Congress to focus on abortion funding, farm bill and flood insurance in addition to president's speech this week
BySusan FerrichioWith Congress this week focused on President Obama's State of the Union address scheduled for Tuesday, a light agenda in both the House and Senate will focus on taxpayer funding for abortion, legislation to prevent flood insurance hikes and a long-awaited deal on a farm bill.
Obama is expected to highlight income inequality in his Tuesday night speech, an issue Democrats have been pushing as part of their own agenda on Capitol Hill but without much luck at passing legislation.
...While negotiations go on behind the scenes over jobless pay legislation, senators will take up the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act, beginning with a procedural vote on Monday.
...House lawmakers will remain in session only until mid-week so that Republicans can meet privately for their annual conference, which will take place in Cambridge, Md., on Jan. 29-31.
Before they leave Washington, the House will vote on legislation aimed at preventing taxpayer funding of abortions by permanently encoding in law the patchwork of annual amendments that lawmakers have passed to prevent such funding.
In addition to the abortion funding legislation, the House could take up a compromise deal on reauthorizing a five-year farm bill if House and Senate negotiators are able to strike an agreement by Wednesday afternoon.
The Farm Bill Boondoggle
By Daniel HorowitzSome things will never change in Washington. And this week’s deal on the Farm/Food Stamp bill is a perfect example of Washington’s recalcitrance to conservative reforms. After months of a protracted K Street food fight, the majority of the lobbyists appear to have brought home enough bacon and have settled on a deal.
Throughout the week you will find headlines heralding the bipartisan agreement to “save” $24 billion in Farm Bill – $8 billion from food stamps and $15 billion from agriculture. But as we’ve learned from past experiences, spending cuts in Washington parlance are quite unique.
The CBO’s 10-year score for the 2008 Farm Bill was $604 billion. After Obama engendered a massive increase in food stamp spending with looser eligibility requirements, the overall baseline was driven up to roughly $972.8 billion. The House proposed a $40 billion “cut” in food stamp spending from that baseline. The Senate proposed a $4 billion “cut.” They get together in conference and….drum roll…we have an $8 billion cut….off the $972 billion baseline. That is what counts for cutting spending in Washington.
Moreover, any projected score on food stamp spending is meaningless. The food stamp program is part of mandatory spending, and given the fact that this bill fails to structurally reform the program on a large scale, the 10-year cost will continue to rise as more people are encouraged to join.
On the agriculture side, this bill is an even bigger joke. Drafters of the bill are boasting how they are abolishing $5 billion in direct subsidies. The problem is that this bill creates new subsidy programs, which will be even more expensive and market-distorting – and they will be permanent law, not subject to reauthorization.
....It’s also important to note that it’s bills like this which help create a culture of dependency in red states (on top of the blue state dependency culture). You will hear many of the Republicans who represent these districts speak out passionately against Obamacare, yet celebrate the endless agriculture subsidies in this bill. What they fail to tell you is that it is precisely this bipartisan culture of injecting the federal government into private enterprise that has given rise to the climate which engendered passage of Obamacare. The Feds didn’t take over the healthcare sector overnight. It was facilitated by the precedent of decades’ worth of government intervention in private industries such as agriculture. If government can completely control commodity prices through price targeting, trade barriers, and production quotas, it wasn’t such a drastic leap to take over the healthcare sector.
Federal intervention into state and private business will not end overnight or in one year. But this Farm Bill is one more indication that we will never have a chance to downsize government so long as the current politicians are leading both political parties. They continue to add more government intervention even on top of the rare programs that are repealed.
This bill doesn’t represent incremental reform; it is a classic bait-and-switch subterfuge to spend more and grow government, while seizing the mantle of fiscal reform. Conservatives beware.
Obama to Push Net Tax Hike on Businesses in SOTU
By Ben ShapiroAccording to Americans for Tax Reform, President Obama will push a tax hike on American businesses in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday. ATR reports that “according to reports, the ‘offer’ President Obama is making is to raise net taxes on employers, and use some of the tax increase revenue windfall to pay for Democrat-aligned union construction projects.”
