If Benghazi, IRS targeting of Conservatives, NSA Data Mining, and the Spying on AP reporters/Fox's J. Rosen are "Phony Scandals", then:
* Why did Obama/minions initially pitch a "Phony Video" as the cause of the Benghazi attack? Why Didn't The Obama Admin Even Try to Send Help - After All No One Knew How Long They Could Hold Out? Why Did the Obama Admin Turn Down Repeated Requests for Additional Security?
* Why were we first told that the IRS targeting of Conservatives was done SOLELY by rogue low level IRS Cincinnati employees? Why did Obama First Say in May that the targeting of political groups was an "outrage" - While Now It's a "Phony Scandal"? Why Does Former IRS Head Lois Lerner Keep Taking the Fifth?
* Why did the Obama Administration keep the depth of the NSA Data Mining from Congress and the American people?
* Why were Associated Press Reporters/Rosen - who were just doing their jobs in accordance with the 1st Amend to the Constitution, being spied on by DOJ? Why did DOJ have to "judge shop" (3 different judges) to obtain a warrant to spy on Rosen?
Monday, July 29, 2013
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Flat Tax/Fair Tax: While Progressive tax systems are definitely gentler to the poor/middle class, any tax system that taxes people at different rates isn't "fair". True, the rich would make out with a Flat Tax/Fair Tax, and in the past I was more against than for such, for 2 reasons I now favor the Flat Tax/Fair Tax: More and more folks are voting for their pocket rather than what's best for the country. To stop these irresponsible voting patterns, we need ALL people to have "skin in the game" - sorry if that hurts some folks but the strategy of trying to get the rich to pay for everything, while our deficit balloons, needs to end! Also, based on Obama Admin using the IRS as a tool to suppress/punish Cons, believe Dems/the IRS cannot be trusted - IRS needs to be abolished. Flat Tax/Fair Tax would allow for that! NOTE: There might still be a minimal requirement for an IRS like entity with the Flat Tax - but it'd be insignificant in the scheme of things, and have not real discretionary power.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Benghazi Survivors:
Where are the Benghazi Survivors? It's like they've disappeared from the face of the earth. It's been over five months since the 9/11 tragedy, and we haven't heard one word about that night from any of the 20+ Benghazi survivors. The main question is, where are they? A recently published article - http://shar.es/YNaK0 states that the survivors are forbidden from discussing that night due to non disclosure statements they signed when they were first hired. NOTE: When you consider the fact that the person that benefits from supressing the testimony of these people is Obama, the information/facts they are cognizant of must be damaging indeed for Obama to keep them from testifying by threatening them with their non disclosure statements.
Sen. Graham: is "fighting the good fight" in Senate Hearings right now trying to determine what really happened that night. Consider the chances of his getting Obama/his subordinates to "fess up" to be slim and none. Why? Consider it likely that if the truth ever came out about that night, it would lead to impeachment proceedings and end up bringing down the Obama administration. Deceptions, half-truths, and outright lies are what Sen. Graham has in store for him from his current list of "witnesses".
Whistleblowers: What we need to crack this case is whistleblowers, and the best whistleblowers that come to mind are the Benghazi survivors - people who were actually there that night. Sen Graham should refocus his efforts on getting the survivors to testify, and issue them subpoenas, rather than trying to "break" Obama's high level administrative employees.
Where are the Benghazi Survivors? It's like they've disappeared from the face of the earth. It's been over five months since the 9/11 tragedy, and we haven't heard one word about that night from any of the 20+ Benghazi survivors. The main question is, where are they? A recently published article - http://shar.es/YNaK0 states that the survivors are forbidden from discussing that night due to non disclosure statements they signed when they were first hired. NOTE: When you consider the fact that the person that benefits from supressing the testimony of these people is Obama, the information/facts they are cognizant of must be damaging indeed for Obama to keep them from testifying by threatening them with their non disclosure statements.
Sen. Graham: is "fighting the good fight" in Senate Hearings right now trying to determine what really happened that night. Consider the chances of his getting Obama/his subordinates to "fess up" to be slim and none. Why? Consider it likely that if the truth ever came out about that night, it would lead to impeachment proceedings and end up bringing down the Obama administration. Deceptions, half-truths, and outright lies are what Sen. Graham has in store for him from his current list of "witnesses".
Whistleblowers: What we need to crack this case is whistleblowers, and the best whistleblowers that come to mind are the Benghazi survivors - people who were actually there that night. Sen Graham should refocus his efforts on getting the survivors to testify, and issue them subpoenas, rather than trying to "break" Obama's high level administrative employees.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Foreign Affairs: Obama/Hillary's softball 60 minutes interview, where they patted each other on the back about their "accomplishments" of the last four years, makes one wonder - what world are they living in?
