THE GUNS OF CHICAGO AND THE STREETS OF NEW YORK

3/19/13

An initiative called “Promise Zones” based on a concept that has been endlessly flogged by liberal foundations: that if we can just form “collaboratives” to coordinate the existing morass of taxpayer funded social service agencies and programs, we will achieve a breakthrough in the self-defeating behaviors that cause poverty today. The Ford Foundation Grey Areas (War on Poverty) and more recently the Annie E Casey foundations New Futures..
The promise zones project the US department of Justice, Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, HHS, Education, and HUD. The “premise behind this is that the federal government has to be a positive actor in all of this effort—but as an actor who’s a partner. Since 2010, the department of Education has doled out nearly $100 million to “Promise Neighborhoods”, but the adm has been mum about the results.
The Promise Zone will also give out tax and regulatory breaks to encourage businesses to locate in distressed areas. This makes the liberals fleetingly acknowledge that lower taxes and less onerous regulations are good for economic activity.
Add to this Obama try are increasing the minimum wage and universal preschool education. His unwillingness to move the debate on gun violence beyond the stale polarities of gun control and gun rights has not paid off.
Take Boston for example, 75% of the city’s shootings occurred in 4.5% of its area, whereas 88.5% of the city street segments experienced not a single shooting. The NY police has brought crime and homicide down by 80% since the early 1990’s by deploying officers to locations where crime patterns are emerging. Telling them to use their lawful discretion to question people.
Chicago’s strict firearms bans, juveniles under the age of 17 are killed there 4 times as often as youth in NY. In 2012 Chicago logged 506 homicides; NY with three times the population tallied 418. Chicago has historically eschewed proactive policing, the south side community leaders are calling for the reconstitution of antigang units just so their officers can stop and question mores suspects on the streets.
And by lowering violence and fear, proactive politicians has done more to revitalize poor neighborhoods than billions of dollars of government funded social programs have ever accomplished. So major get with it.

Source—weekly standard, heather macdonald

Advertisements

OBAMA’S UNREQUITED LOVE WITH THE UNIONS

3/19/13
Actually what has Obama done for the unions after the millions they spend to get him into the White House?
February 17, 35,000 people show up for a march to protest the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Sierra Club who has endorsed civil disobedience protested outside the White House. It is funny because it’s a top priority for another powerful Obama constituency—unions. The $5.3 billion project is expected to create 20,000 jobs in the US with a great many of them going to union members.
Trumka told the standard he was unconcerned,”I think we can get it done in the second term.” Trumka asserted his belief the pipeline would be built once Obama was reelected. It’s true that not all unions are enthusiastic about the construction of the pipeline. The AFL_CIO isn’t simply another union—it’s the nations largest confederation of unions. And after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Obama and his Democratic allies over the last three election cycles.
Since 2008 unions have doled out more than $1 billion in campaign cash, including over $400 million in 2012. The WSJ was able to estimate last year that labor unions spent $4.4 billion on political activities between 2005 and 2011. Union political spending now exceeds all other direct political donations, and this is ignored in the incessant media harrumphing over super-PAC’s special interest.
Three other union developments since Obama’s reelection bear mentioning, in December, Michigan outlawed union membership as a condition of employment and became a right to work state. There is also a movement to put Ohio on the ballot for right to work.
The federal appeals court ruled on January 25 that three of Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB are invalid.
Craig Becker a former attorney for the AFL_CIO and the SEIU had authored a law review article arguing, “Employers should have no right to be heard”. Obama installed Becker with a recess appointment. Becker was behind the Boeing fiasco when the NRLB told the aviation giant that it couldn’t open a new plant in right to work state of SC.
There is precedent for blocking recess appointments, like when Reid retaliated with 30-second long “pro forma” sessions on days off so the senate would technically not be in recess. The court ruling also invalidates all of the decisions the NLRB has made in the past year. The NRLB overturned a 50-year precedent and ruled that employers have to continue collecting union dues after a collective bargaining agreement has expired. The number of labor disputes is no longer sufficient to justify resolving them with a political adm body rather than in the courts.
The latest membership numbers are the third post election development that augurs poorly for unions. Union membership now 11.3% of the workforce, it’s lowest level since 1916, just 6.6% of the private sector workforce is unionized.
Source—weekly standard, mark hemingway

IS LIBERALISM BAD FOR BUSINESS

3/18/13

The WSJ reports in the past five years California has lost a net 150,000 residents to Texas. In the same time span Texas gained 400,000 jobs while CA lost 640,000. Tx was responsible for 47% of national net job creation.
All the state in the top 10 are pure red, that is with republican control of both the Executive branch and the Legislature, and nearly all the bottom 10 have long been run by Dems.
Ca. is now deemed the most ruinously contentious place to operate, 254 companies moved jobs out of state in 2011, five times as many as in 2009. With the passage of prop 30 raising taxes up the wazoo, including a new top rate of 13.3% for 7 years—up from 10.3%. An in depth investigation of the management of each state, checking credit ratings, budget deficits, GDP growth, education, exports, unemployment, debt per capita and taxes the WSJ was able to calculate how successful a state had managed its resources.
CA. in the #50 spot can be found in almost all of the states faring poorly in the study. The only state to have a substandard Standards and Poor’s credit rating of A- until Illinois joined the bad credit club in January thanks to its $96.8 billion unfunded liabilities to 5 states pension systems. Moody’s sorry rating of A2 for Illinois places it in the same league as the impoverished third-world country of Botswana.
Most of the states in the top 20 are right to work states. Louisiana is the most improved state, jumping 32 spots in just 5 years, in 2006 it ranked 47th it is now 13th. They have active government push to reduce taxes and regulation and to encourage new industry to relocate to the state.
Florida enacted business tax and regulatory reforms that have contributed to the creation of more than 140,000 private sector jobs and an unemployment drop of 2.1%. a United Van Lines study of customer migration patterns found people deserting Blue States, NJ had the highest ration (62%) of people moving out compared to those moving in followed by Illinois (60%) and NY (58%) NC, SC,AZ and Fl have the highest ratios of people moving in. NY lost over 1.6 million and CA lost 1.5 million.
The top ten worst states for business:
CA,HI, IL,MI,PA,NY,MS,CT,NJ,OR.

Sources—limbaugh, forbes, wsj, chief executive, usa today

THE BRILLIANT ARE QUOTING AGAIN

3/18/13

Sayings don’t have to say exactly what they mean, as they are often just similar situations with different words placed within.

This was a political speech but it was well written, it had a beginning middle, and an end—BOB SCHIEFFER

I love Nancy Pelosi—love Nancy Pelosi…she just generates good-looking grandbabies. They’re just so sharp and handsome—OBAMA

We avow the first amendment. We stand with that, and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves, in their homes and their jobs, wherever and their workplace, for recreation, for hunting and the rest—NANCY PELOSI

It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem.—NANCY PELOSI, (PAYGO????)

The country has a paying for problem—STENY HOYER

WE DON’T HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM—OBAMA

Of course the president believes we have a spending problem.—JAY CARNEY

Now the president always has to back up his words with proof—MATT LAUER

WOULD YOU CONSIDER THESE ATTACKS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

3/18/13

Obama has long made clear that he’s hell-bent on ramming his agenda through without congress. Despite the recent slap from the US court of appeals, which ruled his bypassing the Senate violated the constitution, Obama is determined to overreach his executive orders.
“If we take back our won country we have to start making decisions for ourselves and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document”—Louis Seidman—COBS
“I would not look to the US constitution , if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012”-Ruth Ginsburg–Justice
“Has technology rendered the 2 amendment to the US constitution obsolete—we say yes”—NY times
“The issue of the constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago”—Ezra Klein-Washington post
“Both the bible and the constitution were well intentioned but they are basically, inherently flawed”—Piers Morgan—CNN
“The constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect at least in so many words.. Entitlements to food, education, and health care”—Adam Liptak-NY times.
“Obama is updating FDR second bill of rights, the right to a useful and remunerative job. The right of every family to a decent home. The right to enjoy good health. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment:–Cass Sunstein-bloomberg.
“My friends on the right don’t like to hear this but the constitution is not a clear document?”—Ruth Ginsburg—Justice
“It turns out our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes”—Obama—Matt Lauer
“I’ve got a simple idea: lets give up on the constitution. I know it sounds radical but its really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie”—Louis Seidman-COBS
“What is the justification for an assault weapon? We avow the first amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun”—Pelosi-fox news
“Me I’m with the eleventh amendment. Oh is it the eleventh amendment? Eh? Fourteenth is it? Whatever it is, I’m with the constitution of the US. Now we have to talk about baseball”—Pelosi—weekly press conference
“Well basically we’re not looking to the constitution on that aspect of it” asked “under what portion of the constitution is the government allowed to require a private or religious organization to pay for anything” –Kathy Hochul—D NY
“Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others—asked—“what part of the constitution gives congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance—John Conyers-CNS

source—limbaugh and those quoted above.

DOES OBAMA HAVE FAVORED RICH

3/18/13
A BROTHER’S SUFFERINGS CLAIM A BROTHER’S PITY

“A central premise of my campaign for President was to change the tax code that was too skewed towards the wealthy at the expense of working middle class Americans. The deficit needs to be reduced in a way that’s balanced. Everyone pays their fair share”—OBAMA
Even though the republican think they jettison a core principle they raised taxes on the richest of the rich, but the deal left Obama’s favored rich alone.
There two types of wealthy in this country—“income wealthy” hit hard by this tax and the “asset wealthy” who where barely touched in this deal.
The income wealthy highly paid by someone else got hammered, to the extent that they’ll never be able to amass asset wealth. Asset wealth emerged basically unscathed (Buffet).
Buffet will not see much of a tax increase on his assets nor will Immelt.
The asset wealthy will be paying half the rate of the income wealthy pay. The Buffets, Gates, will not be touched and the hedge fund people not touched. Wall street not touched, and fundraisers. They all got off scot- free.
The newly enacted tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans actually affect them? Hardly at all.. they don’t get their income form wages and salaries. In 2006 the bottom four-fifths of US tax filers got 82% of their income form wages and salaries, a congressional research office study found.
Obama—I’m not in any way trying to target anyone, I don’t resent anyone, ever, for their wealth. Resentment and jealousy are the twin poisons of the liberal mind. I don’t ever want government used to “get even” with anybody except those who break the law. I don’t want government involved in punitive taxation.
According to the Tax Policy Center Obama’s deal means higher income taxes for 70% of Americans. Prosperity, people doing well, that’s been the root cause of all our ills.
Young people have always sought success, but it’s impossible to begin to acquire wealth without income. Obama is protection those who already have their wealth, the asset rich, his donors.
OBAMA’S RICHEST DONORS: TOP 20
NEW YORK AREA 87.1 MILLION
CALIFORNIA 16.1 MILLION
DC AREA 24.3 MILLION
MARYLAND AREA 16 MILLION
ILLINOIS 21.5 MILLION
VIRGINIA 7.4 MILLION
CONNECTICUT 12.8 MILLION

Source–limbaugh

DOES OBAMACARE STICK IT TO THE YOUNG

3/18/13

NEVER INTERRUPT YOUR ENEMY WHEN HE’S MAKING A MISTAKE

“Lower cost for young adults” OBAMA fact sheet. “Now, if you don’t have health insurance, Obama care will offer you quality affordable choices—OBAMA.

This is a shell game being run on the young by liberal con artists.
Two promises to the young—parent’s plans will cover you under the age of 27, and Obamacare will lower the cost of individual health care insurance for young people.
2012 according to the BLS figures—young people are more dependent on their parents than any generation in American history. However Sebelius crows about the over 3 million adult “children” who are now covered under a parents policy, thanks to Obamacare. Obamacare doesn’t even become full blown until January 2014. The hundreds of pages of the Obamacare starts on October 1, 2013. Individuals who are not receiving health insurance form their jobs will be strong-armed into purchasing individual insurance form state health insurance exchanges. (23 states have opted out of the plan and the fed takes over in these states).
Avik Roy in Forbes insuring the average 18 year old for instance cost one-sixth the cost of insuring a typical 64 year old. This is called “An EXPERIENCE Rating”. Many states however restrict this “age band” to 5:1.
Obamacare however jettisoned the insurance industry’s time-tested “experience rating” system in favor of a utopian scheme “community rating” provision. This requires health insurers to level out premiums so young people pay more and older people pay less. Obamacare is a sop to AARP, requires that insurers only charge three times as much to their costliest beneficiaries what they charge to their least-costly ones—an age band of 3:1, and the young people will pay through the nose. Insurance rate hike of 45% for the 18-24 year age bracket, which is bad enough, while Roy puts the increase at a horrifying 75%.
Oliver Wyman the 3:1 age band will cause more than 500,000 to drop coverage and join the ranks of the uninsured. The federal penalty for not buying health insurance ($95 in 2014; $325 in 2015; $695 in 2016). They’ll wait until something goes wrong then sign up—remember no pre-existing conditions.
So when the young eschew insurance, older people will face far higher premiums. New “Essential Health Benefits” the young are at the mercy of obamacare, is in the array of benefits that health insurance plans must cover. The new regs dictated by Sebelius and Co., include prescription drugs maternity care and other services which used to be costly upgrades. Re the Huffington Post, bigger and better benefits mean much higher premiums. HuffPo feebly tries to spin it; seeks to guarantee coverage at lower prices to people as they get older and sicker, but in exchange it is possible they will pay more into the system when they are young and healthy and need less medical cared.
Obamacare will more than double the cost of health insurance for many young people and then the law will turn around and spend taxpayer dollars to subsidize the cost of this newly costly insurance.
Sebelius promises the higher rates “will be largely mitigated for most people by the availability of premium tax credits. Tax credit will be given on a sliding scale to people with incomes up to four times the poverty level, depending on the state. Jonathan Gruber bragged that Obamacare would save young adults 13% and older Americans 31% on premiums. PricewaterhouseCoopers report that individual premiums would increase by 47%. Gruber had to walk back his promises.
According to the Census Bureau data 55% of all uninsured Americans are under the age of 35. Robert Hutley of eHealthInsurance admitted to the Huffington Post that pricing will go up for all populations and some more so than others.

Sources—limbaugh, bls, forbes, whitehouse.gov, huffington, gruber, hutley.