Obama will reportedly propose a cut in the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, but that number would only apply to major corporations. Smaller employers would pay a 44 percent tax rate.
Most Americans continue to pay individual tax rates – meaning that the biggest corporations would face lower taxes than the smaller businesses Obama claims to stand for. Obama’s corporate tax rate reduction would place the United States higher than average in the industrialized world. Meanwhile, the United States would continue to double-tax profits earned overseas.
Poll: 99% Don't Care About Obama/Media Pet 2014 Issues
By John NolteA Quinnipiac poll released last week is a stark reminder of just how out of touch President Obama and the mainstream media are when it comes to the concerns and priorities of everyday Americans. Anyone at all familiar with the issues Obama and his media intend to push in 2014, knows that it is going to be a year all about income inequality, the minimum wage, immigration, and guns. This, even though 99% of the public do not consider those issues a priority.
When Quinnipiac asked voters "What do you think should be the top priority for President Obama and Congress in 2014?" -- income inequality earned 1%, class inequality earned 1%, gun issues earned 1%, and immigration earned only 2%.
More bad news for a media desperate to further their Global Warming hoax through the dark art of portraying everyday weather as The Worst Ever, is that only 2% of the public see the environment as a priority.
Issues the American people unsurprisingly do list as top priorities are the economy (15%), jobs/unemployment (16%), and healthcare (18%). And it is in all three of those areas where Obama's standing with the American people is in the dumpster. On the economy and healthcare, the president is upside down on approval 39-56% and 36-59% , respectively.
Just like they did with gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, to set Obama up for a win, the media will ignore what truly matters to the American people and fabricate a reality that claims the minimum wage, immigration, and income inequality are the most important issues in the history of the Republic. More than setting up Obama for a win, this tactic also seeks to intimidate Republicans into caving by way of the idea that THIS matters and America is against them.
It certainly makes sense for a failed president to stick to issues no one cares about because he thinks he can pull out a much-needed win. That's politics. But for a media that poses as objective to provide air cover is nothing short of propagandizing for your government.
The week ahead in economics: Ben Bernanke's goodbye, Bitcoin and GDP
By Joseph Lawler...For the week ahead:
Members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors and regional Fed bank presidents will gather in Washington on Tuesday and Wednesday for the last monetary policy meeting headed by Chairman Ben Bernanke before Janet Yellen takes over in February. Most analysts expect the Fed to follow its $10 billion taper of its monthly asset purchases last month with another $10 billion reduction, despite December's weak jobs report and continued low inflation.
Bitcoin will face the latest test of its credibility in a two-day set of hearings before New York's Department of Financial Services. The Winklevoss twins, who are known for suing Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg over their role in the development of the social media site but are now major investors in Bitcoin and related businesses, are scheduled to testify during the first day's hearings on Tuesday.
Also on Wednesday, the House Committee on the Budget will hold the next hearing in its series on the progress on the War on Poverty. Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is one of several big GOP names who have recently spoken more about conservative approaches to reducing poverty.
On Thursday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis will release its initial estimate for fourth-quarter growth in the gross domestic product. After a third-quarter reading of 4.1 percent growth, another strong number is expected.
Conservatives Must Break the Establishment’s Rules
By Kurt Schlichter....But remember, “sexism” is holding a liberal woman to the same standards of integrity as a man. Think of the MSNBC coverage if Sarah Palin – who was raked over the coals for keeping her child – was accused of a tenth of Wendy’s perfidy. They’d probably even preempt Lock-Up.
So we conservatives are supposed to be silent about the faux heroine in tennis shoes who valiantly fought against the peril of babies being born, about the women whose face launched a thousand Manhattan fundraisers, about the newest feminist icon and symbol of just what a woman can do when her soon-to-be ex is writing the checks.
