possible to the
USDA.”
The report also estimates that about 30 percent of guaranteed loans
were made to borrowers who may not have been eligible, resulting in $87
million in questioned loss claims.
The USDA agency that administers the program, according to the
report, “did not identify these loans as being questionable, and,
therefore, paid the loss claims without having them examined by a review
committee that may have reduced the losses paid or disqualified the
claims entirely.”
“Most of these loans had problems that could have been easily
identified during a data scan, such as low credit scores, high debt
ratios, or short employment histories,” the report notes.
Calabria said such problems are perfect examples of the deficiencies inherent in such programs. “Usually lenders are happy to make safe loans,” he said.
Additional financial incentives are needed only for borrowers who,
like those identified in the IG report, have credit histories that might
disqualify them from a non-guaranteed home loan.
“The intent of the program is clearly to get lenders to make loans
they wouldn’t make otherwise” due to the heightened risk of default,
Calabria said.
John Berlau, senior fellow for finance and access to capital at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agreed. “The government subsidize[s] risky home loans that the private sector
would never have made without these direct or indirect subsidies,” he
said. “Republicans and Democrats, though the latter to a much larger
extent, pursued the misguided goal that everyone should be encouraged to
be a homeowner to achieve the American Dream.”
“The USDA’s additional souring mortgages should be a wakeup call to
these politicos that government’s only role in housing should be to lift
crushing regulatory barriers to affordable homes, such as Dodd-Frank
and green ‘smart-growth’ regulation,” he said.
http://freebeacon.com/the-rural-housing-bubble/
'We are above the law of the land'
Muslim leader's stunning claim at Texas rally for
Islam
Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law, according to a
leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who delivered the
controversial message to a crowd at a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas.
“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said
Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.
The rally in Austin was part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol
Day” events.
According to the event
website, Muslims from around Texas went to the capitol to “promote civic and
political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”
The organizers said one major issue discussed “was the recent House and
Senate bill proposals involving the implementation of ‘anti-Shariah’
legislation, where the First Amendment rights and freedoms of Muslims would
ultimately be hindered.”
Critics argue Shariah prohibits other faiths from free exercise of religion
when enforced, giving freedom only to Muslims.
Carroll’s statement was similar to a statement allegedly made by CAIR
co-founder and former chairman Omar M. Ahmad. He was paraphrased by a
reporter saying, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to
become dominant” and the Quran “should be the highest authority in America, and
Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
Carroll began joking about the widespread concern about Shariah, the
religious code that governs Muslim civil and political life.
“We tried to downplay Shariah, because we didn’t want to give the other side
any excitement for being here,” he said.
He dismissed critics who express concern about Shariah, calling them
“anti-foreign.”
“When you even say the word Shariah, people get nervous. We are not
advocating for Shariah. We are not trying to make Shariah the law of the land,”
he said.
Carroll claimed Muslims only want the “right to practice our faith.”
But he also said, “If you understand Shariah, the foundation of our faith …
how we treat our neighbor, how we treat our parents … how we participate in
society, all of that is part of Shariah.”
“I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I
think, you know, that what we’ve heard for a number of years is this terrorist,
terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas,” he’s
said.
“Look at the true cause of the terrorism. It’s not somebody is reading a
book, reading a Quran, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Quran told me to blow
this up. I’m gonna blow it up.’ The cause, the root cause of terrorism is
oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression.”
Rev. Ronnie C. Lister, a social justice activist from the Houston area, spoke
at Muslim Capitol Day.
“This country belongs to you. This state house is your state house. The
police department is your police department,” he told the crowd. “This land is
your land. … God is on your side … this is your house. [It] does not belong to
the Republicans. It does not belong to the Democrats. It does not belong to just
Americans. It belongs to all of us!
“We are looking for the day when a Muslim will become president of the United
States; you heard it from me,” Lister said.
Islamic expert Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy in
Washington, D.C., told WND that Carroll’s declaration of Islamic supremacy was
consistent with Muslim teaching.
“When you hear one of their speakers say, we are above the law of the land –
take it to the bank. That is what they really believe,” he said. “That is what
all Muslims believe. That is what Shariah teaches. To the extent that Muslims
adhere to Shariah, they are obliged to try and impose it on the rest of us.”
“The organized spread of Shariah is what Gaffney calls “civilization
jihad.”
Oh my: Americans know less about sequester than you’d think
If you asked me how much I thought the
average American knew about sequestration, I’d say little-to-nothing. As
it turns out, I may have been too optimistic.
To see what the folks know, late-night
host Jimmy Kimmel asked pedestrians in Hollywood for their thoughts on
the sequester… and Obama’s “pardon” of it… and it’s apparent deployment
to Portugal.
As one woman points out, details on the sequester are fuzzy, but one thing is certain: Portugal has a constitutional right to be protected. Go Obama!
"Today’s
Washington journalists are like J. R. R. Tolkien’s ring wraiths, petty
lords who wanted a few shiny golden Obama rings — only to end up as
shrunken slaves to the One."
No comments:
Post a Comment