Lets hear it for the aged!
===
Democrats just keep on lying because winning is everything. (See 1 below.)
Sen. Johnson sues Obama for his autocratic disregard of that scrap of parchment called The Constitution.
Long overdue so now we might get some Supreme Court decision which would make it rather testy for Obama to disregard but never doubt he would try. (See 1a below.)
===
Yeah, a bit late but those who faithfully read my memos know I am an irreverent old codger and I pretty much post whatever I want, so here goes my conservative solution for unemployment and why there should be no need for extending unemployment benefits.. (See 2 below.)
===
Kathleen Parker claims Democrats are giddy observing Republicans eating their own. (See 3 below.)
===
Sowell says Mayor de Blasio all wet on his trickle down economic theory because no self-respecting economist has ever advanced such a theory. It is all political gamesmanship.
Why give to someone on top so it can trickle down when you can give direct to the middle? (See 4 below.)
===
Ne'eman on Middle East Peace. (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The Dishonesty of Democrats' Push for an Extension of Unemployment Benefits
By Katie Pavlich
As lawmakers get ready to settle back into their seats on Capitol Hill after the Christmas recess, the battle over the extension of unemployment benefits is back on the table.
For months, in an effort to shift focus away from Obamacare, Democrats have argued that the economy is recovering and that jobs are being created.
But if this is the truth, then why is it necessary to continue the extension of unemployment benefits?
Harry Reid went on CBS' "Face The Nation" Sunday in a classic example of Democrats wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Democrats cannot honestly argue an unemployment benefit extension is necessary because jobs aren't available for the unemployed while also touting a successful economy and growing jobs.
Here's an inconvenient fact: 9.5 million people have left the work force since President Obama took office in 2009, meaning millions of people haven't seen their jobs come back and therefore, they've given up looking. In addition, the labor participation rate is at it's lowest since 1978.
And here's some more info from CNN about the jobs President Obama has taken credit for "creating" during the 2012 presidential campaign.
Republicans aren't against unemployment insurance, but they are making a valid argument that the continued extension of these benefits actually does harm to the unemployed by keeping them out of the job search . CNBC backs up this assertion:
So which one is it, Democrats? Is the economy really recovering through job growth? And if so, then why are unemployment benefits continually needing to be extended?
UPDATE: During the White House press briefing Monday, White House economic adviser Gene Sperling said the country has a "long term unemployment crisis" and admitted that people who stay out of the work force for long periods of time suffer economically and psychologically. He also referred to long term unemployment benefits as "emergency" benefits.
1a)I'm Suing Over ObamaCare Exemptions for Congress
1a)I'm Suing Over ObamaCare Exemptions for Congress
If the president wants to change the health-care law, he must ask Congress to do it.
By Sen. Ron Johnson
On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.
The president and his congressional supporters have also broken their promise to the American people that ObamaCare was going to be so good that they would participate in it just like everyone else. In truth, many members of Congress feel entitled to an exemption from the harsh realities of the law they helped jam down Americans' throats in 2010. Unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans.
It is clear that this special treatment, via a ruling by the president's Office of Personnel Management, was deliberately excluded in the law. During the drafting, debate and passage of ObamaCare, the issue of how the law should affect members of Congress and their staffs was repeatedly addressed. Even a cursory reading of the legislative history clearly shows the intent of Congress was to ensure that members and staff would no longer be eligible for their current coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.
The law states that as of Jan. 1, 2014, the only health-insurance plans that members of Congress and their staffs can be offered by the federal government are plans "created under" ObamaCare or "offered through an Exchange" established under ObamaCare.
Furthermore, allowing the federal government to make an employer contribution to help pay for insurance coverage was explicitly considered, debated and rejected. In doing so, Congress established that the only subsidy available to them would be the same income-based subsidy available to every other eligible American accessing insurance through an exchange. This was the confidence-building covenant supporters of the law made to reassure skeptics that ObamaCare would live up to its billing. They wanted to appear eager to avail themselves of the law's benefits and be more than willing to subject themselves to the exact same rules, regulations and requirements as their constituents.
Eager, that is, until they began to understand what they had actually done to themselves. For instance, by agreeing to go through an exchange they cut themselves off from the option of paying for health care with pretax dollars, the way many Americans will continue to do through employer-supplied plans. That's when they went running to President Obama for relief. The president supplied it via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which issued a convoluted ruling in October 2013 that ignores the clear intent and language of the law. After groping for a pretext, OPM essentially declared the federal government a small employer—magically qualifying members of Congress for coverage through a Small Business Health Options Program, exchanges where employers can buy insurance for their employees.
Neat trick, huh? Except that in issuing the ruling, OPM exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and legal authority. In directing OPM to do so, President Obama once again chose political expediency instead of faithfully executing the law—even one of his own making. If the president wants to change the law, he needs to come to Congress to have them change it with legislation, not by presidential fiat or decree.
The legal basis for our lawsuit (which I will file with a staff member, Brooke Ericson, as the other plaintiff) includes the fact that the OPM ruling forces me, as a member of Congress, to engage in activity that I believe violates the law. It also potentially alienates members of Congress from their constituents, since those constituents are witnessing members of Congress blatantly giving themselves and their staff special treatment.
Republicans have tried to overturn this special treatment with legislation that was passed by the House on Sept. 29, but blocked in the Senate. Amendments have also been offered to Senate bills, but Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote on any of them.
I believe that I have not only legal standing but an obligation to go to court to overturn this unlawful executive overreach, end the injustice, and provide a long overdue check on an executive that recognizes fewer and fewer constitutional restraints.
Sen. Johnson is a Republican from Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Ho, ho, ho, tis the season.........
3) There they (Republicans) go again
By Kathleen Parker
2)Ho, ho, ho, tis the season.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown in the economy, Congress has decided to implement a scheme to put workers of 50 years of age and above on early, mandatory retirement, thus creating jobs and reducing unemployment.This scheme will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early).Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to Congress to be considered for the SHAFT program (Special Help After Forced Termination).Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the SCREW program (System Covering Retired-Early Workers).
A person may be RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as Congress deems appropriate.Persons who have been RAPED could get AIDS (Additional Income for Dependents & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel Early Severance).
Obviously persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by Congress.Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on will receive as much SHIT (Special High Intensity Training) as possible. Congress has always prided themselves on the amount of SHIT they give our citizens.Should you feel that you do not receive enough SHIT, please bring this to the attention of your Congressman, who has been trained to give you all the SHIT you can handle.Sincerely,
The Committee for Economic Value of Individual Lives (E.V.I.L.)
3) There they (Republicans) go again
By Kathleen Parker
WASHINGTON — If you happen to be one of those who enjoy politics as a blood sport, 2014’s midterm election promises to be a carnival of gore.
And that’s just in the Republican Party.
Democrats must be giddy.
After ending 2013 with tails tucked, thanks to a series of errors, blunders, glitches and misstatements of true-ish-ness, Democrats were poised to lose control of the Senate. Instead, tea party Republicans seem bent on helping Democrats win.
The formula is familiar by now: Republicans who aren’t conservative enough, meaning they might deign to work with Democrats, are targets for primary challenges by folks who often couldn’t win a staring contest much less a statewide election.
One need think back only to Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell, who is not a witch (because she said so) and who in 2010 defeated the primary favorite, then-Rep. Mike Castle, and handed the Senate seat to Democrat Chris Coons, a relatively unknown county executive. This isn’t to say tea party candidates can’t succeed because, obviously, they do. Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah come to mind along with 20 or so House members.
This year presents a rare, and some would say undeserved, opportunity for Republicans. It is a make-or-break moment in the crucial debate about where this country is heading and who is going to lead it. Let’s just say, the fat lady is tuning up.