The rules say we must to be silent, that talking about her is somehow not understanding women’s stories. Gosh, the last thing we’d want to do is not understand a woman’s story, whatever that means. We better just sit, quiet and obedient. We’d better obey the Establishment’s rules.
Their rules. The rules that keep them in power. The rules that didn’t apply when the NYT ran a barely sourced hit piece on John McCain’s alleged affair during his campaign. Those rules.
...There’s another rule we didn’t hear about until Chris Christie stopped haranguing conservatives long enough to explain why his administration thought it was cool to abuse the public for its own personal amusement. Apparently, we’re supposed to offer our credibility in support of Christie in his time of need. He’s a Republican you know, and the rules say that when a Republican moderate needs conservatives, we conservatives are duty bound to come running.
Vice versa? Not so much.
So we’ll get right on that.
...The Establishment’s rules also require that we stop demanding that Republicans who claim to be conservative act like conservatives, support conservatism and, you know, be conservative. The rules are there because this short-sighted insistence by conservatives on conservatism is somehow certain to prevent the success of conservatism. We conservatives are just too unsophisticated to understand that true conservatism will only be achieved by a strategy of surrender, compromise and acquiescence to expanded government power.
Busted! The Democratic Party's Moral Superiority
By Michael Bargo Jr....While Democrats have a set script with regard to campaign rhetoric -- they demonize Republicans while claiming that only Democrats are concerned for the needy and less privileged -- in order to understand their true character, it is necessary to look at how they behave once they are in power. This is most clearly revealed through how they respond to perceived threats to their control of money.
Democrats have shown a consistent inability to balance budgets at the local, state, and national level. And after creating a fiscal crisis, Democrats always say that if they are not given more money "essential services" will be cut back. This implies that they will make the voters suffer if they are unable to persuade the GOP to give them more money by raising the deficit ceiling; revealing that they practice moral blackmail as standard operating procedure. Last year President Obama went out of his way to close off the WW II memorial to visiting veterans.
Recently, Chicago's Mayor Emanuel, who worked in Obama's White House as Chief of Staff, stated that if the city couldn't find money for police and fire pensions "essential services" would be cut. He failed to explain why those retired fire and policemen who receive pensions of over $70,000 a year can't survive on $30K, the highest benefit received by social security recipients. The pattern is clear: the middle class and poor are held hostage in budget negotiations while those who work for government are not, no matter how high their salaries and pensions may be.
Democrats, paradoxically, always want to punish the poor whenever they don't get their way. And it's always about getting more money: they want the debt limit raised or taxes increased.
Voters fail to understand the true meaning of this tactic. If Democrats were really concerned for the poor, voters should expect them to say that they will make any spending cuts necessary in order to preserve essential services. They would bear any burden, climb any mountain, to make sure the elderly and most needy do not lose their essential Federal support. Instead, they hold the needy hostage to satisfy their insatiable lust for power and money.
....Anyone who votes for Democrats should ask themselves how they would feel if someone at their office constantly practiced the strategy of berating other workers just to get promoted. And once they had the job, blamed others for everything that went wrong. If this appears to be unseemly in the workplace, then Democratic supporters should wonder why they accept it from their Democratic political leaders.
Voters who believe that Democrats are the party of moral superiority should ask themselves: under what conditions have Republicans threatened to remove benefits?
This great contradiction, this great double standard, in which the Democratic Party asks voters to make a distinction between the DNC and GOP based on the immoral character of Republicans, while threatening to take benefits and essential services away from the poor they were elected to serve to protect their own funds, is an astounding example of persuasiveness that functions beyond the constraints of reason.
It's based on an ancient and very unfortunate tendency of human beings to see other groups as inferior to themselves, so as to rationalize the exploitation of those groups. Historically this tendency has manifested itself in genocide, slavery, and the economic oppression of others. The suspension of reason by manipulation is what makes it possible, in this age when politics has allegedly risen above biases based on race and group-think, for one party to demonize another.
