Saturday, March 19, 2016
Donald "Hitler" Trump
PLEASE wake up America! We are becoming a joke world wide! This man is the most dangerous person for America that I've encountered in my 66 years on this planet!!!!!!!!!!
Sunday, August 27, 2006
In 1850 John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding "federal" laws would be necessary. Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional (the "concurrent majority"). He also championed the Jeffersonian idea of nullification. To Calhoun (and Jefferson), states’ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the central government that they created as their agent, and could only be so if such mechanisms – including the right of secession – existed.
Without these political mechanisms the forces of nationalism, mercantilism, and political plunder would relentlessly reshape the Constitution with their rhetoric, and their efforts would eventually overwhelm the strict constructionists. At that point the Constitution would become a dead letter. The biggest special-interest group of all – the federal government itself – has seized power by rewriting the supreme law of the land. How did we get to the point where the federal government defines for us the drinking age for alcohol, how much wheat farmers can grow, the ability of terminally ill cancer patients to medicate themselves with marijuana, the amount of sugar that can be used in ketchup, and even the size of toilets?
Liberty lost, federalism trampled, and Big Government run amok.
Who woulda thunk that we would see this happen?
Without these political mechanisms the forces of nationalism, mercantilism, and political plunder would relentlessly reshape the Constitution with their rhetoric, and their efforts would eventually overwhelm the strict constructionists. At that point the Constitution would become a dead letter. The biggest special-interest group of all – the federal government itself – has seized power by rewriting the supreme law of the land. How did we get to the point where the federal government defines for us the drinking age for alcohol, how much wheat farmers can grow, the ability of terminally ill cancer patients to medicate themselves with marijuana, the amount of sugar that can be used in ketchup, and even the size of toilets?
Liberty lost, federalism trampled, and Big Government run amok.
Who woulda thunk that we would see this happen?
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Can $100 buy your vote??
As gas prices rose to above $3 a gallon last week, President Bush, his Administration officials, and their Senate allies came out in full force to do damage control. They know their jobs and their far-right agenda are at stake this November. In a hasty attempt to appease voters, Senator Frist proposed a $100 rebate financed by changing an accounting loophole that allows the oil and gas industry to pay lower taxes. His own party members balked at the overt pandering to voters, with Senator Conrad of Montana saying, "there're some dumb ideas in this." [Houston Chronicle, 4/29/06] But it was heavy pressure from Big Oil that ultimately drove Senator Frist to retreat from the plan.
While Washington Republicans flip flop, waste time, and coddle their Big Oil friends, Senate Democrats are fighting for direct and immediate relief to working families. Last week, Senator Menendez proposed an amendment that would eliminate the federal gas tax for 60 days, providing $6 billion in direct relief to consumers.
Senator Frist's latest move shows that once again, every time Washington Republicans claim to be taking action on gas prices, they are really taking action to protect oil industry profits. Election Day is just six months away and the Republicans are counting on their old oil industry friends to raise money for their candidates and keep their control over the Washington agenda -- an agenda that has taken power away from the people, made America less secure, and driven up profits for Big Oil at the expense of middle class families.
While Washington Republicans flip flop, waste time, and coddle their Big Oil friends, Senate Democrats are fighting for direct and immediate relief to working families. Last week, Senator Menendez proposed an amendment that would eliminate the federal gas tax for 60 days, providing $6 billion in direct relief to consumers.
Senator Frist's latest move shows that once again, every time Washington Republicans claim to be taking action on gas prices, they are really taking action to protect oil industry profits. Election Day is just six months away and the Republicans are counting on their old oil industry friends to raise money for their candidates and keep their control over the Washington agenda -- an agenda that has taken power away from the people, made America less secure, and driven up profits for Big Oil at the expense of middle class families.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
IRRESPONSIBLE President...
Let the next White House worry.
On May 1st, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual depressing report. On Tuesday, congressional negotiators handed President Bush a "victory" -- his assessment -- in agreeing to extend his capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Mr. Bush and his fellow tax-cuts-above-all proponents would like you to believe that the two events are unrelated. But taken together they underscore the terrible fiscal predicament that Mr. Bush has chosen to bequeath to his successor.According to the new estimates, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted in 2040, one year closer than last year's projection, while Medicare's will run out in 2018 -- two years sooner than last year's projection and 12 years earlier than estimated when Mr. Bush took office. These dates may still sound remote, but the problem is more imminent than the customary focus on insolvency suggests. Far earlier than the insolvency date, the programs will be spending more than they take in, in payroll taxes in the case of Social Security, in payroll taxes and premiums in the case of some parts of Medicare. Because of higher-than-anticipated hospital costs, the price of Medicare hospital benefits will exceed tax collections and other dedicated revenue this year -- a situation that will persist and worsen rapidly after 2010. And every year of procrastination makes the eventual solution more painful.But the best Mr. Bush can come up with is a bipartisan commission -- yes, another one -- to study the problem. And even that seems to be only make-believe. He mentioned a commission in his State of the Union address but hasn't bothered to appoint members. He proposed minimal Medicare cuts in his latest budget and then emitted nary a peep of protest when Congress proceeded to ignore him.When it comes to ensuring the permanence of his tax cuts, though, Mr. Bush is a lot more energetic. Last After he summoned Republican leaders to the White House, they agreed to extend Mr. Bush's cuts on capital gains and dividends, now set to expire in 2008, through the end of 2010. This means that all the tax cuts Mr. Bush has presided over are now set to expire on the same date, Jan. 1, 2011 -- draining the treasury of needed revenue until then and setting the stage for a difficult decision at that time. Allowing all the tax cuts to expire simultaneously is politically unthinkable and economically unwise. Yet this is also the time when strains on the budget from the retirement of the baby boomers will begin their unsustainable upward path.
The breathtaking irresponsibility of this won't become totally clear until Mr. Bush is back on the ranch. But history's verdict is predictable: bad enough to squander a chance to improve the nation's health while there was still time; unforgivable to make it so much worse.
On May 1st, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual depressing report. On Tuesday, congressional negotiators handed President Bush a "victory" -- his assessment -- in agreeing to extend his capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Mr. Bush and his fellow tax-cuts-above-all proponents would like you to believe that the two events are unrelated. But taken together they underscore the terrible fiscal predicament that Mr. Bush has chosen to bequeath to his successor.According to the new estimates, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted in 2040, one year closer than last year's projection, while Medicare's will run out in 2018 -- two years sooner than last year's projection and 12 years earlier than estimated when Mr. Bush took office. These dates may still sound remote, but the problem is more imminent than the customary focus on insolvency suggests. Far earlier than the insolvency date, the programs will be spending more than they take in, in payroll taxes in the case of Social Security, in payroll taxes and premiums in the case of some parts of Medicare. Because of higher-than-anticipated hospital costs, the price of Medicare hospital benefits will exceed tax collections and other dedicated revenue this year -- a situation that will persist and worsen rapidly after 2010. And every year of procrastination makes the eventual solution more painful.But the best Mr. Bush can come up with is a bipartisan commission -- yes, another one -- to study the problem. And even that seems to be only make-believe. He mentioned a commission in his State of the Union address but hasn't bothered to appoint members. He proposed minimal Medicare cuts in his latest budget and then emitted nary a peep of protest when Congress proceeded to ignore him.When it comes to ensuring the permanence of his tax cuts, though, Mr. Bush is a lot more energetic. Last After he summoned Republican leaders to the White House, they agreed to extend Mr. Bush's cuts on capital gains and dividends, now set to expire in 2008, through the end of 2010. This means that all the tax cuts Mr. Bush has presided over are now set to expire on the same date, Jan. 1, 2011 -- draining the treasury of needed revenue until then and setting the stage for a difficult decision at that time. Allowing all the tax cuts to expire simultaneously is politically unthinkable and economically unwise. Yet this is also the time when strains on the budget from the retirement of the baby boomers will begin their unsustainable upward path.
The breathtaking irresponsibility of this won't become totally clear until Mr. Bush is back on the ranch. But history's verdict is predictable: bad enough to squander a chance to improve the nation's health while there was still time; unforgivable to make it so much worse.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
The Oil Crunch & Iraq??
Jim Krane of the Associated Press quotes analysts who seem to blame the high price of petroleum on the shambles in Iraq. Iraq could be exporting nearly 3 million barrels a day (bbd) if the guerrilla war was not resulting in massive sabotage. In 2005, Iraq did only 1.4 million bbd on average, down from 2.8 mn. bbd before the war. Not only is Iraqi production way off but Iraq actually imports over $4 billion a year in petroleum products taking them off the market for other consumers.I can't imagine that Iraq really is much of a factor here. The world petroleum production is on the order of 86 million barrels a day so the lost 1.4 million bbd of Iraq is about 1.6% of the total. Even if you factor in Iraq's imports (and remember it doesn't have much of an economy at the moment), I can't imagine that Iraq production issues account for very much of the current price spike. Some economists argue that there is a lot of speculation, including a security premium, built into the current price, because you have war and rumors of war going on in the Gulf. A ten percent security premium is the difference between paying $3.00 a gallon for gas and $2.70.The main problem in supply isn't raw petroleum production but a shortfall in world refining capacity. The rise in demand is partially seasonal with Americans hitting the road in the summer.Some economists seem to be arguing that over five to ten years, Iraq could have had an impact, if there hadn't been all that sabotage and if $30 bn. had been invested in the industry. The fact is that if Americans did some serious conservation they could reduce consumption by 1/3. Since they use about 20 million barrels a day of petroleum, they could replace the production of both Iraq and Iran all by themselves.But the last politician who dared tell you that was Jimmy Carter and no one will ever go on television and talk that way again who wants to hold public office.
__________________
__________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)