Thus far, 21 Democratic and 14 Republican seats are on the ballots. Of those GOP seats, 12 are being defended by incumbents and two are wide open. Republicans have a better-than-good chance of grabbing seven new seats, more than enough to end the Democratic majority, including three that have been held by soon-to-retire Democrats – Montana’s Max Baucus, West Virginia’s Jay Rockefeller and South Dakota’s Tim Johnson.
Republican efforts to secure those seats have been well underway as GOP leadership has reached out to recruit and train candidates with debate, technology and media preparation. What smart Republicans are aiming for are candidates who can win both a primary and a general election, actual human beings who can appeal to a wide swath of the electorate, not just the purity-proof hard-liners on the right. Three who fit that category are West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito, who has served in the House since 2001; North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, currently his state’s speaker of the House; and Montana’s Steve Daines, a congressman who bridges the gap between far right and right.
Adding to Republican momentum is the fact that incumbent Democrats who won in 2008 may have shorter coattails to clutch this go-round, depending on how the Affordable Care Act fares.
But recruiting and training good candidates may not be enough for a Republican Party still dogged by the purity plank. Tea party organizers have vowed to take on more-mainstream candidates, including seven of the 12 Republican incumbents.
Capito could be Exhibit A when it comes to a winning candidate undermined by her own party. First, she’s from a state where President Obama isn’t very popular and she has won re-election handily to serve a total of seven terms. She is a strong advocate for the coal industry and should have no trouble securing her party’s nomination. She is also favored to win the general election against Secretary of State Natalie Tennant.
Except. Guess who doesn’t like Capito?
The conservative Club for Growth and the Republican Liberty Caucus, which calls itself the “conscience of the Republican Party.”
Last August, a “Too Liberal for West Virginia” campaign was launched against Capito because, among other things, she is pro-choice and voted to raise the debt ceiling. In her stead, the RLC is supporting Republican Pat McGeehan, who served in state House of Delegates from 2008 to 2010 but has lost two state Senate election bids.
Despite having tailwinds at their back, Republicans stand to lose to proud purists while Democrats, feet up, admire the shine on their shoes. To put it kindly, pride in losing does little to contradict Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s observation that the GOP needs to “stop being the stupid party.”
Wonder what the fat lady will sing?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
New York's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, in his inaugural speech, denounced people "on the far right" who "continue to preach the virtue of trickle-down economics." According to Mayor de Blasio, "They believe that the way to move forward is to give more to the most fortunate, and that somehow the benefits will work their way down to everyone else."
If there is ever a contest for the biggest lie in politics, this one should be a top contender.
While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the "trickle-down" lie is 100 percent lie.
It should win the contest both because of its purity -- no contaminating speck of truth -- and because of how many people have repeated it over the years, without any evidence being asked for or given.
Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this "trickle-down" theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a "trickle-down" policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them.
Mayor de Blasio is by no means the first politician to denounce this non-existent theory. Back in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama attacked what he called "an economic philosophy" which "says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."
Let's do something completely unexpected: Let's stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we "give" something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place.
The "trickle-down" theory cannot be found in even the most voluminous scholarly studies of economic theories -- including J.A. Schumpeter's monumental "History of Economic Analysis," more than a thousand pages long and printed in very small type.
It is not just in politics that the non-existent "trickle-down" theory is found. It has been attacked in the New York Times, in the Washington Post and by professors at prestigious American universities -- and even as far away as India. Yet none of those who denounce a "trickle-down" theory can quote anybody who actually advocated it.
The book "Winner-Take-All Politics" refers to "the 'trickle-down' scenario that advocates of helping the have-it-alls with tax cuts and other goodies constantly trot out." But no one who actually trotted out any such scenario was cited, much less quoted.
One of the things that provoke the left into bringing out the "trickle-down" bogeyman is any suggestion that there are limits to how high they can push tax rates on people with high incomes, without causing repercussions that hurt the economy as a whole.
But, contrary to Mayor de Blasio, this is not a view confined to people on the "far right." Such liberal icons as Presidents John F. Kennedy and Woodrow Wilson likewise argued that tax rates can be so high that they have an adverse effect on the economy.
In his 1919 address to Congress, Woodrow Wilson warned that, at some point, "high rates of income and profits taxes discourage energy, remove the incentive to new enterprise, encourage extravagant expenditures, and produce industrial stagnation with consequent unemployment and other attendant evils."
In a 1962 address to Congress, John F. Kennedy said, "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."
This was not a new idea. John Maynard Keynes said, back in 1933, that "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object," that in the long run, a reduction of the tax rate "will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget." And Keynes was not on "the far right" either.
The time is long overdue for people to ask themselves why it is necessary for those on the left to make up a lie if what they believe in is true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Talking Peace Amid an Arab World Explosion
By Yisrael Ne'eman
Two very contradictory processes are at work in the Middle East. US Sec. of State John Kerry is pressuring Israel to make far reaching concessions to the Palestinians in continuing American efforts to arrive at a two-state solution while simultaneously the surrounding Arab states are imploding and/or exploding at an ever quickening pace. The West is focused on Palestinian-Israeli issues as Egypt swirls in civil unrest, Syria continues to be blasted into rubble and Iraq is broken down into three states in all but name, suffering unrelenting bombings and civil war. Lebanon is teetering on the verge of collapse as the battle between Hezbollah and radical Sunni Salafists heats up and Jordan suffers from Islamist influences, becoming increasingly unstable especially due to the refugee influx from Syria. To make matters worse the Palestinian Authority police security report of January 2 warns of Salafist and Al Qaeda cells in the West Bank, some remaining dormant for many years. They are lying in wait to overthrow the Fatah/PA regime when the correct opportunity arises. Israeli security interests are paramount especially as concerns the border region with Jordan.
The situation is surreal. Israel and the Palestinian West Bank are relatively quiet and both sides enjoy more security than most anywhere else in the Middle East. But as indicated above serious troubles lurk around the corner. On the other hand Israelis have gotten used to the American demand that any peace agreement with the Palestinians be based on the 1967 borders (with land swaps). There will be no territorial compromise on the West Bank. In particular many Israelis previously envisioned Israel would retain the Jordan Rift Valley. Today such hopes appear unattainable and any civilians living in this sensitive region along the Jordan River will be expected to leave should there be an agreement, even in principle. Relinquishing civilian control is one aspect of peace making, but giving up security control in this region would endanger the Jewish State itself.
The Palestinians demand that no Israelis remain within their state once there is a final agreement. The Jordan River is Israel's security line to the east. The PA claims that Palestinian security forces using early warning systems, state of the art technology at border crossings and satellite surveillance are the best guarantee of Israel's security. This only works if the force is dedicated to Israel's security. Israel appears willing to concede the settlement issue in the Jordan Rift, but IDF ground forces on the western side of the Jordan River are an imperative. Jerusalem trusts no one to ensure its security, especially with Middle East instability at its height. Israelis are very skeptical of relying on the PA for anything. It is certainly reasonable to believe Jordan may fall to Islamic extremists.
Should there be no Israeli presence along the river any Salafist threat originating in Jordan will quickly find its way to Tulkarm, just a few kilometers from Netanya. The PA security forces, even if American trained, are no match for such al Qaeda types. Suggestions are being made for a joint PA, American and possibly even European contingent. Sounds good but should serious trouble begin, the Europeans will bail out (remember Iraq and Afghanistan?). A bit more pressure – meaning casualties and the US may very well follow suit. There are those who attempt to compare an international Jordan Valley force to the US led multi-national operation in Sinai, but there is little in common. The US force in Sinai monitors a semi-demilitarized Sinai, while anyone in the Jordan Valley will need to halt terrorist infiltrations at the least. Should Jordan become hostile (with help from Syrian/Iraqi Salafists) could such a force be expected to defend the Jordan River line?