In the final analysis, the strategy employed by Democrats is one of social domination derived from social derision. It is an unfortunate trait of human nature for people to denigrate others. Further proof of the moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Party lies in the fact that they have aggressively chosen to employ this tactic.
In fact, this strategy has been used so consistently, that Democrats are now predictable: they will threaten safety net programs whenever they encounter resistance to a tax or national debt increase.
Everything You Ever Needed to Know about the Left’s View of Income Inequality, Captured in a Single Image
By Daniel J Mitchell...This picture is another way of getting across the same point. It was sent to me by Richard Rahn (famous for the Rahn Curve), and it uses two pizzas to show how leftist policies would “solve” inequality.
...The growing or shrinking pizza is useful because it helps to focus people on the importance of growth.
Nations that follow the right policy recipe can enjoy the kind of strong and sustained growth that enables huge increases in prosperity for all income classes. In other words, everyone can have a bigger slice if the pie is growing.
Benghazi cover-up continues
By Thomas LifsonThe Obama and Clinton political machines know how to protect and reward their friends and punish their enemies. The 9/11 attack on the Benghazi diplomatic facility represents a clear and present danger to continued Democrat domination of the White House, and so it is of prime importance to keep gums from flapping about what really happened.
Daniel Greenfield reports at Front Page Magazine:
At the Congressional hearing, Charlene Lamb stated that she would not have approved more security for Benghazi and said, "we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon."Will we ever know the truth? Voters deserve to know it before casting their 2016 presidential votes. But probably the turth will out only with a Republican president after 2016, and only if it is someone who has the guts to go after the truth.
That conclusion was shot down by the first friendly insider "protect Hillary" report and the second more serious Senate report. Lamb also refused to describe Benghazi as a terrorist attack.
Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer, blamed Lamb directly in his testimony.
In that interview, Nordstrom said he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March 2012 and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but he received no responses.He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low. He said Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.So obviously the thing to do is to move Lamb up the ladder.
High School Band Gets Schooled in Liberalism
...The Cuyahoga Falls High School Tigers Marching Band has been planning a trip to Disney World for some time. No public funds are used for the trip. The trip is paid for by student and parent-led fundraisers. All but 26 of the band's 185 members are signed up for the trip.The marching band has been taking trips for more than 30 years. While some members' families or relatives pay the full amount of the trips, most students participate in sales, car washes, or other fundraising events to cover part (or even all) of the cost...But this year the school board has added a bit of a wrinkle. This week, the board unanimously approved the trip with a significant caveat.
Cooper Tedquist, a freshman, sold entertainment books, Pampered Chef products, and candy during soccer games and worked as a pet sitter, dog walker, and litter box cleaner to earn money for the Disney World trip.
Junior Torry Breehl washed cars, participated in "dining to donate" events at local restaurants and sold items to raise money.
They were among two of the approximately 25 students and 50 parents who sat through the four-hour meeting Tuesday to find out if their work paid off.
If any of the 26 students who are not on the trip roster notify marching band director Brandon DuVall by Jan. 29 that they are not going because of financial hardship, the band program must find a way to pay for the student's trip. If DuVall can't come up with the money, no one goes.The band program does not have a pot of public money on which to draw for the trip. So the students and parents who worked hard to earn money for the trip need to figure out a way to pay for the students and parents who did not work to earn money, or the trip is off.
America's Most Important Property Rights Legislation
By Mark J Fitzgibbons
American Thinker has covered the saga of Virginia farmer Martha Boneta,
who was cited in 2012 by Fauquier County government and threatened with
$5,000 per-day fines for hosting a private birthday party for eight
10-year-old girls without a permit, and advertising pumpkin carvings --
even though she had a business license.
Boneta's tiny farm store where she sold organic vegetables, beeswax candles and fibers from her over-100 rescued animals was shut down as she took a principled course of action to fight the county.