* Iran about to get nuclear weapon
* Civil war in Syria
* Egypt lead by Muslim dictator
* Israel in peril
* Putin on the prowl and looking to reestablish Russia as Superpower
* Afghanistan about to be retaken by the Taliban
* North Korea threatening us with a "first strike" nuclear attack, and breaking the 1953 armistice.
* Iraq gradually becoming a client state of Iran
* Inability to prevent Chinese hackers from stealing our valuable military secrets
Worse yet, there is every reason to believe that all of the above will deteriorate further in Obama's second term.
* Iran about to get nuclear weapon
* Civil war in Syria
* Egypt lead by Muslim dictator
* Israel in peril
* Putin on the prowl and looking to reestablish Russia as Superpower
* Afghanistan about to be retaken by the Taliban
* North Korea threatening us with a "first strike" nuclear attack, and breaking the 1953 armistice.
* Iraq gradually becoming a client state of Iran
* Inability to prevent Chinese hackers from stealing our valuable military secrets
Worse yet, there is every reason to believe that all of the above will deteriorate further in Obama's second term.
Most Divisive/Disingenous President Ever: Senate's "Gang of 8" just came up with a bipartisan immigration plan. Rather than letting plan work it's way through Congress/become law, Obama comes up with own plan that incorporates deal stopping legislation on gay rights within. REASON: Obama incorporates gay rights legislation within immigration bill hoping/anticipating Republicans will vote against his proposal. If they do, he/Dems can then run on that Republican vote, demonizing Republicans in eyes of Hispanics, and hoping to garner votes in 2014.
NOTE to Hispanics: Obama is more interested in winning the next election than he is in implementing immigration reform. With the "great divider" as President, it's no wonder that nothing ever gets accomplished in our federal government.
NOTE to Hispanics: Obama is more interested in winning the next election than he is in implementing immigration reform. With the "great divider" as President, it's no wonder that nothing ever gets accomplished in our federal government.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Obama Deceptions:
* Obama swore an oath to protect/defend the Constitution. Based on his plethora of executive orders, and more of same on the way, the constitution needs protected from Obama.
* Obama says the reason he wants gun control is to protect innocents. Maybe, but true purpose may be far darker - confiscation prior to dictatorial power grab.
* Obama likes to pretend that unemploment is 7.8% and improving. Hardly, real unemployment, -when you consider people who gave up looking for jobs, is 11%, and likely to get worse with ever increasing deficit.
* Obama says he's going to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but he pressures Israel from striking and hires soft on Iran Hagel for SECDEF.
* Obama would like us to believe that he bears no blame for Benghazi. Consider the odds on that to be practically nil.
* Obama 's 2008 scam was to pretend to be "great uniter"/"hope and change" candidate. Results: The most divisive President ever. The Post Partisan President is actually the Most Partisan President.
* Obama pretends that he's willing to compromise but Republicans aren't. Hardly, BHO's managed to avoid any real deficit reductions, the deficit is still at $1.3T/year.
* Obama swore an oath to protect/defend the Constitution. Based on his plethora of executive orders, and more of same on the way, the constitution needs protected from Obama.
* Obama says the reason he wants gun control is to protect innocents. Maybe, but true purpose may be far darker - confiscation prior to dictatorial power grab.
* Obama likes to pretend that unemploment is 7.8% and improving. Hardly, real unemployment, -when you consider people who gave up looking for jobs, is 11%, and likely to get worse with ever increasing deficit.
* Obama says he's going to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but he pressures Israel from striking and hires soft on Iran Hagel for SECDEF.
* Obama would like us to believe that he bears no blame for Benghazi. Consider the odds on that to be practically nil.
* Obama 's 2008 scam was to pretend to be "great uniter"/"hope and change" candidate. Results: The most divisive President ever. The Post Partisan President is actually the Most Partisan President.
* Obama pretends that he's willing to compromise but Republicans aren't. Hardly, BHO's managed to avoid any real deficit reductions, the deficit is still at $1.3T/year.
* Obama likes to pretend he's proposing real deficit cuts. Hardly, his "Obama cuts" are cuts to programs we were never going to do in the first place. Eg., say you're cancelling a trip to Mars, and calling such a $1T deficit savings.
* Obama likes to pretend that he's interested in reducing deficit. Proof is in the pudding - $1.3T per year increase, and no Obama deficit reduction plan.
