No, the stupid, it burns...

George Patton and Chesty Puller are turning in their graves.

Any veteran knows there is a lot of waste in the Pentagon's budget and the last eight years have only made it worse. Spending a fortune to retrofit submarines for women and using algae based fuel at multiples of the cost of conventional diesel. Now this stupidity:

Magic bullets: US Army pursues 'biodegradable' ammunition

(CNN)The traditional function of bullets is killing, but a new design could have the opposite effect.

The US army is seeking proposals for biodegradable ammunition to replace the existing rounds used in training -- including grenade and tank rounds - citing environmental concerns.

"Components of current training rounds require hundreds of years or more to biodegrade," states the Department of Defense brief. "Some of these rounds might have the potential to corrode and pollute the soil and nearby water."

The DoD stipulates that the new ammunition should, instead, contain seeds that produce food for animals: "This effort will make use of seeds to grow environmentally friendly plants that remove soil contaminants and consume the biodegradable components developed under this project. Animals should be able to consume the plants without any ill effects."

This eye-catching proposal may seem far-fetched, but the brief goes on to claim that US army researchers have already succeeded in embedding seeds into biodegradable material to flower months later.

Ripe targets

Military facilities account for 900 of the 1300 most polluted sites in the US, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A comprehensive clean-up could cost $165 billion, according to the DoD.

Much of the damage is historic, pre-dating awareness of environmental issues.

"(Military bases) tend to have older buildings with lead paint and asbestos problems," says Skip Kazmarek, an environmental lawyer who has studied military sites. "If a base was operating in World War Two it might have burn pits for waste oil and solvents, and it can be a pretty nasty area."

But modern sites also generate toxic waste; from burning explosives to chemical leaks and heavy metal deposits -- including massive lead pollution.

Lead poisoning can cause serious health conditions including brain damage, as well as polluting the environment. Millions of lead bullets are fired each year on military firing ranges, which rapidly reach high levels of contamination according to an Environmental Working Group report.
"The lead in ammunition tends to build up over years and it can leach into groundwater and pose threats to wildlife," says Kazmarek. "You could improve environmental quality with a change from lead bullets."..

And this stupidity would help WWII barracks how? BTY, are you really worried about a biodegradable Sabot round for a tank? It's composed of depleted uranium and you're worried about what the casing is composed of.

Secretary Mattis, I think I've found a place to cut the budget....

SNAP is not an entitlement...

Long time friend and fellow writer for the VRWC, Mike Ford, has published another item in American Thinker. Enjoy. Comments?

SNAP is not an Entitlement. 

By Mike Ford 

Some time ago I had the idea to write a series of articles about language and how Conservatives lose the argument by using the terms the left wants us to use. The idea was to help foster a Conservative philosophy of pushing back on leftist terms that are in and of themselves, false to fact.

The first of these was about the misuse of the term, "Radical Islam," followed shortly by another on "Racial Profiling." I had intended follow those with one  about "carbon pollution," but Selwyn Duke beat me to it with a very well turned article entitled, "Let's stop with the carbon con already,"  where he forthrightly destroys the left's Baird and switch, substituting "carbon" for "carbon dioxide," also known as plant food. This Sunday, in his article "How much did government entitlements grow under Obama?” Rick Moran got my attention with yet another common misuse of terms that cedes ground to the leftists. 

From the article: 

As President Obama leaves office, one of his major legacies will be the huge increase in the number of Americans who receive benefits from entitlement programs. Food stamps, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare all saw large increases in beneficiaries 

Mr. Moran, like many on our side, again cedes half the argument to our opponents. Food Stamps (also known as SNAP) and Medicaid (emphasis mine) are certainly not entitlements. They are public charity, pure and simple. 

"Entitlement" comes from the word "title." Title is legal ownership you gain for something, a car, house, or perhaps a military or civilian pension, by virtue of having paid for it via money or service. You gain title to your home after paying off the note. You gain "title" to a military pension after 20 years of honorable service. 

"Entitlement Mentality,' now that's another story.  That's an attitude you come to have by receiving without effort, the fruits of other folks' labor;  you come to believe that you are entitled to that largess you didn't earn. We, as conservatives, need to refrain from using the term "entitlement" when referring to means-tested charity funded by taxpayer dollars. Whenever the term "entitlement" is used to describe MedicAid, SNAP or other means tested government charity, it demeans every other earned benefit and undermines property rights.

Mike Ford is a sometime contributor to American Thinker, who is frequently edited by his lovely bride, a retired High School Principal

Geopolitical Weekly: The Greek Vote and the EU Miscalculation, July 7, 2015

By George Friedman

In a result that should surprise no one, the Greeks voted to reject European demands for additional austerity measures as the price for providing funds to allow Greek banks to operate. There are three reasons this should have been no surprise. First, the ruling Coalition of the Radical Left, or Syriza party, is ruling because it has an understanding of the Greek mood. Second, the constant scorn and contempt that the European leadership heaped on the prime minister and finance minister convinced the Greeks not only that the scorn was meant for them as well but also that anyone so despised by the European leadership wasn't all bad. Finally, and most important, the European leadership put the Greek voters in a position in which they had nothing to lose. The Greeks were left to choose between two forms of devastation — one that was immediate but possible to recover from, and one that was a longer-term strangulation with no exit.

The Europeans' Mistaken Reasoning

As the International Monetary Fund noted (while maintaining a very hard line on Greece), the Greeks cannot repay their loans or escape from their economic nightmare without a substantial restructuring of the Greek debt, including significant debt forgiveness and a willingness to create a multidecade solution. The IMF also made clear that increased austerity, apart from posing an impossible burden for the Greeks, will actually retard either a Greek recovery or debt repayment.

The Greeks knew this as well. What was obvious is that austerity without radical restructuring would inevitably lead to default, if not now, then somewhere not too far down the line. Focusing on pensions made the Europeans appear tough but was actually quite foolish. All of the austerity measures demanded would not have provided nearly enough money to repay debts without restructuring. In due course, Greece would default, or the debt would be restructured.

Since Europe's leaders are not stupid, it is important to understand the game they were playing. They knew perfectly well the austerity measures were between irrelevant and damaging to debt repayment. They insisted on this battle at this time because they thought they would win it, and it was important for them to get Greece to capitulate for broader reasons.

No other EU country is in a condition as bad as Greece's. However, a number of EU countries, particularly in Southern Europe, carry a debt burden they would like to renegotiate. They are doing better than Greece this year, but with persistent high unemployment — for example, 22.5 percent in Spain as of May — two things are not clear: first, what shape these countries will be in next year or the year after that, and second, what governments would come into office, and what the new governments' positions would be. Greece accounts for less than 2 percent of the European Union's gross domestic product. Italy and Spain are far more important. The problem of restructuring debt is once it is done for one country, others will want to restructure as well. The European Union did not want to set any precedents for future crises or anti-EU governments.

In Greece, Europe's leaders had a crisis and a hostile government. It was the perfect place to take a stand, they thought. They became inflexible on debt restructuring, demanding prior increased austerity measures in a country where unemployment exceeded 25 percent and youth unemployment was over 50 percent. The EU strategy in the past had been psychological: spreading fear about what default might mean, spreading fear of the consequences of leaving the eurozone and arguing that it was the European Union that lacked the ability to make concessions. In the past, the EU strategy had been to make agreements that it never thought the Greeks would be able to keep in order to kick the problem down the road. Europe's leaders demanded austerity measures but tied them to postponing repayments. They expected Greece to continue playing the game. They did not realize, for some reason, that Syriza came to power on a pledge to end the game. They thought that under pressure, the party would fold.

But Syriza couldn't fold, and not just for political reasons. If Syriza betrayed its election pledge, as the European leadership was sure it would, the party would split and a new anti-European party would form in Greece. But on a deeper level, the Greeks simply could not give any more. With their economy in shambles and Europe insisting that the solution was not stimulus but austerity — an increasingly dubious claim — the Greeks were at the point where default, and the short-term wrenching crisis that would ensue, would be worth the price.

The European leaders miscalculated. They thought Greece could be more flexible, and they wanted to demonstrate to any other country or party that might consider a similar maneuver in the future just what the cost would be. The Europeans feared the moral risk of compromising with the Greeks. They created a more dangerous situation for themselves.

New Threats to the European Union

First, in its treatment of Greece, the European Union has driven home — particularly to rising Euroskeptic parties — that it is merely a treaty organization and in no way a confederation, let alone a federation. Europe was a union so long as a member didn't get into trouble. As I have said, the Greeks were irresponsible borrowing money. But the rest of Europe was irresponsible in lending it. Indeed, the banks that lent the money knew perfectly well the condition Greece was in. The idea that the Greeks pulled the wool over the bankers' eyes is nonsense. The bankers wanted to make the loans because they made money off of transactions. Plus, European institutions that bought the loans from them bailed out those that made the loans. The people who made the loans sold them to third parties, and the third parties sold them to EU institutions. As for the Greeks, it was not the current government or the public that borrowed the money. And so the tale will help parties like Podemos in Spain and UKIP in the United Kingdom make the case against the European Union. The European Union appears both protective of banks and predatory to those who didn't actually borrow.

Second, having played hardball, the Europeans must either continue the game, incurring the criticism discussed above, or offer a compromise they wouldn't offer prior to the Greek vote. One would lead to a view of the European Union as a potential enemy of nations that fall on hard times, while the latter would cost the bloc credibility in showdowns to come. It is likely that the Europeans will continue discussions with Greece, but they will be playing with a much weaker hand. The Greek voters have, in effect, called their bluff.

It is interesting how the European leaders maneuvered themselves into this position. Part of it was that they could not imagine the Greek government not yielding to the European Union, Germany and the rest. Part of it was that they could not imagine the Greeks not understanding what default would mean to them.

The European leaders did not take the Greeks' considerations seriously. For the Greeks, there were two issues. The first issue was how they would be more likely to get the deal they needed. It was not by begging but by convincing the Europeans they were ready to walk — a tactic anyone who has bargained in the eastern Mediterranean knows. Second, as any good bargainer knows, it is necessary to be prepared to walk and not simply bluff it. Syriza campaigned on the idea that Greece would not leave the eurozone but that the government would use a "no" vote on the referendum to negotiate a better deal with EU leaders. However, all political campaigns are subject to geopolitical realities, and Syriza needed all options on the table.

The EU leadership was convinced that the Greeks were bluffing, while the Greeks knew that with the stakes this high, they could not afford to bluff. But the Greeks also knew, from watching other countries, that while default would create a massive short-term liquidity crisis in Greece, with currency controls and a new currency under the control of the Greek government, it would be possible to move beyond the crisis before the sense of embattlement dissolves. Many countries do better in short, intense crises than they do in ordinary times. The Greeks repelled an Italian invasion in October 1940, and the Germans didn't complete their conquest until May 1941. I have no idea what Greece's short-term ability to rally is today, but Syriza is willing to bet on it.

Greece's Options in Case of a Grexit

If Greece withdraws from the European Union, its impact on the euro will be trivial. There are those who claim that it would be catastrophic to the euro, but I don't see why. What might be extremely dangerous is leaving the euro and surviving, if not flourishing. The Greeks are currently fixated on the European Union as a source of money, and there is an assumption that they will be forced out of the global financial markets if they default. But that isn't obvious.

Greece has three alternative sources of money. The first is Russia. The Greeks and the Russians have had a relationship going back to at least the 1970s. It was quite irritating for the United States and Europe. It was quite real. Now the Russians are looking for leverage to use against the Europeans and Americans. The Russians are having hard times but not as hard as a couple of months ago, and Greece is a strategic prize. The Greeks and the Russians have talked and the results of the talks are murky. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit began July 6 in Russia, and the Greeks are sitting in as observers — and possibly angling for some sort of deal. Publicly, Russia has said it will not give a direct loan to Greece but will take advantage of the crisis to acquire hard assets in Greece and a commitment on the Turkish Stream pipeline project. However, bailing out Greece would give Russia a golden opportunity to put a spoke in NATO operations and reassert itself somewhere other than Ukraine. In Central Europe, the view is that Russia and Greece have had an understanding for several months about a bailout, which could be why the Greeks have acted with such bravado.

Another, though less likely, source of funds for Greece is China and some of its partners. The Chinese are trying to position themselves as a genuine global power, without a global military and with a weakening economy. Working alone or with others to help the Greeks would not be a foolish move on their part, given that it would certainly create regional influence at a relative low cost — mere tens of billions. However, it could come with the political cost of alienating a large portion of the European Union, making Chinese assistance a slight possibility.

Finally, there are American hedge funds and private equity firms. They are cash-rich because of European, Chinese and Middle Eastern money searching for safety and are facing near-zero percent interest rates. Many of them have taken wilder risks than this. The U.S. government might not discourage them, either, because it would be far more concerned about Russian or Chinese influence — and navies — in the eastern Mediterranean.

Having shed its debt to Europe and weathered the genuinely difficult months after default, Greece might be an interesting investment opportunity. We know from Argentina that when a country defaults, a wall is not created around it. Greece has value and, absent the debt, it is a high-risk but attractive investment.

The European leaders have therefore backed themselves into the corner they didn't want. If they hold their position, then they open the door to the idea that there is life after the European Union, and that is the one thought the EU leaders do not want validated. Therefore, it is likely that the Europeans, having discovered that Syriza is not prepared to submit to European diktat, will now negotiate a deal Greece can accept. But then that is another precedent the European Union didn't want to set.

Behind all this, the Germans are considering the future of the European Union. They are less concerned about the euro or Greek debt than they are about the free trade zone that absorbs part of their massive exports. With credit controls and default, Greece is one tiny market they lose. The last thing they want is for this to spread, or for Germany to be forced to pay for the privilege of saving it. In many ways, therefore, our eyes should shift from Greece to Germany. It is at the heart of the EU leadership, and it is going to be calling the next shot — not for the good of the bloc, but for the good of Germany, which is backed into the same corner as the rest of the European Union.

The Greek Vote and the EU Miscalculation is republished with permission of Stratfor.

China flexing it's expanding muscle

China has been expanding its ability to project power over the last 20 years. It has recently deployed a diesel powered carrier and is pushing to control more of the world's oil supply.

One of the primary ways the US has projected force since the 30s has been our fleet of carriers. China as of yet cannot project a fleet of ships to challenge US naval dominance. But they are deploying a newly fielded missile to specifically target our capital ships.

China deploys anti-ship missile off Taiwan

China has deployed near Taiwan a powerful missile designed to take out US aircraft carriers as Beijing strengthens its ability to prevent US forces from aiding Taiwan during potential conflict.

The deployment of the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile comes as China’s army develops greater long-range and offensive capabilities. Those advances pose a challenge to US forces as Washington looks to build up its military presence in east Asia to balance out China’s rising might.

The DF-21D missile is a particular worry for Taiwan as it relies on US forces to back it up against threats from the mainland, which has not renounced the use of force to take the island it regards as part of its territory.

The missile limits the US’s ability to send aircraft carriers into the strait unchallenged to support Taipei, as it did in 1996 when China conducted missile tests in the strait during the run-up to the island’s first democratic election. Taiwan itself has no aircraft carriers.

News of the missile’s deployment came in written testimony to the head of intelligence for the Pentagon, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, delivered to a Senate committee on Thursday.

Chinese and US military sources have been saying since late 2010 that China has been planning to deploy the missile, but the testimony marks the first time a concrete deployment has been revealed in connection with a particular location. US military officials have said previously that the US lacks a tested way to defend its aircraft carriers against the missile.

That increases the pressure on Taiwan to strengthen its own ability to deter threats from the mainland and illustrates how, despite a reduction in tensions engineered by Taiwan’s president, China’s military continues to prepare for the possibility of conflict.

Taiwan’s military declined to comment specifically on the new missile, but its spokesman Luo Shou-he said the military “has continually strengthened the ability of self-defence to ensure the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait.”...

...While the US and Taiwan lack a formal defence treaty that would require intervention, it is widely assumed that such help would be forthcoming. The US is required by its domestic law to help Taiwan defend itself, and it maintains a network of military advisers on the island.

...“This is [China’s] so-called double-handed strategy,” said one officer in Taiwan’s navy. “China maintains an improvement in the relationship across the strait . . . on the other hand it is still sending a very strong message to pro-independence personnel: ‘Don’t do anything stupid, I still have very strong capabilities’.”...

Now the test was conducted by China and we cannot know how well it really went off, but we know the People's Republic will improve their technology as time goes on. As the Nimitz class of carriers are retired and the deployment of the Gerald Ford series is in question, our ability to influence the world is more problematic.

Great to know with our leadership in Washington running multi-trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and the Chinese helping to finance them, we're actually paying for this.

Nero fiddles along.

Kinda reminds me of a Reagan tale.

The Democrats under the leadership of Harry Reid finally produce a budget after four years:

Courtesy HOTAIR.COM

Reagan has a tale on this:

There was once upon a time that to be a republican in this area in this area of the country felt a little bit like being Gary Cooper in High Noon. Outnumbered in a big way.

But I remember the story about a fella who was running for office as a republican. And he was in a rural area that wasn't known to be a republican area and he stopped by a farm to do some campaigning.

And when the farmer heard he was a republican his jaw dropped and he said wait right here while I go get Ma. She's never seen a republican before. So he got her. And the candidate looked around for a podium from which to give his speech.

And the only thing he could find was a pile of that stuff that Bess Truman took 35 years trying to get Harry to call fertilizer. So, he got up on the mound and when they came back he gave his speech.

And at the end of it the farmer said that is the first time I've ever heard a republican speech. And the candidate said that's the first time I've ever given a republican speech from a democratic platform”

Here is the video:

Fareed Zakaria on a delusional rant

I find little to agree with Mr Zakaria generally but I found this particularily interesting. Anyone with their heads out of their asses know the Pentagon is not the biggest cause of our spending, but entitlements. But don't let reality get in the way of a good yarn.

End the war on terror and save billions

By Fareed Zakaria

As we debate whether the two parties can ever come together and get things done, here’s something President Obama could probably do by himself that would be a signal accomplishment of his presidency: End the war on terror. Or, more realistically, start planning and preparing the country for phasing it out.

For 11 years, the United States has been operating under emergency wartime powers granted under the 2001 “Authorization for Use of Military Force.” That is a longer period than the country spent fighting the Civil War, World War I and World War II combined. It grants the president and the federal government extraordinary authorities at home and abroad, effectively suspends civil liberties for anyone the government deems an enemy and keeps us on a permanent war footing in all kinds of ways.

Now, for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, an administration official has sketched a possible endpoint...

...If you want to know why we’re in such a deep budgetary hole, one large piece of it is that we have spent around $2 trillion on foreign wars in the past decade. Not coincidentally, we have had the largest expansion of the federal government since World War II. The Post’s Dana Priest and William Arkin have described how the U.S. government has built 33 new complexes for the intelligence bureaucracies alone. The Department of Homeland Security employs 230,000 people.

A new Global Terrorism Index this week showed that terrorism went up from 2002 to 2007 – largely because of the conflicts in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq — but has declined ever since. And the part of the world with the fewest incidents is North America. It could be our vigilance that is keeping terror attacks at bay. But it is also worth noting, as we observe the vast apparatus of searches and screening, that the Transportation Security Administration’s assistant administrator for global strategies has admitted that those expensive and cumbersome whole-body scanners have not resulted in the arrest of a single suspected terrorist. Not one.

Of course there are real threats out there, from sources including new branches of al-Qaeda and other such groups. And of course they will have to be battled, and those terrorists should be captured or killed. But we have done this before, and we can do so in the future under more normal circumstances. It will mean that the administration will have to be more careful — and perhaps have more congressional involvement — for certain actions, such as drone strikes. It might mean it will have to charge some of the people held at Guantanamo and try them in military or civilian courts.

In any event, it is a good idea that the United States find a way to conduct its anti-terrorism campaigns within a more normal legal framework, rather than rely on blanket wartime authority granted in a panic after Sept. 11.

No president wants to give up power. But this one is uniquely positioned to begin a serious conversation about a path out of permanent war.

His complains of spending two trillion over the last ten years ring kinda hollow. He has no issue with a "temporary stimulus program" that has been putting almost a trillion dollars into the baseline every year to pay off leftist causes. Or the fact B Hussein Obama and the Senate Democrats haven't passed a budget in over three years. Or that Obamacare will cost us trillions in less time. No what is driving our deficits is the defense budget. Also, do you think B Hussein Obama and you could "... start planning and preparing the country for phasing it out." in the War on Poverty? That is what is bankrupting this country.

I would say that's pathetic but this may be even more so. His support of America fighting terrarium as a legal matter, not a national security issue. Hey Fareed, that is one of the excuses Bubba Clinton gave for not taking custody of UBL in the 90s. And we know the results. These people don't care about having their rights read to them. Also they are willing to die if it kills you. Kinda hard to take them alive for trial.

Also Fareed you would have more credibility on this if you would have demanded some sort of Congressional authorization for us firing missiles into Libya. Just saying.

Mark Steyn hits it out the park again.

I've admired Steyn for years. His combination of satire and direct points is perfect. From his National Review article this morning, an excerpt.

The Edge of the Abyss - Mark Steyn - National Review Online

In the weeks ahead, Democrats and Republicans will reach a triumphant “bipartisan” deal to avert the fiscal cliff through some artful bookkeeping mechanism that postpones Taxmageddon for another year, or six months, or three, when they can reach yet another triumphant deal to postpone it yet again. Harry Reid has already announced that he wants to raise the debt ceiling — or, more accurately, lower the debt abyss — by $2.4 trillion before the end of the year, and no doubt we can look forward to a spectacular “bipartisan” agreement on that, too. It took the government of the United States two centuries to rack up its first trillion dollars in debt. Now Washington piles on another trillion every nine months. Forward!...

...In 2009, the Democrats became the first government in the history of the planet to establish annual trillion-dollar deficits as a permanent feature of life. Before the end of Obama’s second term, the federal debt alone will hit $20 trillion. That ought to have been the central fact of this election — that Americans are the brokest brokey-broke losers who ever lived, and it’s time to do something about it.

...In the course of his first term, Obama increased the federal debt by just shy of $6 trillion and in return grew the economy by $905 billion. So, as Lance Roberts at Street Talk Live pointed out, in order to generate every dollar of economic growth the United States had to borrow about five dollars and 60 cents. There’s no one out there on the planet — whether it’s “the rich” or the Chinese — who can afford to carry on bankrolling that rate of return. According to one CBO analysis, U.S.-government spending is sustainable as long as the rest of the world is prepared to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. We already know the answer to that: In order to avoid the public humiliation of a failed bond auction, the U.S. Treasury sells 70 percent of the debt it issues to the Federal Reserve — which is to say the left hand of the U.S. government is borrowing money from the right hand of the U.S. government. It’s government as a Nigerian e-mail scam, with Ben Bernanke playing the role of the dictator’s widow with $4 trillion under her bed that she’s willing to wire to Timmy Geithner as soon as he sends her his bank-account details....

And B Hussein Obama said after Tuesday night "The best is yet to come." That should send chills up the spine of any sane human being out there.

Again, thanks to all of you liking Santa. We can only hope, no pray this ends before the Left's dream of America as an European Socialist Democracy is fulfilled.

The Muppets really have support there.....

As I recover from too few hours of sleep even with the "fall back" I saw coverage of the Million Muppet March on the Sunday sites.

Like the original Million Man March it was far short of the announced goal. But unlike the MMM this didn't have at least a partial strong point. Farrakhan was adamant about men in the inner cities taking responsible for their children. But here is a handful of people wanting to keep Bird Bird on the public dole.

'Million Puppet March' descends on D.C. after Romney's PBS defunding promise

Several hundred - though not a million - supporters of U.S. public broadcasting descended on Capitol Hill on Saturday in what was called the “Million Puppet March.” The march was prompted by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s promise, during a televised debate with President Barack Obama a month ago, to halt government funding of PBS if he wins the election on Tuesday.

During the first of three presidential debates, Romney told moderator Jim Lehrer:

I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too (Lehrer's show is on PBS). But I’m not gonna keep on spending money on things to borrow from China to pay for.

On Saturday, “Sesame Street” characters such as Big Bird and Kermit the Frog were accompanied by other Muppets and puppets. In addition, also seen was a protester wearing a latex Romney mask and a Halloween-themed group that dubbed itself “the finest skeletons from the national closet.”

"Million Puppet March" co-organizer Michael Bellavia said,

It’s not just "Sesame Street." We’re saying we want to support the whole ecosystem of public media - everything from the TV side, to radio, to all the Internet media that gets produced.

Romney’s targeting of PBS attracted criticism, particularly since the $444 million 2011 federal subsidy for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting accounted for .037 percent of the nation's $1.2 trillion deficit. Notably, as viewers of PBS can attest, most of its funding comes via donations (as evidenced by its numerous pledge drives).

That said, fifteen percent of the overall public broadcasting budget in the United States comes from Washington, while contributions from foundations and individuals makes up the rest.

No Mr Bellavia, we like Big Bird, etc. We, the American people, are simply looking at the funding of the Corporatoin for Public Broadcasting as an hold back from a time leftist overindulgence. And when public broadcasting was started there were only five channels on the TV. Now it's in the 100s and in days of multi-trillion dollar deficits and a 16 trilliion dollar national debt this 400 million dollar annual line item is something we cannot afford.

When I was young Army officer someone put budgeting into three sectors: Must Do, Should Do, Like To Do. Big Bird et all make a fortune with merchandising and can live on their own. Self reliance. That is a much better lesson to teach our children than "It's not easy being green."

Here are some of the pictures:

These marches are getting a bit ridiculous

First the Million Man March (which actually was around 250K, but hey, who's counting), the Million Mom March (pushed by that liberal hypocrite Rosie O'Donnel (yes, liberal and hypocrisy, I'm know I'm being redundant, she doesn't want to you have a gun but all her body guards are armed) that also only had a few hundred thousand. Now we have the Million Muppet March!

"Million Muppet March" planned to defend U.S. backing for PBS

(Reuters) - Plans to save Big Bird, the fuzzy yellow character on U.S. public television's "Sesame Street," from possible extinction are taking shape in the form of a puppet-based protest next month dubbed the "Million Muppet March."

The demonstration is planned for November 3 at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., three days before the general election.

Before the presidential debate between Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney had concluded on October 3, two men who had never met each floated the Million Muppet March idea on social media. They immediately united to defend public broadcasting...

...Michael Bellavia, 43, an animation executive from Los Angeles, and Chris Mecham, 46, a university student in Idaho, separately came up with the Million Muppet March idea in response...

...Bellavia bought the Internet address www.millionmuppetmarch.com during the debate and discovered Mecham had already started a Facebook page by the same name.

Within 30 minutes of the end of the debate they were on the phone with each other, planning the march.

"I figured, why just make it a virtual show of support? Why not take this opportunity because it seemed like there was already a growing interest in it and actually make it an active, participatory event," Bellavia said. "I literally just said, 'It's happening.'"

Both men consider themselves fans of "Sesame Street," perhaps the best-known program on PBS, which received $445 million of $3.8 trillion in federal budget outlays in 2012.

Coming from rural Idaho, Mecham said he was aware how important public broadcasting was in sparsely populated areas that receive no other signals over the air.

"Romney was using Muppets as a rhetorical device to talk about getting rid of public broadcasting, which is really so much bigger than Sesame Street," Mecham said. "While he was still talking I was thinking of ways I could express my frustration at that argument. Before the debates were over I had put up the Million Muppet March Facebook page."

Hate to slap you two with reality but Big Bird is going nowhere. PBS gets a half billion from the federal government during a time a multi-trillion dollar deficits. It's aluxury we cannot afford. Kids in poverty in this county have access to cable TV but more importantly the licensing rights to the Muppets will more than pay for the federal funding. And again, hate to be Oscar the Grouch on your asses we don't have the money for this anymore and it's no longer needed.

I really found this interesting.

...Mecham is a writer who is studying political science at Boise State University out of his interest in healthcare policy.

Bellavia is president of the animation studio Animax Entertainment, founded by former Second City actor Dave Thomas....

Mecham, if you are interested in healthcare policy, why don't you do something useful and study something in healthcare. Medicine, nursing, hospital administration, etc. Or are you just trying to set yourself up with some BS non-profit and become an "expert" on medicine who has not done much more than put a bandaid on. Kinda like the leaders who pushed Obamacare on us.

Typical leftist crap. I love the Muppets, Sesame Street, etc but the time for federal funding is over. We need to get Big Bird off welfare and get his ass a job!

A good summary of B Hussein Obama and his reign of error!

I love reading Victor David Hanson and again he knocks it out the park. The full article is worth the read but here are the key points.

Sitting Out Obama - National Review Online

...Take also new mandates. The problem with Obamacare is not just that it represents a vast new entitlement at a time of record annual deficits, but that no one knows how much it will cost employers to enroll their employees. Potential hirers instead suspect only that their health-care expenses will spike, and those who are politically connected for that very reason have sought and obtained exemptions from the Obama administration: All companies, liberally owned or not, want out, not in — exactly the opposite of what the administration forecast. The public likewise suspects that Obamacare will come to resemble the hated TSA they see at airports — lots of employees milling around, little guarantee that the job at hand is done well, and an evident resentment of federal employees toward the public they serve. Will X-rays for our kidneys resemble the sort of scanning process and pat-downs we endure at airports?...

...The only thing more discouraging to investors than class warfare generally is a certain type of class warfare: a hypocritical crusade that emanates from the upper classes and selectively targets enemies on the basis not of wealth, but of the degree to which they have failed to buy exemptions with their wealth. Meanwhile, on the other end, the message is more weeks of unemployment insurance, vastly more food-stamp recipients, and constant promises of mortgage-debt relief, credit-card-debt relief, and tuition-debt relief. If one were to dream up a perfect way to destroy incentives on both the top and bottom ends, one could do no better than what we have seen since 2009.

The net result is that those with capital, even if they are small businesses, do not believe that the Obama administration likes them. They feel that regulations will increase, that taxes will increase, that energy costs will increase, and that as they pay more to government and keep less, government will nevertheless become even more arrogant and inefficient — and they will become even more demonized. When people pay over 50 percent in payroll, federal, state, and local taxes and are still caricatured as “not paying their fair share,” a sort of collective shrug follows and bodes ill for the economy at large. One need not be liked to make money, but the constant presidential harangues finally take their toll in insidious ways.

Countless times each day, a contractor chooses to hire only a part-time electrician, a CEO hoards cash rather than opens a new plant, a renting family declines to buy a reasonably priced new house, an indebted graduate heads home to kick back and wait until “something turns up,” and an unemployed worker wonders whether it is not wiser to receive all two years of federal benefits before reentering the work force.

I don’t know whether Mitt Romney’s economic package will bring instant prosperity. But I suspect that the fact alone that it is not what we have seen and heard for the last four years will unleash a pent-up energy of the sort we have not seen in a long time. In short, President Obama has achieved the impossible — he has convinced millions of rational, profit-minded Americans eager to invest, buy, and hire that he doesn’t worry much whether they do.

Here it is from the official mouth of a bunch of asses

Ok liberals, Obamaites, etc, remember how you screeched Obamacare would cut the defict (how spending a trillion cuts the deficit I can't comput but liberals don't deal with reality well.).

Now we have a update...you knew it would happen.

...Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

Too all you Obamaites who actually believed this crap please don't vote again...you are a hazard to the nation and I would hope you are ashamed but you are probably too stupid for shame. To the rest of you who voted for him knowing this, we know you have no shame. You must be defeated. I hope Mr Romney can see what he has inspired.

I've always loved Dr Williams and he again hits it out the park. You can read the whole thing but the greatest part is here

Gov. Perry's Right About Social Security

By Walter E. Williams
 
...Here's what the 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. ... Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year." Here's Congress' lying promise: "That is the most you will ever pay."

Another lie in the Social Security pamphlet is: "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right." Therefore, Americans were sold on the belief that Social Security is like a retirement account and money placed in it is our property. The fact of the matter is you have no property right whatsoever to your Social Security "contributions."

You say, "Williams, you're wrong! We have a right to Social Security payments." In a U.S. Supreme Court case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the court held that Social Security is not an insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both (employee and employer) taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way." In a later Supreme Court case, Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the court said, "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."...

Great article and worth the time...and yes, anyone with a two digit IQ knows Social Security is a Ponzi scheme...only with a normal Ponzi you join voluntarily.

PASS THIS BILL

This is a classic. You will recall B Hussein Obama's taxpayer campaign stop last Thursday where he said around one-hundred times "Pass this bill!" or words to that effect. That in spite of the fact the American Jobs Act of 2011 wasn't even written. And after they finally put one forward no Democrat in Congress would introduce it. Well a Republican actually put a real jobs bill forward....this is great. Here is the text of his bill.

112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. GOHMERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the corporate income tax.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Jobs Act of 2011’’.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CORPORATE INCOME TAX.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

2 ‘‘(b) AMOUNT OF TAX.—The amount of the tax im-
posed by subsection (a) shall be zero percent of taxable income.’’.

(b) REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX FOR CORPORATIONS.—Subparagraph (B) of section 55(b)(1) of such Code is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(B) CORPORATIONS.—In the case of a corporation, the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year is zero.’’.

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— (1) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1445(e)
of such Code are each amended by striking ‘‘35 per- cent’’ and inserting ‘‘0 percent’’.

(2) Subparagraph (A) of section 7518(g)(6) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘34 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘0 percent’’...

Thank you Mr. Gohmert...I love it when someone shoves it back into the leftists face! Now if the Speaker can take a tip or two off you.

Federal Job Training.....

I've often said if you want to find work that shouldn't be difficult. But one thing federal job programs don't teach is how to work. First, show up ready to work (on time, clean clothes, you clean, etc). Second, actually work for your money. Simple stuff a good set of parents would teach their children. Then we have the Department of Labor.

What Job 'Training' Teaches? Bad Work Habits

A 1969 government study warned that teens in federal jobs programs 'regressed in their conception of what should reasonably be required in return for wages paid.'

By JAMES BOVARD

Last Thursday, President Obama proposed new federal jobs and job-training programs for youth and the long-term unemployed. The federal government has experimented with these programs for almost a half century. The record is one of failure and scandal.

In 1962, Congress passed the Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA) to provide training for workers who lost their jobs due to automation or other technological developments. Two years later, the General Accounting Office (GAO) discovered that any trainee in this program who held a job for a single day was counted as "permanently employed"—a statistical charade by the Department of Labor to camouflage its lack of results. A decade after MDTA's inception, GAO reported that it was failing to teach valuable job skills or place trainees in private jobs and was marred by an "overriding concern with filling available slots for a particular program," regardless of what trainees actually needed.

Congress responded in 1973 by enacting the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). The preface to the new law noted that "it has been impossible to develop rational priorities" in job training. So instead of setting priorities, CETA spent vastly more money, especially on job creation. Notorious examples reported in the press in those years included paying to build an artificial rock for rock climbers, providing nude sculpture classes (where, as the Pharos-Tribune of Logansport, Ind., explained, "aspiring artists pawed each others bodies to recognize that they had 'both male and female characteristics'"), and conducting door-to-door food-stamp recruiting campaigns.

Kinda like stimulus to teach African men to wash after sex...do you see a pattern here.

Between 1961 and 1980, the feds spent tens of billions on federal job-training and employment programs. To what effect? A 1979 Washington Post investigation concluded, "Incredibly, the government has kept no meaningful statistics on the effectiveness of these programs—making the past 15 years' effort almost worthless in terms of learning what works." CETA hirees were often assigned to do whatever benefited the government agency or nonprofit that put them on the payroll, with no concern for the trainees' development. An Urban Institute study of the mid-1980s concluded that participation in CETA programs resulted in "significant earnings losses for young men of all races and no significant effects for young women."

After CETA became a laughingstock, Congress replaced it in 1982 with the Job Training Partnership Act. JTPA spent lavishly—to expand an Indiana circus museum, teach Washington taxi drivers to smile, provide foreign junkets for state and local politicians, and bankroll business relocations. According to the Labor Department's inspector general, young trainees were twice as likely to rely on food stamps after JTPA involvement than before since the "training" often included instructions on applying for an array of government benefits.

For years the Labor Department scorned the mandate in the 1982 legislation to speedily and thoroughly evaluate whether the programs actually benefitted trainees. Finally, in 1993, it released a study that showed participation in JTPA "actually reduced the earnings of male out-of-school youths." Young males enrolled in JTPA programs had 10% lower earnings than a control group that never participated....

I've said often whatever you think can't be more screwed up, the Feds can make it worse.

Good article all in all.

Who is ending Medicare as we know it

Do you really need to know?

Anyone with an at least two digit IQ knows the three big entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) are already bankrupt and in the process of bankrupting our country. But this House hearing was really interesting.

Rep. Roskam: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your report shows that Medicare will now be bankrupt in 2024. Americans would then be forced to either endure a massive tax hike or "an immediate 17-percent reduction in expenditures." In other words an immediate 17-percent Medicare cut. Can you explain what you mean by immediate?

Dr. Blahous: Well the way that the trust funds work, both on the Social Security side and on the Medicare HI side, is that the amount of expenditures the program can put out there is limited by what's in the trust funds. Now on the SMI side that's not really an issue because we just give the trust fund each year whatever is required to keep pace with costs. But once that trust fund runs out, the program lacks the authority to make benefit payments.>/u>...

Roskam: And that immediate is the common understanding of immediate, in other words, this present moment in time. In other words, when insolvency happens, then you immediately are prohibited based on the law and based on your understanding as a trustee from paying anything further out. And your estimation is that it would be a 17-percent benefit cut. Is that right?


Dr. Blahous: Well its 17 percent on average over 75 years, now it varies according to year. I think in 2024 specifically it's about 10 percent and that increases, then it becomes 25 percent by the 2040s.

Dr. Reischauer: What I think my colleague was describing is when the trust fund became insolvent, money would still be flowing in from tax receipts and Medicare would delay paying bills, and so a hospital would send this bill in and rather than being paid in 24 days, it might have to wait five months. The CMS and intermediaries and other payers would be writing out the checks and transferring the resources to the hospital, hospice, whatever, on a much delayed basis.

Roskam: So that cut just so I'm clear, is not a hypothetical cut, it's not a hypothetical delay, it's an actual delay in payment to the point of reaching this 17-percent number based on your own projection. Is that right?

Dr. Blahous: That's right. The Social Security Act which deals with these trust fund issues is very explicit that payments can only be made from the trust funds.

Roskam: So there's no other flexibility. If the revenues aren't there, if an insolvency is declared, you have no other remedy but to move forward and make those cuts. Is that right?

Dr. Blahous: Right. The programs don't have the authority to borrow in excess of the resources provided by the trust funds.

Roskam: And absent some change in the program your prediction is that is where our nation will be in 2024. That's right?

Dr. Blahous: That's right.

Dr. Reischauer: With respect to the hospital insurance system.

Roskam: I understand. So when the gentleman from Wisconsin said that there's a proposal that's out there by the Majority on this Committee that ends Medicare. In fact, Medicare as we know it will end in 2024, absent some change in policy or some change in moving forward. That's right isn't it?

Dr. Blahous: Yes.

Gee I wonder where AARP is? Rhetorical question, I know.

In other words the system is heading to bankruptcy (actually it already is) and will simply collapse in 13 years. And where are the Democrats with their ideas to fix the problems?

Their silence is deafening. No surprise there.

Let's pray the end the Obama Reign of Error comes soon...we need adults to handle these problems. God knows those idiots like Schumer, Reid, Barney Frank et all will not.

UPDATE: Remember the fact the Obama regieme hasn't proposed a budget yet for FY 12. This is a classic...from the CBO head.

HBC Chairman Paul Ryan: “We got your re-analysis of the President’s budget. I won’t go back into that. But the President gave a speech on April 13th where he outlined a new budget framework that claims $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years. Have you estimated the budget impact of this framework?”

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf: “No, Mr. Chairman. We don’t estimate speeches. We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis.”

Is is 2012 yet?

After the cluster of the budget battle, this needs no comment

Another thing that the RINO's in the Congress can cut

If ever there was a racist group it has to be the National Council of La Raza…now I don’t habla too good so I’ll use English. The Race.
They are one of the usual suspects who are supposedly representing all American’s of Latin American descent who say the only thing we need to do to handle the violence coming up from south of the border is amnesty. Excuse me, Compresenhive Immigration Reform.

Now it gets free publicity from the 4th Estate and millions from rich leftist, so of course it needs federal funding.

Outrage! US Government Funding La Raza with Your Tax Dollars - HUMAN EVENTS

Outrage! US Government Funding La Raza with Your Tax Dollars
by Mike Piccione

The United States government is funding the National Council of La Raza with our tax dollars. La Raza, which literally means in Spanish “The Race,” is a radical organization that advocates open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. I pulled and analyzed the tax return Form 990, the form filed by 501(c) 3 organizations to the IRS, and here is what was reported:

Government Grants (contributions) to the National Council of La Raza

2008 Tax Returns $5,136,535

2007 Tax Returns $3,458,351

2006 Tax Returns $3,353,319

Three Year Total $11,948,205

What do people get paid at La Raza?

According to the 2008 tax returns seventeen people listed as officers, directors, trustees, key employees and highest compensated employees of the National Council of La Raza have an income ranging from $119,675 to $378,446, the latter of which goes to Janet Murguia, president and CEO.

To put that income figure in perspective a rank and file United States Senator makes $174,000. A United States Marine Sergeant with five years of service earns a base salary of $29,376, including the raise received for 2011.

Lobbying:

Part II, Section 1b indicates lobbying expenditures to influence a legislative body amounted to $550,787.

Section 1g indicates lobbying expenditures to “Grassroots nontaxable amount” of $250,000.

Here is the quick analysis: The US government pays La Raza to lobby the US government for money.

The United States of America is facing a multitude of critical issues. Two of those issues are wasteful government spending and illegal immigration. Cutting funding for the National Council of La Raza would begin to help in both of those issues...

OK...we can't cut this off Mr Boehner? If he can't slash this from the budget Obamacare has won.

Problems with education in RI....and in America

One problem is stated but not well explained and another problem is not really stated.

Providence plans to pink slip all teachers
01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, February 23, 2011
By Linda Borg Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — The school district plans to send out dismissal notices to every one of its 1,926 teachers, an unprecedented move that has union leaders up in arms.

In a letter sent to all teachers Tuesday, Supt. Tom Brady wrote that the Providence School Board on Thursday will vote on a resolution to dismiss every teacher, effective the last day of school.

In an e-mail sent to all teachers and School Department staff, Brady said, “We are forced to take this precautionary action by the March 1 deadline given the dire budget outline for the 2011-2012 school year in which we are projecting a near $40 million deficit for the district,” Brady wrote. “Since the full extent of the potential cuts to the school budget have yet to be determined, issuing a dismissal letter to all teachers was necessary to give the mayor, the School Board and the district maximum flexibility to consider every cost savings option, including reductions in staff.” State law requires that teachers be notified about potential changes to their employment status by March 1.

Now the fact Rhode Island has budget problems should come as no surprise. Many a state has that issue. But here is an issue that raises an eyebrow.

“This is beyond insane,” Providence Teachers Union President Steve Smith said Tuesday night. “Let’s create the most chaos and the highest level of anxiety in a district where teachers are already under unbelievable stress. Now I know how the United States State Department felt on Dec. 7 , 1941.” That was the day the Japanese government bombed Pearl Harbor.

I don't know what is more screwed up. The fact he compared being laid off with one of the greatest attacks we've ever suffered.  Or the fact the writer felt it necessary to write down what was the significance of December 7th 1941.  I would think someone with a basic knowledge of American history would not need to be reminded of the event of that date.  Like the readers of this paper....or a graduate of these public schools.

Mr Smith maybe you should ask if the people of RI are getting their money's worth in education spending.  If you are doing your job right a reporter in the future will not have to explain the significance of September 11 2001. It looks like Ms Borg has already made her judgement.

I wonder if Time will have a cover story of these two and a headline "Who needs Washington?"

A few years ago Time, the once great newsweekly (now waste of trees and electrons) had this cover:

Why you ask. Because the liberal rich guys (Bloomberg always and Arnold after he got his ass kicked in the 05 elections) were going after the real issues...for New York it was transfat and for California it was not massive budget deficits, people fleeing the state but global warming (or was it climate change by 2007...I keep loosing track of the terms).













Now in a time of fiscal crisis some real leaders have come up and shown how to handle overgrown bureaucracies in the states. From Jersey:

Yet Another Reason to Like Governor Christie - By Roger Clegg - The Corner - National Review Online


“The four-year-old state Division of Minority and Women Business Development has been quietly dismantled by the administration of Gov. Chris Christie, which continues to register small businesses and help them obtain state government contracts on a race- and gender-neutral basis,” according to NJ Biz (subscription required)....

Another example of real leadership in action:

NM governor removes EIB members


Associated Press - January 4, 2011 8:25 PM ET


ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Gov. Susana Martinez has taken aim at the controversial Environmental Improvement Board.


Her office announced late Tuesday that she's removing all members currently serving on the board, which recently approved greenhouse gas cap & trade regulations that would impact power plants and other large polluters across New Mexico.


Martinez's office contends the board moved forward with the regulations after state lawmakers rejected the proposal during the legislative process.


Supporters contend the board went through an exhaustive public process before approving the regulations.


In a statement, Martinez says New Mexico has suffered from anti-business policies and that the EIB made it clear it was more interested in advancing political ideology than implementing commonsense policies.

Now I love the fact the governor is trying to make her state more business friendly. Something California and New York's people have never understood, if you unfriendly to business they will take their businesses with their jobs and tax payments to other places. But more to the point she slapped down a group of arrogant bureaucrats who need to be reminded they are not our rulers. The EIB has no authority except what it is authorized by the people of this state. And I wonder how the hell these bureaucrats get the idea they can just issue regulations without authority from the legislature or executive branches. It is nice to finally see some accountability put onto these people.

And you wonder why businesses, large and small, are running from states like PA, NY or CA

I wonder how much the bureaucracy is costing....it's not being justified by this

Philly requiring bloggers to pay $300 for a business license



Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50. To [Marilyn] Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut.


In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license...


To say that these kinds of draconian measures are detrimental to the public discourse would be an understatement.