No American should have been shocked by recent revelations that the Federal Communications Commission was sponsoring a thinly veiled effort to intimidate news coverage by the broadcast industry. It was just the latest attempt by the Obama Administration to stifle free speech.
The administration's henchmen have undertaken an insidious effort to stamp out any criticism of the president, his policies or his authority to rule by executive fiat. Censorship and media bullying are supposed to be the tools of totalitarian governments, not free and open democratic societies.
The latest infringement on the First Amendment came to light when FCC commissioner Ajit Pai used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal to expose a shady initiative to "thrust the government into the newsrooms across the country."
The commission's vehicle was a phony "study" to grill reporters, editors and station owners about their news decisions and news gathering. As part of its research, the commission wanted to delve into perceived bias, the news selection process and coverage of so-called critical information needs.
FCC flunkies snooping around newsrooms would have a chilling impact on broadcasters. The FCC awards broadcast licenses to television and radio stations. Licenses are up for renewal every eight years. By refusing to grant a renewal, the powerful FCC can put a station out of business.
Obama's spin masters tried to dismiss the firestorm over the survey as much ado about a harmless research project. But broadcasters had every right to fear for their existence based on the Obama Administrations' full court press to censor the media.
It wasn't that long ago that Eric Holder's Justice Department was caught red-handed snooping into the phone records of 21 reporters at the Associated Press. The news organization's crime was reporting on a foiled terrorist attack one day before President Obama had planned a press briefing on the drama.
As he always does, the president claimed no knowledge of the spying charges. He has become the master a plausible deniability about the unscrupulous actions of the coterie of cronies running amok throughout his government.
Just as the AP story vanished from the headlines, the Justice Department was outed for targeting Fox News reporter James Rosen on charges of aiding and abetting a co-conspirator. His crime was broadcasting a report on North Korea's expected response to United Nations nuclear sanctions.
Holder's thugs combed the personal emails of Rosen to try to discover how he learned about the North Korean president's likely reaction. As with other free press violations, Obama contended he first learned of his Justice Department's skulduggery from the news media.
In recent weeks, news leaked about the Federal Bureau of Investigation's indictment of conservative commentator and author Dinesh D'Souza on campaign finance charges. D'Souza posted $500,000 bail and vowed the FBI bullies would not intimidate his reporting.
D'Souza had the audacity to direct a 2012 film chastising President Obama. The movie, entitled "2016: Obama's America," was the top grossing documentary of that year, pulling in $33 million. No one can remember liberal Michael Moore being harassed for his scathing movie on President George W. Bush.
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, a self-proclaimed liberal, wrote a column on the D'Souza case excoriating the FBI for its complaint. "I can't help but think that (D'Souza's) politics have something to do with it. It smacks of selective prosecution."
Most Americans have forgotten the administration's most egregious affront to free speech. In 2012, a little known film maker produced a crude movie lampooning the prophet Muhammad. His film was erroneously blamed for the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.
The film-maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested and held without bail on a trumped up charge. His real crime was violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws that do not exist in the U.S. He is languishing today in a federal prison and has never been brought to trial.
Taken in isolation each one of these incidents might be dismissed as the misguided actions of knuckle-headed administration officials. But when viewed in context, these examples paint a clear picture of an orchestrated government plot to censor political discourse and expunge dissent.
Every American regardless of political affiliation should be outraged by Obama's pattern of attacks on free speech. The guarantee of freedom of the press was the First Amendment written into the U.S. Constitution for a reason. Free speech is all that stands between tyranny and liberty.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
Mortgaging The Next Generation's Future
An medical emergency exists in Washington. Republicans in the House of Representatives are in desperate need of donors for spine transplants. The invertebrate GOP has once again demonstrated its penchant for surrender by waving the white flag on the nation's Leviathan debt problem.
As the United States debt bumped up against the ceiling, Republicans cast their lot with Harry Reid and Senate Democrats by voting to raise the cap without a whimper. In doing so, the GOP-controlled House cowed to media pressure and bowed to President Obama who refused to negotiate over the limit.
As a result, the government has once again failed to come to grips with the biggest threat to the nation's future. There is a deafening silence from both political parties on the tsunami of debt which eventually will swamp America's ability to meet its obligations and wipe out its financial security.
Despite the imminent crisis, Washington's political class remains callous to the calamity. It is time Americans started demanding action. Unless there are course corrections, the U.S. will remain on a path of self-destruction that will make bankrupt Greece appear to be financially prudent.
Since 1960, the nation's debt lid has been lifted 78 times. Yet there is never a hue and cry from the Beltway Big Spenders. Although as a senator, Barrack Obama berated his predecessor George W. Bush for requesting to boost the debt ceiling, describing the demand as "irresponsible and unpatriotic."
The president's tune has not only changed, but the entire score has been rewritten.
Since Barack Obama took up residence in the Oval Office, federal government debt has surged a staggering $6.666 trillion, according to figures from the Treasury Department. When Obama was first inaugurated in 2008, debt stood at $10.6 trillion. On January 31, indebtedness was about $17.1 trillion.
In less than six years into the Obama presidency, the United States has accumulated as much new debt as it did in the first 227 years of its history. Since September 20, 2012, the national debt has grown an average of $2.47 billion each and every day.
For some perspective, the federal debt in 1910 was $1 billion or about $12.40 per citizen. Today the debt load works out to $54,425 for every man, woman and child living in the United States. Even worse, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects debt will continue to mushroom.
The CBO this month forecasted that public debt will reach a staggering $21 trillion by 2024, just 10 years from now. If the forecast is correct, that means that the interest on the national debt will triple from this year's level of $233 billion to a whooping $800 billion per year.
Unfortunately, the official debt number understates the nation's total indebtedness. On top of federal debt, state governments have racked up $5.1 trillion in debt, according to the non-partisan, nonprofit State Budget Solutions, a national public policy organization.
The states' combined debt is the equivalent of $16,178 for every citizen. Unfunded public pension liabilities represent a massive 79 percent of all state debt. California tops the list with $778 billion in unfunded financial commitments.
Unfunded pensions at the state level are only the tip of the debt iceberg. The federal government and by extension taxpayers are on the hook for trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicare prescription drugs.
The Obama Administration tries to downplay the future obligations. Although it acknowledges the liabilities exist, the feds argue they can meet the future benefit payments by raising taxes, restructuring programs or by borrowing more money. In recent years, they have done all three.
There are legitimate disagreements over the value of the government's future obligations. Some calculate the number as high as $200 trillion, others peg it as "low" as $54.4 trillion. Fact checkers at The Washington Post claimed last October that the number was closer to $30 trillion.
Even using The Washington Post's deflated figure, that still adds up to more than $52 trillion in total indebtedness for the United States, excluding state debt. How high must that number go before Americans use the voting booth to reign in the incessant borrowing binge?
A day is looming when the nation will face some Draconian choices. Boston University economist Larry Kotlikoff studied the debt problem and estimated that income taxes would have to increase by 54.8 percent or federal spending reduced by 36.2 per cent to meet future obligations.
Those are sobering numbers that should shake every American from lethargy over the nation's debt. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to do something about it before they are stuck with a ghastly bill for our government's excesses.
As the United States debt bumped up against the ceiling, Republicans cast their lot with Harry Reid and Senate Democrats by voting to raise the cap without a whimper. In doing so, the GOP-controlled House cowed to media pressure and bowed to President Obama who refused to negotiate over the limit.
As a result, the government has once again failed to come to grips with the biggest threat to the nation's future. There is a deafening silence from both political parties on the tsunami of debt which eventually will swamp America's ability to meet its obligations and wipe out its financial security.
Despite the imminent crisis, Washington's political class remains callous to the calamity. It is time Americans started demanding action. Unless there are course corrections, the U.S. will remain on a path of self-destruction that will make bankrupt Greece appear to be financially prudent.
Since 1960, the nation's debt lid has been lifted 78 times. Yet there is never a hue and cry from the Beltway Big Spenders. Although as a senator, Barrack Obama berated his predecessor George W. Bush for requesting to boost the debt ceiling, describing the demand as "irresponsible and unpatriotic."
The president's tune has not only changed, but the entire score has been rewritten.
Since Barack Obama took up residence in the Oval Office, federal government debt has surged a staggering $6.666 trillion, according to figures from the Treasury Department. When Obama was first inaugurated in 2008, debt stood at $10.6 trillion. On January 31, indebtedness was about $17.1 trillion.
In less than six years into the Obama presidency, the United States has accumulated as much new debt as it did in the first 227 years of its history. Since September 20, 2012, the national debt has grown an average of $2.47 billion each and every day.
For some perspective, the federal debt in 1910 was $1 billion or about $12.40 per citizen. Today the debt load works out to $54,425 for every man, woman and child living in the United States. Even worse, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects debt will continue to mushroom.
The CBO this month forecasted that public debt will reach a staggering $21 trillion by 2024, just 10 years from now. If the forecast is correct, that means that the interest on the national debt will triple from this year's level of $233 billion to a whooping $800 billion per year.
Unfortunately, the official debt number understates the nation's total indebtedness. On top of federal debt, state governments have racked up $5.1 trillion in debt, according to the non-partisan, nonprofit State Budget Solutions, a national public policy organization.
The states' combined debt is the equivalent of $16,178 for every citizen. Unfunded public pension liabilities represent a massive 79 percent of all state debt. California tops the list with $778 billion in unfunded financial commitments.
Unfunded pensions at the state level are only the tip of the debt iceberg. The federal government and by extension taxpayers are on the hook for trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicare prescription drugs.
The Obama Administration tries to downplay the future obligations. Although it acknowledges the liabilities exist, the feds argue they can meet the future benefit payments by raising taxes, restructuring programs or by borrowing more money. In recent years, they have done all three.
There are legitimate disagreements over the value of the government's future obligations. Some calculate the number as high as $200 trillion, others peg it as "low" as $54.4 trillion. Fact checkers at The Washington Post claimed last October that the number was closer to $30 trillion.
Even using The Washington Post's deflated figure, that still adds up to more than $52 trillion in total indebtedness for the United States, excluding state debt. How high must that number go before Americans use the voting booth to reign in the incessant borrowing binge?
A day is looming when the nation will face some Draconian choices. Boston University economist Larry Kotlikoff studied the debt problem and estimated that income taxes would have to increase by 54.8 percent or federal spending reduced by 36.2 per cent to meet future obligations.
Those are sobering numbers that should shake every American from lethargy over the nation's debt. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to do something about it before they are stuck with a ghastly bill for our government's excesses.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Inconvenient Truths About Food Stamps
A mammoth, bipartisan farm bill authorizing $1 trillion in spending on agricultural subsidies and nutrition programs became law last week after President Obama affixed his signature to the measure, ending three years of Congressional wrangling.
Obama's signing represents a flip-flop for the president, who threatened to veto the bill if it contained even one iota of cuts in food stamp spending. The compromise measure snips one percent from the food stamp budget over a five-year period. Obama even praised the bipartisan bill.
Although it is known officially as the farm bill, about 80 percent of the budget is dedicated to the food stamp program, formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Congress lumps the agricultural subsidies in the budget to gain bipartisan support and to camouflage food stamp spending.
Food stamp outlays have spiraled out of control, nearly doubling over the last six years. Taxpayers shelled out $47 billion to 26 million recipients in 2007. Last year, spending surged to nearly $80 billion and the number of beneficiaries skyrocketed to a record 47 million.
Until this year, it has been considered political suicide to tackle the swollen food stamp budget. Democrats have used the media to insulate the program from oversight, ignoring the waste, fraud and inflated overhead rooted in the federal bureaucracy.
The truth is reductions can be made in the food stamp budget without harming the needy. Here are a few facts that underscore what a lousy job the federal government has done in administering the food stamp program and portend areas of potential budget savings:
Obama's signing represents a flip-flop for the president, who threatened to veto the bill if it contained even one iota of cuts in food stamp spending. The compromise measure snips one percent from the food stamp budget over a five-year period. Obama even praised the bipartisan bill.
Although it is known officially as the farm bill, about 80 percent of the budget is dedicated to the food stamp program, formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Congress lumps the agricultural subsidies in the budget to gain bipartisan support and to camouflage food stamp spending.
Food stamp outlays have spiraled out of control, nearly doubling over the last six years. Taxpayers shelled out $47 billion to 26 million recipients in 2007. Last year, spending surged to nearly $80 billion and the number of beneficiaries skyrocketed to a record 47 million.
Until this year, it has been considered political suicide to tackle the swollen food stamp budget. Democrats have used the media to insulate the program from oversight, ignoring the waste, fraud and inflated overhead rooted in the federal bureaucracy.
The truth is reductions can be made in the food stamp budget without harming the needy. Here are a few facts that underscore what a lousy job the federal government has done in administering the food stamp program and portend areas of potential budget savings:
- The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently investigated federal food assistance programs and found overlap, inefficiency and wasted resources. The non-partisan agency reported administrative costs amounted to $5.5 billion a year or about 10 percent of the value of food stamps distributed to recipients.
- The federal government supplies one-third of the population of Puerto Rico with food stamps. That makes the United States territory one of the highest consumers of government food assistance. The annual cost to American taxpayers is about $2 billion. Yet Puerto Rican residents pay no personal income taxes to the U.S. Treasury.
- In its latest review of the food stamp program, the GAO uncovered food stamp overpayments amounting to $2.26 billion in a single year. Overpayments include fraud, food stamp trafficking and eligibility errors. The Department of Agriculture, which oversees the program, has a measly total of 40 investigators to ferret out fraud. That's why many believe current fraud is grossly understated.
- In 1999, the agriculture department adopted a new rule that relaxed eligibility rules, fueling the massive expansion in food stamp spending. In its infinite wisdom, the department created something called Broad Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE). Under the rule, Americans can claim food stamps if they receive any assistance from a temporary government program. This allows people to skip income tests for eligibility. An inspector general found that 17.6 percent of BBCE-qualified food stamp recipients lived in households with incomes that exceeded federal limits.
- Once people receive food stamps, they very seldom leave the program. A Bureau of Labor Statistics study found that 40.8 percent of food stamp recipients have collected benefits for ten years or longer. Another 28.9 percent of beneficiaries had been on the food stamp dole for five-to-ten years. The food stamp program was never designed as an ongoing entitlement. It was supposed to serve as temporary, emergency assistance for needy families instead of encouraging long-term dependency.
In addition to the facts cited above, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence about food stamp chicanery. For instance, a recent $2 million lottery winner in Michigan continued to receive food stamps. Under federal guidelines, lottery winnings are not counted as income if the person takes the lump sum option.
The nation's broken food stamp program is beyond repair. Even if it could be fixed, no one in Congress has the political fortitude to reform an entitlement program that has been swaddled in a humanitarian cocoon that protects it from legitimate scrutiny.
The nation's broken food stamp program is beyond repair. Even if it could be fixed, no one in Congress has the political fortitude to reform an entitlement program that has been swaddled in a humanitarian cocoon that protects it from legitimate scrutiny.
Religious and charitable organizations like the Food For The Poor do a much better job of optimizing resources to put food in the hands of the hungry without bureaucratic overhead and waste. The government should exit the business and use those taxpayer dollars to let local groups feed the poor.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Hillary And Christie: A Bridge Too Far
If there ever was a scintilla of doubt about the American media's blatant bias, look no further for proof than The New York Times' coverage accorded New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over recent months.
Both politicians landed on The Times front pages after scandals threatened to weaken their nascent presidential chances. However, in the case of Clinton the apparatchik media has tried to cover up the Benghazi conspiracy that may yet torpedo her presidential campaign before it lifts off the launch pad.
On the other hand, the rotund governor has been vilified in The Times after charges surfaced that his administration plotted closures of access lanes to one of the nation's busiest bridges. Swirling allegations claimed the episode was political payback to a mayor who refused to endorse Christie.
After the news became public, an angry Christie fired his deputy chief of staff, who allegedly orchestrated the closures. The governor publicly apologized and he repeatedly denied knowing anything about the plan concocted by his deputy.
The New York Times erupted in indignation. Christie became a target of its investigative reporters and fodder for its opinion columnists. The Times hinted at a cover-up and labeled the governor a bully. The self-anointed "newspaper of record" fished for allegations, prompting Christie to castigate its "sloppy reporting."
Just for the record, no one died as a result of the lane closures. No one was injured. Traffic was snarled and thousands of New Jersey residents were late for work, missed appointments or arrived late for dinner. No matter how minor the consequences, the Christie administration deserved its media black eye.
By comparison, Clinton has skirted any blame for the deaths of four Americans on September 11, 2012, in a murderous attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. In fact, she has steadfastly refused to clear up conflicting reports about what happened that night even though her department had responsibility for the embassy.
During her appearance before a House committee, Clinton famously stiff-armed Republicans when they pressed her on the administration's claims the deadly attacks were sparked by a spontaneous protest. A flustered Clinton pouted, "What difference at this point does it make?"
Despite obvious security lapses at the embassy and Clinton's misrepresentations of the facts, The Times has buried its head in the sand. There have been no Clinton investigations. Neither has anyone been fired from the state department for dereliction of duty or for ignoring pleas to beef up embassy security.
The same New York Times that has crucified Christie tried to whitewash the Benghazi episode in an editorial posted online on December 30. The newspaper said its faux investigation turned up "no evidence" that Al Qaeda or another terrorist group had any role in the assault.
The newspaper resurrected the counterfeit claim that the mob's motivation was "fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam." The writer scolded Republicans for their "obsessive effort" to discredit Clinton. The editorial signaled the paper was drawing the curtains on its Benghazi coverage.
Less than a month after its sermonizing, The Times' investigation was thoroughly discredited when Fox News revealed that General Carter Ham told a House Committee that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was informed immediately on September 11 that the embassy attack was carried out by terrorists.
A transcript of General Ham's testimony, whose command included Libya, shows he told the committee that it was known "very quickly" that the ruckus at the embassy was "not a demonstration." He labeled the deadly incident a "terrorist attack."
Despite the contradiction, Clinton has remained mum on the subject. However, she obviously is starting to feel the heat. The former Secretary of State was heckled last week about Benghazi during a speech at the University of Buffalo. At another appearance, she called the attacks "my biggest regret," but ducked any responsibility.
Meanwhile, the lapdog Times continues to hound Christie, now accusing him of lying about his knowledge of the bridge closing.Taking a page from the Clinton playbook, a sullen Christie should whine, "What difference at this point does it make?" Surely, The Times will stand down as it did with Clinton.
Fairness and objectivity were once pillars of American journalism, including at the formerly venerable New York Times. Now they are bridges too far for The Times and its partisan apostles in the media.
Both politicians landed on The Times front pages after scandals threatened to weaken their nascent presidential chances. However, in the case of Clinton the apparatchik media has tried to cover up the Benghazi conspiracy that may yet torpedo her presidential campaign before it lifts off the launch pad.
On the other hand, the rotund governor has been vilified in The Times after charges surfaced that his administration plotted closures of access lanes to one of the nation's busiest bridges. Swirling allegations claimed the episode was political payback to a mayor who refused to endorse Christie.
After the news became public, an angry Christie fired his deputy chief of staff, who allegedly orchestrated the closures. The governor publicly apologized and he repeatedly denied knowing anything about the plan concocted by his deputy.
The New York Times erupted in indignation. Christie became a target of its investigative reporters and fodder for its opinion columnists. The Times hinted at a cover-up and labeled the governor a bully. The self-anointed "newspaper of record" fished for allegations, prompting Christie to castigate its "sloppy reporting."
Just for the record, no one died as a result of the lane closures. No one was injured. Traffic was snarled and thousands of New Jersey residents were late for work, missed appointments or arrived late for dinner. No matter how minor the consequences, the Christie administration deserved its media black eye.
By comparison, Clinton has skirted any blame for the deaths of four Americans on September 11, 2012, in a murderous attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. In fact, she has steadfastly refused to clear up conflicting reports about what happened that night even though her department had responsibility for the embassy.
During her appearance before a House committee, Clinton famously stiff-armed Republicans when they pressed her on the administration's claims the deadly attacks were sparked by a spontaneous protest. A flustered Clinton pouted, "What difference at this point does it make?"
Despite obvious security lapses at the embassy and Clinton's misrepresentations of the facts, The Times has buried its head in the sand. There have been no Clinton investigations. Neither has anyone been fired from the state department for dereliction of duty or for ignoring pleas to beef up embassy security.
The same New York Times that has crucified Christie tried to whitewash the Benghazi episode in an editorial posted online on December 30. The newspaper said its faux investigation turned up "no evidence" that Al Qaeda or another terrorist group had any role in the assault.
The newspaper resurrected the counterfeit claim that the mob's motivation was "fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam." The writer scolded Republicans for their "obsessive effort" to discredit Clinton. The editorial signaled the paper was drawing the curtains on its Benghazi coverage.
Less than a month after its sermonizing, The Times' investigation was thoroughly discredited when Fox News revealed that General Carter Ham told a House Committee that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was informed immediately on September 11 that the embassy attack was carried out by terrorists.
A transcript of General Ham's testimony, whose command included Libya, shows he told the committee that it was known "very quickly" that the ruckus at the embassy was "not a demonstration." He labeled the deadly incident a "terrorist attack."
Despite the contradiction, Clinton has remained mum on the subject. However, she obviously is starting to feel the heat. The former Secretary of State was heckled last week about Benghazi during a speech at the University of Buffalo. At another appearance, she called the attacks "my biggest regret," but ducked any responsibility.
Meanwhile, the lapdog Times continues to hound Christie, now accusing him of lying about his knowledge of the bridge closing.Taking a page from the Clinton playbook, a sullen Christie should whine, "What difference at this point does it make?" Surely, The Times will stand down as it did with Clinton.
Fairness and objectivity were once pillars of American journalism, including at the formerly venerable New York Times. Now they are bridges too far for The Times and its partisan apostles in the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)