* Obama likes to pretend he's the smartest guy in the room. If so, why has he hidden his SATs, LSATs and college/law school grades?
* Obama feigns indignation/outrage when pressed. Notice I said "feigns" - when challenged, BHO's strategy is that the best defense is a good offense.
* Obama likes to pretend he's the smartest guy in the room. If so, why has he hidden his SATs, LSATs and college/law school grades?
* Obama feigns indignation/outrage when pressed. Notice I said "feigns" - when challenged, BHO's strategy is that the best defense is a good offense.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Bankrupt States, Counties and Municipalities
Bankruptcy: States, Counties and Municipalities across the country are unable to cover their debts, and some may actually end up declaring bankruptcy. The current facility, administrative, entitlement, and employee costs, and also the long term pension/health benefit costs of retired government employees, are all cost drivers.
Possible Ways Forward out of the Financial Morass:
A. Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Was shocked at the real estate tax rates for the area (at least as compared to where I lived before). Was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (some call them bureaus).
Started thinking about the above. It's no wonder that taxes are so high - rather than consolidating, you have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers of the Pittsburgh area (and other cities, townships and counties across the U. S.). Probably the most logical consolidation level would be at the city level, or in absence of a big city, at the county level. Township governments should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Most people don't even know who their local township officials are.
Actually, I'd be shocked it Pittsburgh couldn't reduce taxes by at least 50% if they were to consolidate. Realize that such a proposition would be fought tooth and nail by all the political officials/the govt employees in the Pittsburgh area as consolidation would obviously be a real negative for them. But - it's what's best for the taxpayers............ Monies could be spent on what people wanted rather than on unnecessary duplication of effort.
We don't need over 50 sets of peoples doing exactly the same kinds of things. Consolidation could lead to massive tax cuts. Also, the long term burden for states and localities would be reduced - less employees = less retirement costs (pensions and health care costs) NOTE: You can attrition the personnel down, rather than have massive personnel cuts.
B. Government's Role: Before retiring I was a Comptroller of an organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal and state governments - with the federal/state governments being the overhead to the private sector. The federal/state governments have numerous vital functions - national defense, national guard, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal/state governments are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country/state at the lowest possible cost.
When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficits, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficits), not the government sector. Growing the government sectors just increases our debt.
C. Unions
Right to Work States vs Forced Unionization: In the United States, we have Right to Work States and Forced Unionization States. Approximately 50% of the states are in each category. With Right to
Work States, people have a right to work anywhere in that state without being forced to join a union/pay union dues. For Forced Unionization States - if a company in one of these states is unionized, you must join the union, or you won't be able to work for that company. Each state has laws specifically relating to this "right to work" union issue.
Advantages of Right to Work States: Aside from not compelling people to join unions/pay union dues, businesses in Right to Work States can typically put themselves in a more competitive position domestically and internationally due to the decreased power of unions in regards to the negotiation of pay, leave, benefit packages, and hirings/firings. This increased viability of businesses in Right to Work States benefits not just the owners of the business, but also the employees of that business, and increases the tax base of the state through higher employment. Comment: While the concept of unionization in general is fine, union members, and specifically union management, need to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. NOTE: If you'd like to read more on union competitiveness, go to "Unions - Competitiveness and Intimidation Tactics" at "onemanandhisview".
Unions and Marginal Employees: The practice of unions protecting and preserving the jobs of marginal employees is a disservice to not just the entire business (through decreased production) but puts added pressure on coworkers who try and cover for the underperforming employees. Likewise, public unions protecting marginal government employees decreases production and requires the utilization of additional taxpayer dollars to cover the underperforming employees.
Public Unions and the Democratic Party: The practice of public unions donating a substantial portion of their union dues to the Democratic Party, who then - if elected, grant pay, leave, and benefit packages that are favorable to the unions, is unseemly at best. It certainly gives the appearance of impropriety - a conflict of interest for the elected Democratic politicians who, once elected, are supposed to be exercising the judicious use of taxpayer dollars, and not "paying back" those that helped them get elected. NOTE: Take a look at the current budget situation in California if you want to see where this "pay back" gone way awry can lead you.
Unions and the Federal Government: In the federal government, public unions are not allowed to bargain for pay and benefits. They are only allowed to bargain/negotiate over conditions of employment - employee safety and working conditions. This practice/policy should also apply to state/local government employees as well.
Summary: Consolidation, performance of only vital governmental functions, and union regulatory/behavioral changes, would dramatically improve the financial position of state/local governments. Likewise, improvements to the national economy - improvement in the mortgage crisis, employment gains, and increased investment/job growth - which is currently stymied by Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and EPA over regulations and tax/dividend increases on the rich, all need to be rectified for optimal growth. NOTE: See my article on "Capitalist Manifesto" - at "onemanandhisview".
Bankruptcy: States, Counties and Municipalities across the country are unable to cover their debts, and some may actually end up declaring bankruptcy. The current facility, administrative, entitlement, and employee costs, and also the long term pension/health benefit costs of retired government employees, are all cost drivers.
Possible Ways Forward out of the Financial Morass:
A. Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Was shocked at the real estate tax rates for the area (at least as compared to where I lived before). Was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (some call them bureaus).
Started thinking about the above. It's no wonder that taxes are so high - rather than consolidating, you have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers of the Pittsburgh area (and other cities, townships and counties across the U. S.). Probably the most logical consolidation level would be at the city level, or in absence of a big city, at the county level. Township governments should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Most people don't even know who their local township officials are.
Actually, I'd be shocked it Pittsburgh couldn't reduce taxes by at least 50% if they were to consolidate. Realize that such a proposition would be fought tooth and nail by all the political officials/the govt employees in the Pittsburgh area as consolidation would obviously be a real negative for them. But - it's what's best for the taxpayers............ Monies could be spent on what people wanted rather than on unnecessary duplication of effort.
We don't need over 50 sets of peoples doing exactly the same kinds of things. Consolidation could lead to massive tax cuts. Also, the long term burden for states and localities would be reduced - less employees = less retirement costs (pensions and health care costs) NOTE: You can attrition the personnel down, rather than have massive personnel cuts.
B. Government's Role: Before retiring I was a Comptroller of an organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal and state governments - with the federal/state governments being the overhead to the private sector. The federal/state governments have numerous vital functions - national defense, national guard, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal/state governments are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country/state at the lowest possible cost.
When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficits, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficits), not the government sector. Growing the government sectors just increases our debt.
C. Unions
Right to Work States vs Forced Unionization: In the United States, we have Right to Work States and Forced Unionization States. Approximately 50% of the states are in each category. With Right to
Work States, people have a right to work anywhere in that state without being forced to join a union/pay union dues. For Forced Unionization States - if a company in one of these states is unionized, you must join the union, or you won't be able to work for that company. Each state has laws specifically relating to this "right to work" union issue.
Advantages of Right to Work States: Aside from not compelling people to join unions/pay union dues, businesses in Right to Work States can typically put themselves in a more competitive position domestically and internationally due to the decreased power of unions in regards to the negotiation of pay, leave, benefit packages, and hirings/firings. This increased viability of businesses in Right to Work States benefits not just the owners of the business, but also the employees of that business, and increases the tax base of the state through higher employment. Comment: While the concept of unionization in general is fine, union members, and specifically union management, need to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. NOTE: If you'd like to read more on union competitiveness, go to "Unions - Competitiveness and Intimidation Tactics" at "onemanandhisview".
Unions and Marginal Employees: The practice of unions protecting and preserving the jobs of marginal employees is a disservice to not just the entire business (through decreased production) but puts added pressure on coworkers who try and cover for the underperforming employees. Likewise, public unions protecting marginal government employees decreases production and requires the utilization of additional taxpayer dollars to cover the underperforming employees.
Public Unions and the Democratic Party: The practice of public unions donating a substantial portion of their union dues to the Democratic Party, who then - if elected, grant pay, leave, and benefit packages that are favorable to the unions, is unseemly at best. It certainly gives the appearance of impropriety - a conflict of interest for the elected Democratic politicians who, once elected, are supposed to be exercising the judicious use of taxpayer dollars, and not "paying back" those that helped them get elected. NOTE: Take a look at the current budget situation in California if you want to see where this "pay back" gone way awry can lead you.
Unions and the Federal Government: In the federal government, public unions are not allowed to bargain for pay and benefits. They are only allowed to bargain/negotiate over conditions of employment - employee safety and working conditions. This practice/policy should also apply to state/local government employees as well.
Summary: Consolidation, performance of only vital governmental functions, and union regulatory/behavioral changes, would dramatically improve the financial position of state/local governments. Likewise, improvements to the national economy - improvement in the mortgage crisis, employment gains, and increased investment/job growth - which is currently stymied by Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and EPA over regulations and tax/dividend increases on the rich, all need to be rectified for optimal growth. NOTE: See my article on "Capitalist Manifesto" - at "onemanandhisview".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)