Every day local governments across the country abuse zoning laws to bully citizens, and violate property and other constitutionally protected rights. Most of these abuses are never known by the general public because citizens lack the resources to challenge these violations, or fear fighting back because of the well-known propensity of government to retaliate.
Citizens often concede to these abuses, and part little by little -- or a whole lot, literally and figuratively -- with their rights. The U.S. Supreme Court recently called some local abuses of zoning or land use laws "extortive."
Local governments have vast opportunity to violate rights on private property because they exercise zoning power through land use laws.
Predatory local bureaucrats and anti-property rights crusaders masquerading as environmental groups figured out that it is easy to override property rights at the local government level. In Willie Sutton terms, that's where the control is.
The National Association of Counties, for example, works more and more with the Obama administration to implement by executive order intrusive climate change and other invasive regulation at the local and national levels.
Into this issue of local government abuses of property rights has stepped Delegate Bob Marshall, well-known as perhaps the most principled constitutional conservative in the Virginia legislature. Marshall has introduced HB 1219, a landmark remedies bill that relies on old and recent precedent to hold abusive government in check.
The essence of HB 1219 is that it makes local government and even government officials subject to consequences for their abuses of rights, but in no way impedes proper uses of zoning authority.
Under the bill, citizens who sue when localities violate constitutional rights through zoning abuses can be awarded damages including attorney fees. Local governments that intentionally violate rights face stiffer penalties. Local officials who intentionally violate this law are subject to liability.
Federal precedent includes the law codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, where citizens can sue for damages and attorney fees when state actors violate constitutional rights "under color of state law," meaning under the guise of state law.
HB 1219 creates whistleblower protections for local officials who come forward with violations of this law, and allows the state attorney general to intervene on behalf of victims of government abuse.
The bill also instructs courts to nullify local ordinances that violate constitutional rights. Localities would now have better incentive to write ordinances that comply with our supreme, fundamental and paramount law, the Constitution, in the first place.
People will say that courts already have this power to nullify unconstitutional laws. True. But in the name of judicial restraint, courts too often defer to inferior laws that violate our supreme law, which allows legislative bodies to trample on our rights. Here, the inferior law eliminates that foible.
Constitutionalists especially will like the next provision. It is that local ordinances do not have a presumption of constitutional validity.
In a 1981 constitutional challenge to a zoning ordinance, the Virginia Supreme Court declared that local ordinances have a presumption of validity, hence a presumption of constitutionality. This presumption is not created by statute, but by the judiciary, and places the burden on citizens to prove that laws are unconstitutional rather than making government prove that their laws are constitutional, or at least start the case from a level playing field.
The respective supreme courts have accorded state and federal statutes a presumption of constitutionality. Some legal scholars including Professor Randy Barnett have criticized that presumption, even calling it unconstitutional. But, state and federal laws at least go through a constitutional process of two legislative chambers and a threat of executive veto. It is that constitutional structure -- checks and balances -- on which the presumption is based.
Local ordinances do not go through such a constitutional process, but may be passed merely by a vote of three out of five elected officials in some localities. That's hardly a basis for giving ordinances a presumption of constitutional validity.
In the first century of our American republic, citizens could sue and obtain damages from federal officials who exceeded their legal authority. This had the effect of making officials at least think twice before overreaching. HB 1219 includes remedies for ultra vires acts, meaning acting in excess of one's legal authority.
Any good remedies law should be intended to prevent the need for litigation in the first place by creating disincentives for bad behavior. Bob Marshall's remedies bill does that by putting arrows in the quiver of any citizen bullied by local governments. It's a model that other state legislatures should replicate, and soon.
PK'S NOTE: Look at the bold quote here. She's still not taking any form of responsibility.
Hillary Wants to Get Benghazi Out of the Way
By Bryan Preston
Hillary Clinton has given comments in which she claims that Benghazi is her “greatest regret” as secretary of state.
Congress called for the State Department to investigate Benghazi, so Clinton hand-picked an Accountability Review Board that ruled out holding anyone among Clinton’s political appointees or senior staff, let alone Clinton herself, accountable.
When she was questioned about her “biggest regret,” and why she blamed it on a video, in testimony before Congress in January 2013, Clinton screeched, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Boneta's tiny farm store where she sold organic vegetables, beeswax candles and fibers from her over-100 rescued animals was shut down as she took a principled course of action to fight the county.
Every day local governments across the country abuse zoning laws to bully citizens, and violate property and other constitutionally protected rights. Most of these abuses are never known by the general public because citizens lack the resources to challenge these violations, or fear fighting back because of the well-known propensity of government to retaliate.
Citizens often concede to these abuses, and part little by little -- or a whole lot, literally and figuratively -- with their rights. The U.S. Supreme Court recently called some local abuses of zoning or land use laws "extortive."
Local governments have vast opportunity to violate rights on private property because they exercise zoning power through land use laws.
Predatory local bureaucrats and anti-property rights crusaders masquerading as environmental groups figured out that it is easy to override property rights at the local government level. In Willie Sutton terms, that's where the control is.
The National Association of Counties, for example, works more and more with the Obama administration to implement by executive order intrusive climate change and other invasive regulation at the local and national levels.
Into this issue of local government abuses of property rights has stepped Delegate Bob Marshall, well-known as perhaps the most principled constitutional conservative in the Virginia legislature. Marshall has introduced HB 1219, a landmark remedies bill that relies on old and recent precedent to hold abusive government in check.
The essence of HB 1219 is that it makes local government and even government officials subject to consequences for their abuses of rights, but in no way impedes proper uses of zoning authority.
Under the bill, citizens who sue when localities violate constitutional rights through zoning abuses can be awarded damages including attorney fees. Local governments that intentionally violate rights face stiffer penalties. Local officials who intentionally violate this law are subject to liability.
Federal precedent includes the law codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, where citizens can sue for damages and attorney fees when state actors violate constitutional rights "under color of state law," meaning under the guise of state law.
HB 1219 creates whistleblower protections for local officials who come forward with violations of this law, and allows the state attorney general to intervene on behalf of victims of government abuse.
The bill also instructs courts to nullify local ordinances that violate constitutional rights. Localities would now have better incentive to write ordinances that comply with our supreme, fundamental and paramount law, the Constitution, in the first place.
People will say that courts already have this power to nullify unconstitutional laws. True. But in the name of judicial restraint, courts too often defer to inferior laws that violate our supreme law, which allows legislative bodies to trample on our rights. Here, the inferior law eliminates that foible.
Constitutionalists especially will like the next provision. It is that local ordinances do not have a presumption of constitutional validity.
In a 1981 constitutional challenge to a zoning ordinance, the Virginia Supreme Court declared that local ordinances have a presumption of validity, hence a presumption of constitutionality. This presumption is not created by statute, but by the judiciary, and places the burden on citizens to prove that laws are unconstitutional rather than making government prove that their laws are constitutional, or at least start the case from a level playing field.
The respective supreme courts have accorded state and federal statutes a presumption of constitutionality. Some legal scholars including Professor Randy Barnett have criticized that presumption, even calling it unconstitutional. But, state and federal laws at least go through a constitutional process of two legislative chambers and a threat of executive veto. It is that constitutional structure -- checks and balances -- on which the presumption is based.
Local ordinances do not go through such a constitutional process, but may be passed merely by a vote of three out of five elected officials in some localities. That's hardly a basis for giving ordinances a presumption of constitutional validity.
In the first century of our American republic, citizens could sue and obtain damages from federal officials who exceeded their legal authority. This had the effect of making officials at least think twice before overreaching. HB 1219 includes remedies for ultra vires acts, meaning acting in excess of one's legal authority.
Any good remedies law should be intended to prevent the need for litigation in the first place by creating disincentives for bad behavior. Bob Marshall's remedies bill does that by putting arrows in the quiver of any citizen bullied by local governments. It's a model that other state legislatures should replicate, and soon.
PK'S NOTE: Look at the bold quote here. She's still not taking any form of responsibility.
Hillary Wants to Get Benghazi Out of the Way
By Bryan Preston
Hillary Clinton has given comments in which she claims that Benghazi is her “greatest regret” as secretary of state.
“My biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi,” Clinton said when asked to identify “do-overs” of her time as America’s top diplomat during her keynote appearance before the the National Automobile Dealers Association in New Orleans.What a venue to express such a deep regret, but to be fair, the national media have had chances to ask her about Benghazi. 60 Minutes had that chance, with both Clinton and Obama giving a joint interview. 60 Minutes didn’t ask. Barbara Walters doesn’t care about Benghazi. She just finds Hillary Clinton fascinating.
“It was a terrible tragedy, losing four Americans, two diplomats and now it’s public, so I can say two CIA operatives, losing an ambassador like Chris Stevens, who was one of our very best and had served in Libya and across the Middle East and spoke Arabic,” she saidJust for the sake of history, let’s recall that Clinton could have prevented the attack but failed to do so. Her State Department turned down repeated requests for enhancing security at the U.S. facility in Benghazi. After the attack, she blamed it on a YouTube video and promised one of the parents of the victims that the U.S. government would go after and get the man who made that video. Clinton made good on that threat. The perpetrators who actually carried out the attack, however, remain at large and the Obama government has shown no interest in capturing them.
“I mean, you know, you make these choices based on imperfect information,” she said. “And you make them to ,as we say, the best of your ability. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns.”
Congress called for the State Department to investigate Benghazi, so Clinton hand-picked an Accountability Review Board that ruled out holding anyone among Clinton’s political appointees or senior staff, let alone Clinton herself, accountable.
When she was questioned about her “biggest regret,” and why she blamed it on a video, in testimony before Congress in January 2013, Clinton screeched, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
By Victor Davis Hanson
It is popular now to talk of race, class, and gender oppression. But left out of this focus on supposed victim groups is the one truly targeted cohort — the young. Despite the Obama-era hype, we are not suffering new outbreaks of racism. Wendy Davis is not the poster girl for a resurgent misogyny. There is no epidemic of homophobia. Instead, if this administration’s policies are any guide, we are witnessing a pandemic of ephebiphobia — an utter disregard for young people.
The war against those under 30 — and the unborn — is multifaceted. No one believes that the present payroll deductions leveled on working youth will result in the same levels of support upon their retirements that is now extended to the retiring baby-boom generation. Instead, the probable solutions of raising the retirement age, cutting back the rate of payouts, hiking taxes on benefits, and raising payroll rates are discussed in an environment of après moi le déluge — to come into effect after the boomers are well pensioned off.
The baby-boomer/me generation demands what its “greatest generation” parents got — or, in fact, far more, given its increased rates of longevity. The solution of more taxes and less benefits will fall on young people and the unborn, apparently on the premise that those under 18 do not vote, and those between 18 and 30 either vote less frequently than their grandparents or less knowledgeably about their own self-interest.
....In short, those now in the womb to the age of thirty will have to subsidize Social Security and Medicare for benefits that they themselves will never commensurately enjoy. They are paying far more for college than did either their parents or grandparents, and receiving less sound education and more dismal job prospects — with aggregate student loan debt that may match their mortgage obligations. Finally, the youth have no choice whether they wish to become as profligate as were their parents. Like it or not, for the next generation’s natural lifespan, federal budgets will be reduced and taxes probably raised to service the enormous debt of others.
...How odd that President Obama, in his soon-to-be-infamous “I have a pen and phone” boast to bypass the Congress, claimed that he would act outside the Constitution to enact his agenda and help the “kids.”
In truth, no administration in recent memory has done more to harm young people. Like some strange exotic species of the animal kingdom, we Americans are now eating our own young.
No comments:
Post a Comment