The IDF must be part of any Jordan River defensive arrangement. Although to Israel's security detriment, the PA will make demands to field its own men as part of the political – diplomatic deal. America and even Europe could then round out a multi-national arrangement. Let's face it Israel does not trust the PA on its own even should they have good intentions, which is not always the case. Gaza is an excellent example – less than two years after Israel left Gaza in 2005 the Fatah/PA was overthrown by Hamas. The Europeans are making the situation even more difficult, inferring threats of economic and political boycotts by EU members should the peace talks not succeed. There is an assumption that whatever is disagreeable to the Palestinians is automatically Israel's fault. Israel may well face condemnation for insisting on being responsible for its own security. Although the objective of a two-state solution is an admirable one, this cannot be had at any cost. The Kerry led negotiations must lead to Israeli security no less than Palestinian sovereignty. A weakened Israel will be a magnet for extremist attacks.
The discussions over security issues in the Jordan Rift Valley are indicative of a broader strategic thinking. The US wants at least one corner of the Arab Middle East to be stable and "friendly" serving as an example of a pro-western, secular, freely elected government where material development leads to a western standard of living. Call it the "model Arab society" (in western eyes). Many hoped it would work with Tunisia but the Ben Ali dictatorship scuttled any hopes of democracy and eventually the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew the regime. Some thought Jordan could be the answer but internal Islamism, threats to overthrow the pro-western monarchy and continuing refugee influx prevented democracy from taking hold.
As far as the West is concerned the Fatah/PA ruled West Bank is a good bet. Independence comes with strings attached – not necessarily in the negative sense. The US and EU will pour billions of dollars and euros into the new mini-state. The West will "ensure" security and material well being. Overall the PA will need to relinquish refugee return to Israel and take compensation. The ruling Fatah/PA elite will not object to the western bear hug provided the Islamists are defeated and the massive infrastructure investments are forthcoming. The plans for joint industrial zones to be established in the West Bank through Israeli and foreign investors can now go forward, further expanding possibilities for joint Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian cooperation. The idea is to secure and stabilize the region through interdependent economic development. On the negative side the Fatah/PA will become a lightning rod for Jihad actions. The PA will be in need of a tough, very dedicated security apparatus. Only the West can see to it that Israel has international legitimacy to join such a multi-national force in working for its own and Palestinian State security. The two are bound together with Jordan the third beneficiary. Economic development is rooted in regional security.
Israel's security concerns are peripheral if one assumes the Palestinians will defeat the internal Hamas and overall Islamist threat (with western and even some Israeli help) and Jordan will remain in the western camp. Such assumptions are ridiculous. The unpredictability of the next Middle Eastern earthquake makes such planning very tenuous. Europe and even the US will not remain committed to keeping troops in the Jordan Rift Valley in the face of an Islamic onslaught. Israel's existence will hang in the balance should there be no Jordan River defensive line. A future invasion coming out of an Islamist dominated Jordan coupled with a Hamas overthrow of the PA would be a disaster, much worse than the Gaza threat. Short and medium range rockets originating in the West Bank would hit all Israel's major cities and close down international traffic arriving at Ben Gurion airport.
The Fatah/PA has one major demand when accepting entry into the great western experiment as the model Muslim Arab state – no Israeli presence anywhere. Israel cannot afford to take such a chance. The IDF must continue holding the Jordan River line. This can certainly be done together with the US, EU and PA (or without). With all serving together for joint Israeli and Palestinian security, it will be that much more difficult for the US or even the EU to leave such a cooperative arrangement. More than anyone, Israel's interest is paramount and this bodes well for overall security along the Jordan River and throughout the immediate region. As for the Palestinians security determines economic development, a very necessary factor when building a stable, successful state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment