---
How sweet is it? (See 2 below.)
---
Now you know Liberals would never lie about 'Obamascare!' but if you have doubts you might watch PJTV.Com: " ZoNation: How Democrats Lie About Health Care
Democrats say 47 million Americans don't have health care and that Republicans just want the uninsured Americans to die. Zo explains how government causes the affordability problems Americans have with health care today, and he shows why government-run health care isn’t the answer."
And if you would like the opportunity of learning more about "Obamascare" and have questions you might want to attend this discussion: "APRIL 18, SIRC TRUE PERSPECTIVES
OBAMACARE
Impact on hospitals – now and in the future
TARRY HODGES
Director of Government Relations
St. Joseph’s/Candler Health System
How will the Affordable Health Care Act
affect hospital services?
Your options -
Your costs -
Ms. Hodges has the experience and background
to give us the answers
April 18, 5:00 PM - Plantation
$5 Members - $10 Non-members – All welcome"
---
A well thought out article discussing who deserves credit for improving the economy and then an article on how government has the wrong solutions in a specific instance! (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
---
Random thoughts by Sowell - promising heaven delivering hell. (See 4 below.)
------
Lloyd Marcus on driving a stake through America's heart - re-elect Obama. (See 5 below.)
---
Sometimes a person's name describes them to a T. The president's press secretary's last name is Carney and he sounds more like an inveigling fair huckster every day as he tries to explain Obama various attacks. (See 6 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Real Value
1)Real Value
Investors high on easy money from the Fed are about to find out the real value of their holdings, says hedge fund manager Doug Kass, president of Seabreeze Partners.
Now that the Federal Reserve appears less likely to engage in a third round of quantitative easing, all assets are in jeopardy: stocks, bonds, even gold. Fed minutes released this week show tepid interest in more easing.
“From my perch, the liquidity rally, which has been in place for several years now and is responsible for some of the rally off of the generational bottom, is now over,” Kass writes for TheStreet.com
Add to that the head-on collision in Washington as the Bush era tax cuts expire and automatic spending cuts equal to $1.2 trillion are set to take place — unless Congress makes its own cuts first as the U.S. presidential election looms.
“Absent more easing, investors are about to experience natural price discovery in stock prices,” Kass says.
Kass is not alone. Jeffrey Hirsch, editor of the Stock Trader’s Almanac, is adding to the sell call for equities.
Often, but not always, stocks do worse from May to October, prompting a self-reinforcing cycle of “sell in May and go away” for stocks.
“I do believe that we’ve set ourselves up for another seasonal downturn,” Hirsch told MarketWatch.
Things are likely only complicated by an especially weak monthly jobs number. The economy added just 120,000 jobs this past month, after several months in a row of 200,000-plus numbers.
Economists believe that hiring that might have taken place normally in the spring was pushed backward by a warm winter, prompting the decline in March as a number of net new jobs were already filled.
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)What A Unique Way To Present This… 4.2 grams = 1 teaspoon of sugar = 1 cube ! Someone ought to get an award for this. We know the facts, but this
Brings it into perspective quickly, doesn’t it? Each cube is a teaspoonful.| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3a)Who Deserves Credit for the Improving Economy? American households are proving to be more prudent than their government.By Kevin Warsh Three years after a severe recession, the economy remains stuck in a modest recovery. More than 12 million Americans actively seek work. Many citizens, particularly the younger and less-educated, find themselves detached, demoralized and defeated. Many others, gainfully employed with some trappings of success, question whether the promise of America will endure for the next generation. And still, a growing Washington consensus credits any improvement in economic performance to Washington's doing. Private markets are incapable of generating self-sustaining, rising living standards, so businesses and households should be grateful for the government's continued largess. This consensus seems to believe that the strength of our country rests with its political leaders. Our leaders' strength is their intellect. And the success of the governed depends principally on the enlightened decisions of those who govern. My views are decidedly less fashionable: The strength of our country is our economy. The strength of our economy is our citizenry. And the strength of our citizens is their character and good judgment. Short shrift should not be given to those on the front lines of the real economy. Workers and firms are owed overwhelming credit for the economy's recent performance. The flexibility of our labor, product and service markets has sustained us through the toughest of times and provided the best opportunity for our economy to prosper. A full accounting of government activism can ill afford to dismiss the substantial risks incurred. Proponents of still more fiscal expenditures and more aggressive monetary policy emphasize the immediate benefits. But our country's finances are unsustainable. The rule of diminishing marginal returns applies to policy activism. There will be a bill to pay. If policy makers have learned anything in the last few years, they should understand this: Complacency breeds crisis. Getty Images The medium-term prospects of households and businesses are not significantly affected by fleeting changes in fiscal policy. Families and businesses cash their "stimulus" checks and pocket one-time incentives, but a strong foundation for future growth demands balance-sheet repair. So middle-income families have made tough choices and deferred some consumption. They deserve our encouragement. Instead, government seems keen to tempt them to reacquire old, bad habits—borrow, consume and hope it all works out. The "fiscal cliff" in early 2013—when government stimulus spending and tax relief are set to fall—is not misfortune. It is the inevitable result of policies that kick the can down the road. Fortunately, American households are proving more prudent than their government. U.S. firms—as measured by earnings, profit margins, strength of balance sheet—are also systematically outperforming expectations and foreign peers. This is not due to a government mandate. When the economic environment deteriorated, U.S. companies reacted with force and purpose to cut costs and drive productivity. Because they prioritized, they are now poised to attract capital and grow. Policy makers should resist the tendency to justify their success using static econometric models. We should be wary of practices that assign higher fiscal multipliers to government spending than to private activity and then audit the results using the same models to prove the success of their efforts. Economists should not put their pencils down after summing the arithmetic contribution of government spending to next quarter's GDP and declare victory. Finally, we should not allow the failings of the U.S. banking system to serve as a generalized indictment of the market economy. The failures in the banking system owe at least as much to public-policy failures (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) as to deficient private practices (weak risk management). The marketplace is still the best allocator of capital and labor. That doesn't mean that private markets for goods, services or financial products are always and everywhere perfect. But market failures are less prevalent than government failures. And government doling out capital to anointed firms and chosen sectors tends to lower returns and reduce standards of living over time. This debate on the source of recovery may pose a Rorschach test of sorts. But we shouldn't choose sides as some article of faith. We should come to judgments based on facts and evidence. The burden of persuasion rests squarely on the shoulders of those who want to borrow more money from future taxpayers to fund a larger government today. Mr. Warsh, a former Federal Reserve governor, is a lecturer at Stanford's Graduate School of Business and a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. 3a)James Bovard: The Wrong Way to Help the Disabled A 7% hiring quota for government contractors is unfair and unwise.The Obama administration is on the verge of compelling most of the largest corporations and universities, as well as many smaller businesses, to adopt a 7% hiring quota for disabled job applicants—lest they be debarred from doing business with the federal government. This radical personnel policy could raise costs and slash the productivity of almost 200,000 companies with U.S. government contracts. Announcing the proposed regulations for the quota last Dec. 8, Patricia Shiu, director of the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), declared: "For nearly 40 years, the rules have said that contractors simply need to make a 'good faith' effort to recruit and hire people with disabilities. Clearly, that's not working." The evidence? Primarily that the percentage of disabled with jobs is lower now than it was in the 1980s. Yet as HR Policy, an association of chief human-resource officers, notes, the federal government itself has only 5% disabled on its payrolls—and the Labor Department's percentage of disabled employees has decreased every year since President Obama took office, despite a sharp increase in the number of department employees. The notice in the Federal Register about the hiring quota was more than 53,000 convoluted words, and many businesses and trade associations are vehement that the Labor Department's $81 million estimate of the costs of compliance is greatly underestimated. HR Policy estimates the total cost would be at least $1.8 billion, not counting the losses resulting from companies hiring less-productive employees. A deluge of record-keeping requirements will provide plenty of rope to hang contractors. The agency proposes requiring companies to invite all job applicants to label themselves as "disabled" prior to being hired. The International Food Service Distributors Association scoffed at this mandate: "The only thing that information is going to do is give OFCCP ammunition to challenge the non-hiring of individuals with disabilities who were not qualified to perform the jobs." The regulations would also require companies to invite employees to label themselves disabled after being hired, and once a year thereafter. Getty Images The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008 vastly expanded the definition of disability to include people with diabetes, depression, heart disease or cancer, as well as people who have significant troubles "standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating and interaction with others." Anyone who is labeled disabled acquires a right to request "reasonable" accommodations from employers and others—with the federal government waiting to sue businesses who fail to pass muster. The new regulations would require contractors with more than 50 employees to have a documented, specific reason why each disabled applicant was not hired. In recent cases, the agency has treated shortfalls of documentation as proof of discriminatory intent. Every contractor would be compelled to annually review and document "the physical and mental job qualifications for [every] job opening . . . and provide an explanation as to why each requirement is related to the job to which it corresponds" and "consistent with business necessity." But OFCCP has a long history of charging companies with discrimination for requiring more ability—such as the ability to read and write—than federal bureaucrats deemed necessary. The agency's disability quota is exceptionally draconian, in that it is proposing that all contractors achieve 7% disabled in each specific job group—which it defines as "one or more jobs with similar content, wages rates, and opportunities." This job-group mandate is far more onerous than, say, an overall 7% quota. It is also patently unreasonable. The Associated General Contractors of America, a construction industry lobby, has long complained that many construction craft positions are inherently unsuited and too perilous for physically disabled applicants. But the OFCCP has a long history of scorning common sense on safety—as I discovered when I investigated the agency in the 1990s. In 1994, for example, the agency debarred Kentucky's Commonwealth Aluminum Corp. in Lewisville, Ky., from federal contracts for refusing to hire applicants with serious back injuries and hernias for heavy-lifting jobs. The following year, the agency punished the Jack Kelley Trucking Firm in Amarillo, Texas, for refusing to hire a man who suffered from uncontrollable epileptic seizures to drive a truck full of hazardous waste. (Most companies, fearing retaliation, were afraid to talk about the details of their clashes with OFCCP.) The agency's approach to business is more militant, if not more pigheaded, now than it was in the 1990s. The OFCCP claims its latest proposal is not a quota—at the same time it warns contractors that "the primary indicator of effectiveness is whether qualified individuals with disabilities have been hired." This is the same verbal flimflam the agency has used for decades to provide a legal cover for imposing racial hiring quotas on federal contractors. The upshot is that the only way a company can be confident of avoiding federal charges is to hire by the numbers. Former OFCCP director Ellen Shong Bergman told Congress in 1995 that the agency compliance officers "who can cajole, defraud or bully contractors into behavior that goes beyond the agency's legitimate authority, and sometimes goes beyond that permitted by any law . . . take on heroic status within the agency." The comment period has ended for the proposed regulations and the OFCCP could issue final rules at any time. Americans rightly favor helping the disabled. But using threats and quotas to move them to the front of the job line is unfair and unwise. Mr. Bovard, the author of "Attention Deficit Democracy" (Palgrave, 2006), is working on a memoir. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4)Random Thoughts  How long do politicians have to keep on promising heaven and delivering hell before people catch on, and stop getting swept away by rhetoric? Why should being in a professional sport exempt anyone from prosecution for advocating deliberate violence? Recent revelations of such advocacy of violence by an NFL coach should lead to his banishment for life by the NFL, and criminal prosecution by the authorities. If you are serious about reducing violence, you have to be serious about punishing those who advocate it. Have you noticed that what modest economic improvements we have seen occurred during the much-lamented "gridlock" in Washington? Nor is this unusual. If you check back through history, doing nothing has a far better track record than that of politicians intervening in the economy. With all the talk about people paying their "fair share" of income taxes, why do nearly half the people in this country pay no income taxes at all? Is that their "fair share"? Or is creating more recipients of government handouts, at no cost to themselves, simply a strategy to gain more votes? Some people are puzzled by the fact that so much that is said and done by politicians seems remote from reality. But reality is not what gets politicians elected. Appearances, rhetoric and emotions are what get them elected. Reality is what the voters and taxpayers are left to deal with, as a result of electing them. Instead of following the tired old formula of having politicians and bureaucrats give college commencement speeches, in which they say how superior it is to follow a career as politicians and bureaucrats -- "public service" -- why not invite someone like John Stossel to tell the graduates how much better it is to go into the private sector, supplying what people want, instead of imposing the government's will on them? In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensations for injustices -- leading to worsening behavior by the recipients. Some people say that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. But the runaway taxes of our time are the price we pay for being gullible. Whatever the ideology or rhetoric of the political left, their agenda around the world has been preempting other people's decisions and regimenting their lives. People who believe in evolution in biology often believe in creationism in government. In other words, they believe that the universe and all the creatures in it could have evolved spontaneously, but that the economy is too complicated to operate without being directed by politicians. The United States now has the dubious distinction of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And people wonder why American corporations are expanding overseas, providing jobs to foreigners. The left may get their jollies attacking "the rich," but the real victims are other people, who want the jobs that are sent overseas to escape a hostile business climate at home. Different people prefer different exercises. The Republicans' favorite exercise is running for the hills. The Democrats' favorite exercise is kicking the can down the road. When politicians say, "spread the wealth," translate that as "concentrate the power," because that is the only way they can spread the wealth. And once they get the power concentrated, they can do anything else they want to, as people have discovered -- often to their horror -- in countries around the world. In an old Western movie, John Wayne encounters a black man. Wayne tells him, "I don't have a prejudiced bone in my body. I would shoot you as quick as I would shoot any white man." That is what equality is supposed to mean. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5)Obama's Re-Election: A Stake in the Heart of the American Spirit By Lloyd MarcusI love people who think outside the box -- people who do not quickly surrender and throw their unique vision on the trash heap of impossible dreams simply because others disapprove or think it cannot be done. The architect said, OK, let me make sure I understand. You want me to design a glass building in earthquake country (California), with no interior structural supports obstructing the view to the front, and you have no money. Dr. Robert Schuller's response was, "Yes." Dr Schuller's crazy, impossible dream, the Crystal Cathedral, was completed in 1981 and continues to inspire the world. Then there's the crazy knucklehead who said in a board meeting, let's build an eight-acre fountain in the desert with water shooting 150 feet into the air and set to music. The dancing waters outside the Bellagio (hotel and casino) in Las Vegas are a spectacular testimony to man's imagination and ingenuity. Such independent pioneer thinking is the polar opposite of the nanny-state ultra-government-control thinking sweeping America today. A retired developer friend told me that 40 years ago, his mom sold cookies which she baked in her kitchen to get him and his siblings through college. Today, government would demand that his mom have a $70,000 commercial oven and a half-million-dollar insurance policy. We've heard stories of government shutting down kids' lemonade stands. You need a permit and government permission, and you need to pay a tax for almost everything you do. In the name of protecting us and the planet, the Obama administration via ObamaCare is usurping unprecedented authority to control every aspect of life in America. Few knew that Obama's vow to fundamentally transform America equaled a shock-and-awe attack on our freedom. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney nailed it during a victory speech when he said American pioneers would have had a very difficult time under our regulations trying to innovate, invent, invest, create, and build jobs. He said that under Dodd-Frank, pioneers would have found it almost impossible to get a loan from their community banks. Regulators would have shut down the Wright Brothers for dust pollution. Romney added, "And of course, the government would have banned Thomas Edison's light bulb. Oh, by the way, they just did, didn't they?" Romney concluded, "Every great innovation, every world-changing business breakthrough begins with a dream, and nothing is more fragile than a dream. The genius of America is that we nurture those dreams and the dreamers. We honor them. And, yes, we reward them. That's part of what's uniquely brilliant about America. But day by day -- job-killing regulation by job-killing regulation, bureaucrat by bureaucrat -- this president is crushing the dream and the dreamers[.]" This is not a Romney for president article. I am simply saying that Romney eloquently articulated the ominous stake that will stab the heart of the American Spirit if Obama is re-elected. Frankly, I cannot relate to those who are eager for Obama, "King of the Trifling," to reign in his new American kingdom, in which government harvests the crops of risk-takers to be redistributed equally to the masses. Obama's re-election campaign is targeted to stupid dumb-down voters, to products of liberal indoctrinated education, making them clueless regarding the tremendous cost and value of freedom. Consequently, Obama voters will eagerly surrender freedom, which is their God-given birthright, for a "free" crust of bread or a bowl of soup. These deadbeat losers expect handouts from "Obama's stash." In the late '50s, my family (parents and five kids) lived in the east Baltimore projects. When Dad became a Baltimore city firefighter, we moved to Pumphery, MD, a black suburb. Dad worked two jobs: assistant pastor of a storefront church and firefighter. Mom worked part-time as a domestic, ironed white folks' clothes, and was a custodian at a school. I have fond memories of Saturdays with my dad, loading our station wagon with product and selling bleach and starch. Dad would yell, "Bleach man! Bleach man!" Bleach was 50 cents, Starch 65 cents. Thus, I cannot relate to Obama voters -- entitlement-minded people demanding handouts. And please do not give me this garbage about the poor. The poor in America are extremely well-taken care of. On TV, I witnessed the "poor" wearing $450 Starter jackets and $125 tennis shoes while vandalizing and looting businesses during the Rodney King riots. These are the voters to whom Obama is targeting his message, folks. I pray and believe that Obama's where's-my-free-lunch Americans have not yet become a majority in our remarkable, exceptional country. Please, please, please stand with me, vowing to celebrate excellence. Defend, preserve, and nurture the individual pioneer spirit of American dreamers who ultimately make the world a better place for us all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6)CURL: Carney is twisting himself into knots
ANALYSIS/OPINION Sometimes, being the White House press secretary is a pretty unpleasant job — like being the spokesman for a coal company after a cave-in that kills nine and traps a dozen. Whadddya gonna say? “Boy, we had a hundred and eighty-seven code violations we really shoulda done something about”? Or, “Well, I guess those guys down in the pit messed up real bad”? No, you drop into full defensive mode, circle the wagons, hunker down — then say whatever you gotta say. Throw a rock in Washington, D.C., and you’ll hit a couple hundred guys willing to do just that — for a price (you’ll even find one or two eager to tell you that every time you pay LiveNation $9.75 to order a ticket online that it’s really just a “convenience fee”). So, sometimes, you find someone guided by voices ready to say whatever needs to be said from the White House podium. A degree from Yaledoesn’t matter then, it’s wriggle out as best you can. And only in Washington can you be sure to get away with simply blaming the press. Which is just what former “reporter” Jay Carney did this week in a shameless — and, really, quite embarrassing — display of petty partisan PR. But finally, his one-time colleagues called him out on his meandering mendacity, and it was, in a word, hilarious. On Monday, the great post-partisan president was asked this: “After last week’s arguments at the Supreme Court, many experts believe that there could be a majority, a five-member majority, to strike down the individual mandate. And if that were to happen, if it were to be ruled unconstitutional, how would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those Americans who’ve become insured as a result of the law?” The One’s answer: “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically electedCongress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” An unprecedented — and extraordinary — answer. But wait, it gets better. The boys and girls in the front row of the White House briefing room finally came alive, if only for a bit. “Does he regret using the word ‘unprecedented?’ ” NBC’s Norah O'Donnellasked the White House’s PR agent. “Since the Lochner era …” Yale boy said. Huh? Wait, what? “A handful of people,” he continued, “didn’t seem to understand what he was referring to. Of course, he was referring to the fact that it would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court, since the New Deal era, for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by Congress designed to regulate and deal with a national economic — a matter of national economic importance like our health care system.” Oh. Well, he’s such a great orator, why didn’t he just say THAT? “But …” the next reporter started. “It was clear to most folks who observe this and understand what is at issue here,” Mr. Carney said. “But …” another reporter said. “Well, it may not be evident to you. It is clear that the president was talking about …” The boys and girls had a field day Wednesday, then came back again Thursday ready to play. Ed Henryof Fox News struck first. “The premise of your question,” a miffed Mr. Carney said, “suggests that the president of the United States, in the comments he made Monday, did not believe that the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise, and I know you don’t believe that.” “Well,” etc Mr. Henry said. “In speaking on Monday,” Mr. Carney said, “the president was not clearly understood by some people. Because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand,” the coal company spokesman said. Then, finally, CBS News’ Bill Plante, aging like a fine wine, had had quite enough. “He made a mistake, and you can’t admit it,” the 74-year-old reporter said, point-blank. “I grant to you,” Mr. Carney said, “I totally grant to you that he did not refer to the Commerce Clause; he did not refer to the full context. I think he believed that that was understood. Clearly, some folks, notably people sitting in that chair and others, missed that and …” “It’s our fault,” Mr. Henry said. “It surely is,” another reporter said. “No, no, look, others — look, others …” Mr. Carney stammered. “I’m just saying that there’s a lot of — I mean, it’s kind of ridiculous to believe that the president wasn’t talking about the context of the case. But I completely concede that he did not describe the context when he took the question and answered it on Monday. He then, asked again on Tuesday, provided the full context. And so, did he clarify his comments? Absolutely. Did he expand on them? Absolutely.” Mr. Plante got in one last zinger. “You’re standing up there twisting yourself in knots.” And not too long from now, Mr. Carney will be telling us how convenient the “convenience fee” is. Perhaps he’ll be better suited for that job. • Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
No comments:
Post a Comment