Archive for the ‘progressive socialism’ Category

IRS targets Obama’s enemies in extraordinary scandal

May 18, 2013

“We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department’s assault on the associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, possibly irretrievably damaged….Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed. As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president’s answers when he’s pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not.” Peggy Noonan, ‘This Is No Ordinary Scandal’, The Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2013

President Obama, albeit sheepishly, acts as though these scandals are unconnected to the White House.Like the chief of police in Casablanca he is shocked, shocked, to discover in the newspapers what has happened! President Obama, however, is deeply connected to these scandals. He is not a bystander, like you and I. This happens to be his administration. The Justice Department and the IRS are his executive agencies. He runs and oversees them.

In this column, I focus on the IRS scandal, once again. For it is much the more serious of the two. There are two parts to the IRS scandal. The first is the obviously deliberate and targeted abuse harassment and attempted suppression of conservative groups. The second is the auditing of taxes of conservative political activists.

In order to suppress conservative groups the IRS demanded donor rolls, membership lists, data on all contributions, names of volunteers, the contents of all speeches made by members, Facebook posts, minutes of all meetings, and copies of all materials handed out at gatherings. When asked what its members were reading, one group responded: The U.S. Constitution! Now I can assure you from first hand experience that these questions are not routinely requested by the IRS. When The Locke Institute applied for 501 (c) 3 status in 1994, it took about a year to secure that status. But the questions were always fair and politically unbiased. And that was during the administration of President Bill Clinton, who was not above a dirty trick or two to harass his supposed enemies.

The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have publicly opposed the administration. Such politically-oriented audits constitute the use of government power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose is to overwhelm and intimidate – to kill the opposition, audit by audit by audit. Such behavior is to be expected of such low-lives as Vladimir Putin, Tsar of All the Russias. Perhaps now it must be expected by such low-lives as President Obama, Tsar of the United States of America.

Shame on you Barack Obama! You disgrace the high office that you are privileged to hold.

Obama White House is corrupted by Chicago machine-politics

May 11, 2013

Just about any one who has followed this week’s discussion of the Benghazi terrorist attack knows that President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Rice repeatedly lied about the nature of the event and why American government officials were not protected by F-16s and SAS forces.

A not-uncommon response to the sequence of lies exposed by Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom before the House oversight committee this week is ‘who cares?’ The dead are long buried, other events now dominate public discussion, and come 2016, Hillary Clinton will be on her way to the White House. The victors get to write the history.

Now all this may be true. It is an old adage that a democracy gets the government it deserves. And the present government is showing itself to be about as despicable as one could ever imagine. So that pretty much sums up the moral and intellectual caliber of the electoral majority that currently controls the United States political market-place.

However, I beg to differ with this dismissive view of Benghazi. What Benghazi told a watching world is that the President and the Secretary of State of the United States both care more for their political prospects than for the honor of their country. Both are prepared to lie, not just to the world at large, but to the families of the fallen, about the reason for their murders and the retribution that will be exacted. For an al Qaeda attack on U.S. property and personnel, a crackpot California video-maker will be wrongly jailed. Some honor regained, some retribution extracted!

“From the day of the attack until this week, the White House spin was too clever by half. In the weeks and months after the attack White House spokesmen said they were investigating the story, an internal review was under way. When the story blew open again, last week, they saiud it was too far in the past: ‘Benghazi happened a long time ago’, Jay Carney, The White House press secretary, really said that. Think of that. They can’t give answers when the story’s fresh because it just happened, they’re looking into it. Eight months later they don’t have anything to say because it all happened so long ago. Think of how low your opinion of the American people has to be to think you can get away, forever, with that.” Peggy Noonan, ‘The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi’, The Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2013

Well, not the entire American people. Just those who sheepishly voted a Chicago-machine politician back into office in the teeth of one of the worst first-term records in the history of the Republic. These voters truly got what they expected and what they deserved. Their children and their grandchildren may well live to despise them for their failure of good judgment if, that is, they are not wiped out by a nuclear terrorist attack on their undefended homeland.

The Chinese Dream of Premier Xi Jinping

May 7, 2013

During his first weeks in power, Xi Jinping, the new head of the ruling Communist Party, has promoted a slogan designed to unite an increasingly diverse nation: The Chinese Dream. News bulletins across the nation are full of his dream, evoking its American equivalent. A talent show on television is looking for ‘The Voice of the Chinese Dream’.

Unfortunately,Xi Jinping’s dream falls somewhat short of the aspirations outlined so eloquently by Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence and by James Madison in the Constitution of the United States. It does indeed encompass the pursuit of happiness: ‘To meet our people’s desire for a happy life is our mission.’ Unfortunately, it falls well short of any desire to promote individualism, and especially to advance the liberty of each individual from the reach of the Communist Party.

Instead, Xi Jinping’s dream incorporates a troubling whiff of nationalism and of a repackaged form of authoritarianism. It is no coincidence that Mr. Xi’s first mention of his dream of ‘the great revival of the Chinese nation’ came in November 2012 in a speech at the national museum in Tiananmen Square, where an exhibition called ‘Road to Revival’ lays out China’s past suffering at the hands of colonial powers and its rescue by the Communist Party.

In bowing towards a renewed nationalism, Xi Jinping is already courting China’s armed forces. In December 2012, on an inspection tour of the navy in southern China, he spoke reverently of a ‘strong army dream’. Suggestively, he told the generals that the spirit of a strong army lies in resolutely obeying the orders ofd the Communist Party. The Chinese dreams, he stated is an ideal. Communists should have a higher ideal, and that is Communism.

Of one thing, one can be absolutely certain. Xi Jinping’s dream falls well short of any notion of the rule of law. The rule of law can only come to China when dictatorship collapses. And Xi Jinping’s dream does not carry with it any notion whatsoever of a martyr’s death.

Hat Tip: ‘Xi Jinping and the Chinese Dream’, The EconomistMay 4, 2011

One more day, one more Obama wobble

May 1, 2013

In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a facility that he claimed was assisting the recruitment of terrorists. To that end he appointed the worst Attorney General ever in the United States, Eric Holder, purely because he also was a Bush-hater and a man who had no understanding of the nature of terrorism.

Early on during his first term, Obama discovered that George W Bush had a great deal more wisdom than he had imagined.Those prisoners held in Cuba were truly the scum of the earth. Almost every single prisoner released from that prison went straight back into anti-U.S. terrorism. Obama abandoned his campaign promise early in his first term after resistance from both political parties in the Congress. Eric Holder smoldered with anger at this retreat, but continued to serve in his lucrative and powerful office.

In his 2012 re-election campaign, Guantanamo Bay was well off the Obama agenda. Now he is wobbling once again, in response to a hunger strike adopted by some 100 of the remaining 166 prisoners. Apparently, Obama is deeply disturbed because 25 of those hunger strikers are being force-fed.

Given who and what those prisoners are, Obama should be rejoicing in the hunger strike and advising prison officials to to leave food and water in their cells, but otherwise let them do what they will. If 100 prisoners starve themselves to death, everyone is better off – the prisoners who hope to reach Paradise, the taxpayers who pay hard-earned money to keep them in prolonged captivity, and the civilized world that does not have to protect itself from their evil.

Obama is out of ideas and out of energy. So he looks for a fight with Congress on a truly wobbly agenda that he will not win

Obama confronts a bleak second term

April 30, 2013

Barack Obama ran a carefully orchestrated 2012 re-election campaign. For any one who bothered to read or to listen carefully, however, Obama had remarkably little to say on what he would do during his second term, should he be re-elected.

So it comes as no surprise to discover that Obama has only one policy initiative – immigration reform – that stands even a remote chance of passing into law, unless the House of Representatives falls into Democratic Party hands in November 2014. The optimism about immigration reform stems not from any leadership from Obama, but from concern within the Republican Party about losing Hispanic voters, many of whom should find a natural position within the GOP.

After winning a marginal tax rate increase on individuals earning in excess of $400,000 per annum, Obama’s economic policies are in disarray. The sequester, that he had signed into law was allowed to take place, so far with minimal harm to the economy. His attempt to use his presidential powers to impose maximum harm on U.S.citizens – a strange presidential tactic do you not think – failed when a vote-conscious Congress moved to protect the flying public and Obama had to confirm their intervention. He has no chance whatsoever of imposing any additional taxes on Americans – rich or poor – unless he accepts major tax reforms designed to bring down rates while eliminating exemptions. And that he will not do.

His ineffectual attempt to tighten gun laws, even following the gift-horse of the Newtown massacre, has ended in ignominious defeat in no small part at the hands of Democratic members of the Senate. That policy will not be revived certainly prior to 2015.

His parody of a foreign policy is collapsing before his eyes as Bashar Al-Assad openly flaunts the use of chemical weapons jeering at Obama’s non-existent red-line. His shift of emphasis away from the Middle East to Asia is stymied as long as the Syrian civil war results in cataclysmic death rates and as al-Qaeda watches hopefully for chemical and biological weapons’ pickings from the disintegration of what once could be called a country.

Sadly for the United States, President Obama looks increasingly like a man in an empty suit, bereft of ideas, unwilling to take time out from fund-raising to do the heavy lifting of policy formation is a divided government. The President, in short, has decided to coast through his second term.

Bring on the clowns!

Hat Tip: Edward Luce, ‘All Obama’s manoeuvres lead back to impasse’, Financial Times, April 29, 2013

The closing of the Yale University mind

April 28, 2013

On Thursday April 25, 2013, Donald Kagan made his farewell address to Yale University. The 80-year old scholar of Ancient Greece provided a biting critique of American higher education in general and of Yale University in particular. He was too civilized to call his farewell address by its correct name: ‘The closing of the Yale University mind’, though his in-office comment prior to the address tells it all:

“You can’t have a fight because you don’t have two sides. The other side won.”

Universities, he proposed in his address, are failing students and hurting American democracy:

“On campus, I find a kind of cultural void, an ignorance of the past, a sense of rootlessness and aimlessness. Rare are faculty with atypical views. Still rarer is an informed understanding of the traditions and institutions of our Western civilization and of our country and an appreciation of their special qualities and values.”

Mr Kagan courted hostility many times during his stint at Yale University. In 1990, as Dean of Yale College, he argued for the centrality of the study of Western civilization in an ‘infamous’ address to incoming freshmen. A storm followed on a campus that was dominated by Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideology. He was called a racist – or as the campus daily more politely editorialized – as a peddler of European cultural arrogance.

In April 1992, Mr. Kagan resigned the deanship, lobbing a bomb at the faculty that had bucked his administration. His plan to create a special Western Civilization course at Yale – funded with a $20 million gift from philanthropist and alumnus, Lee Bass – blew up three years later amidst a political backlash. ‘I still cry when I think about it’, says Mr. Kagan.

As he looks at his Yale colleagues today, he says: ‘You can’t find members of the faculty who have different opinions.’

The tussles over course offerings and campus speech at Yale speak to something much larger. Democracy, wrote Mr. Kagan in Pericles of Athens is one of the rarest, most delicate and fragile flowers in the jungle of human experience. It relies on free, autonomous and self-reliant citizens and extraordinary leadership to flourish, even survive. These kinds of citizens are not born – they need to be educated. the essence of liberty, which is at the root of a liberal education, is that meaningful freedom means that you have choices to make. If you don’t have that, it’s not only that you are deprived of knowing some of the things you might know. It’s that you are deprived of testing the things that you do know, or do think you know, or believe in, so that your knowledge is superficial.

Evidently, the mold from which Mr. Kagan emerged has now been crushed across the Yale University campus – and many many more across the United States. However, there remains a sliver of hope for the future. Mr. Kagan’s farewell address received a standing ovation from students and alumni in the packed auditorium. The faculty for the most part either boycotted his address or remained sullenly on their seats, resistant to the last to atypical ideas that challenge the hegemony of the closed Yale faculty mind. Let us hope that the current Yale faculty is a dying breed, to be eviscerated by the free-flowing ideas that pulse across the Internet and cannot so easily be shut down.

Hat Tip: Matthew Kaminski, ‘Democracy May Have Had Its Day’, The Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2013

Francois Hollande and the French economy both down the drain

April 27, 2013

Francois Hollande is down and out in Paris, his popularity rating as President having fallen faster and further than that of any other president since the Fifth Republic began in 1958.

The reason for his decline and fall is the progressive socialist agenda that he touted during the election campaign and that he has attempted clumsily to pursue since gaining office. The French economy has seized up in response to his anti-business rhetoric, unemployment now stands at 11 per cent, and the targeted reduction in the budget deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of 2013 has already been abandoned. That target will not be achieved during a progressive’s presidency.

The 75 percent top marginal income tax rate that he imposed immediately upon accessing the Elysee Palace succeeded in driving a number of top companies and a number of top celebrities into exile in other grateful European Union countries. The increased tax rate failed to generate any net revenue as tax avoidance and tax exile escalated in response to what is widely considered to be government theft.

In December 2012, France’s constitutional council provided Francois Hollande with a second chance when it ruled that the 75 per cent tax rate was unconstitutional and noted that no individual tax should exceed 66.6 per cent. Alas! progressives are not to be deterred by such rulings. Caught between political betrayal and folly, Mr. Hollande naturally chose folly.

On March 28, 2013, Hollande announced that the 75 per cent tax rate would still be imposed on incomes in excess of E1 million, but that they would be paid for by firms rather than their employees. Clearly this stupid man has no understanding of the nature of tax incidence, in particular of the conditions required for an income tax increase imposed on an employer not to be passed on in a salary reduction to an employee.

Why are progressives always so ignorant of basic economics? My former colleague Gordon Tullock explained the lacuna by noting that no good economist could ever be a progressive.

The net benefits of surveillance cameras

April 22, 2013

The People’s Republic of Massachusetts was a perfect venue for the Chechen terrorist attack implemented on Monday April 15, 2013. The State is the Jewel in the Crown for the American Civil Liberties Union, the State that denies itself both the means to identify terrorist attacks and the death penalty that might conceivably discourage such actions. Like the prey that lies down and bares its throat to the predator, the people of Massachusetts signal that their state is least prepared of all to protect itself against mayhem and terror. ‘Come and take us down’ is the implicit message that rings out across the globe.

So it was good fortune indeed for the minority population of that State that desires to identify and apprehend those who terrorize their people, that private companies are prepared to defy the ACLU and to install surveillance cameras on their premises. Specifically, praise to the Lord and Taylor department store that it ignored the Governor of Massachusetts, the Mayor of Boston and the City Council of Cambridge, and provided the surveillance cameras that identified the Brothers Tsarnaev, who murdered and dismembered innocents who were celebrating Patriot’s Day and honoring those predecessors who had first defied the might of the British Empire. Otherwise, Boston would have suffered the same fate as Wall Street on September 16, 1920 when anarchists set off a bomb that killed 38 people directly across from the New York stock exchange, and were never identified.

New York in 1920 did not enjoy the technology now available to Boston in 2013. Boston and Cambridge, however, have little taste for implementing that technology. Boston and surrounding towns have only 150 police surveillance cameras, plus 400 in the subway. This compares with more than 3,000 government and networked private cameras in New York’s financial district alone, and some 400,000 cameras in London. The City Council of Cambridge advances yet further into the ACLU Hall of Fame. Reluctantly, it has installed 8 cameras. Defiantly, it has refused to activate any camera at all. It will be remembered that the Brothers Tsarnaev murdered a police officer in that town, following their successful attack on Boston itself. Those blood-thirsty brothers knew well where to strike, except that they ignored the wisdom of the private sector.

The cameras are getting smarter as new software goes beyond passive recording to alerting law enforcement about suspicious activity in real time. Video analytics enable what is called ‘activity forecasting’. By applying artificial intelligence to video, these services issue alerts of what researchers call ‘anomalous behavior – such as when the cameras detect people leaving bags behind in public places! How much mayhem would have been averted if Boston had deployed such surveillance? Do not expect the Governor of the State or the Mayor of Boston to apologize to those who suffered through such political correctness. That only happens in the private sector.

Inevitably, there is a tension between civil liberties and security in the use of sophisticated surveillance equipment. However, we live in dangerous times, and I have no doubt that those who died and were dismembered just one week ago would have welcomed more security at the price of a little less civil liberty.

If you doubt that judgment, just place yourselves in the shoes of the Brothers Tsarnaev and ask where you would prefer to strike in an act of terror: London. New York or Boston,in the latter case, with the advantage of hindsight, out of the vision of major department stores.

Hat Tip: L. Gordon Crovitz, ‘In Praise of Surveillance Cameras’, The Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2013

Obama patronizes federal workforce

April 7, 2013

As a consequence of the spending cuts imposed on the federal workforce at the initiative of the Obama administration, many federal workers face unpaid furloughs. Obama willingly signed this bill into law in January 2013.

Supposedly to share the hardship about to be experienced by such workers and their families, Barack Obama has decided to return 5 per cent of his annual salary to the Treasury, a gesture that has been matched by several of his cabinet members. In Obama’s case, the gesture is insulting. A drop of $20,000 in an annual salary of $400,000 for a family that lives entirely on public welfare is patronizing in the extreme.

And his annual salary is only the tip of the Obama’s annual returns. During the first three years in office, Obama and his wife reported income of $8 million, largely from royalties on his memoirs which were best sellers because of his political fame.

And very soon, the Obama’s will progress from being rich to being filthy rich. Bill Clinton earned $89 million is speaking fees in his first 11 years out of the White House, averaging an indecent $189,000 per appearance. Obama is likely to exceed that sum, as the first half-black president of the United States.

The fact that Obama is remitting such a pittance back to the Treasury matters a lot because he won the 2012 presidential election largely in the ‘fair shakes’ empathy department. Even his pathetic gesture is better than that of some of his rich Democratic Party cronies. Nancy Pelosi, whose net worth last year was estimated to be at least $26 million, has stated that ‘taking a pay cut would not respect the work we do and is beneath the dignity of the job.’ Well everyone is entitled to their opinion!

‘During World Wars I and II, there were ‘dollar-a-year men’ who left lucrative private-sector careers to serve their country in Washington. If Obama really wants to share in the furloughed workers ‘sacrifice’, he should follow that honorable example and give back all but a dollar of his $400,000 salary. When he leaves office, he’ll be able to earn it back with a couple days’ work.’ Dana Milbank, ‘A 5% pay cut? That’s rich’, The Washington Post, April 7, 2013

Stockton, CA declares bankruptcy in order to stiff bondholders

April 2, 2013

On Monday April 1, 2013 federal bankruptcy judge, Christopher Klein allowed Stockton, California to proceed with Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The profligate San Joaquin Valley city of 300,000 is the largest city in the United States ever to declare itself bankrupt.

Stockton is a union-controlled city, whose largest single creditor is the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers). The city intends to deploy Chapter 9 bankruptcy to stiff capital market creditors in order to protect its workers’ over-generous pensions. Assured Guaranty and National Public Finance Guarantee, which insure about $260 million of the city’s bond debt, pulled out of negotiations after the city council refused to haircut the city’s single largest creditor,Calpers.

Meanwhile, Stockton was proposing to hair-cut, by 80 per cent, the $125 million in principal on pension obligation bonds that it had issued in 2007 to pay an overdue bill to Calpers. The city claims that its workers and residents have already paid their ‘fair share’ (note how these Obama weasel-words are now entering the nation’s lexicon) and that the time has come for capital creditors to cough up.

In reality, the most significant ‘concessions’ from big labor involved the cutting of bonus pay for things like handling a canine. Many of these fringe benefits had never been formally approved by the city council. Pensions for new workers were modestly trimmed and ‘Lamborghini’ retiree benefits entitling workers who had been employed for only six months to free lifetime medical care, were to be phased out.

In truth, the only way Stockton can solve its self-induced financial problems – in or out of bankruptcy – is to haircut its $147 million unfunded pension liability. Pensions account for 40 per cent of its annual payroll costs. The average firefighter can retire at age 50 with an annuity equal to 90 per cent of his highest year’s salary, including various bonus pay categories.

Stockton cut its workforce by one-third but still ran up a $25 million deficit in 2012. Even if it completely defaults on the $200 million it owes in principal and interest on its pension obligations, it still projects a $100 million deficit over the coming decade.

Calpers threatens to tie Stockton up in court forever and a day if it even attempts to cut pensions. The city is terrified of upsetting this big labor 600 pound gorilla. All of which leaves the city’s bondholders as the likeliest target. Unions have the power, and their view is that their benefits are forever and everyone else’s contract is negotiable.

There is a silver lining in such clouds. How many profligate, union-controlled cities like Stockton will ever be able to make bond issues to cover future debts? Cash flow will control, as it always does, once the California dirty-tricks bankruptcy process is finally over.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers