Thursday, January 15, 2015

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, January 15, 2015

Yes I am feeling better, Michelle! Thank you so much for asking!

(*HUGE FRIGGIN' GRIN*)

Yes, my friends... your beloved Blog Host is on the mend! (Hopefully! No relapses - please, God - no relapses!)

(*CHUCKLE*)

Nah... believe me folks... I realize that a little cold ain't nothin' to what some people face on a daily basis. A bit of whining when I'm sick is just how I roll...

(*GUFFAW*)

So... back up on the horse... newsbiting returns... and tonight... back to the gym!


9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/4-top-secret-service-executives-told-to-leave-their-posts-in-agency-shake-up/2015/01/14/a084b164-9c1f-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html

The Secret Service is forcing out four of its most senior officials while two others are retiring — the biggest management shake-up at the troubled agency since its director resigned in October after a string of security lapses.

* AND HOW DID THESE INCOMPETENTS GET TO BE SENIOR OFFICIALS IN THE FIRST PLACE...???

The departures will gut much of the Secret Service’s upper management...

* IT'S ABOUT TIME... PAST TIME... BUT WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM?

Acting director Joseph P. Clancy on Tuesday informed the four assistant directors who oversee the Secret Service’s core missions of protection, investigations, technology and public affairs that they must leave their leadership positions.

* ARE THEY ALL CAREERISTS? CIVIL SERVANTS?

If they do not resign or retire, they can report for a new assignment with the Secret Service or its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, according to people familiar with the discussions.

* WELL THAT SOUNDS... I*N*S*A*N*E...!!!

“Change is necessary to gain a fresh perspective on how we conduct business,” Clancy said in a statement to The Washington Post. “I am certain any of our senior executives will be productive and valued assets either in other positions at the Secret Service or the department.”

* FIRE CLANCY. IMMEDIATELY...!!! SERIOUSLY...!!! THIS IS I*N*S*A*N*I*T*Y...!!!

The departures of six out of the agency’s eight assistant directors follows a scathing report last month by a DHS-appointed panel that concluded the agency is suffering from low morale among the rank-and-file and is “starved for leadership.”

Clancy cited the DHS review, as well as “my own assessments,” in making his decision this week.

* FOLKS... CLEARLY CLANCY IS PART OF THE PROBLEM! THIS... IS... INSANE...!!!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Yet he stopped short of a total house cleaning. The agency’s longtime second-in-command, Deputy Director Alvin T. Smith, who has been a central decision-maker under the past three directors, remained in his post. Smith oversaw budget decisions and agency priorities during a time that many officials now say overlapped with the Secret Service’s slow and steady decline.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

And while the DHS panel urged that the White House choose an outsider to be the agency’s next permanent director, Clancy, the former head of President Obama’s protective detail...

* WELL...??? ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO KNOW, FOLKS?

(*SPITTING ON THE FLOOR*)

Clancy, who assumed his current job after the October resignation of Director Julia Pierson, declined to respond to questions about his plans for the agency or how he will fill the vacant leadership posts.

* YEAH... I'M SURE HE DID!

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a vocal critic of Secret Service managers, said Wednesday that the changes were not enough.

“It’s a good start, but they are by no means done,” Chaffetz said. “There are more senior staff that need to be reviewed and probably changed.”

The Secret Service is under fire for how it handled an intruder who made his way inside the White House. From a botched investigation into shots fired at the White House to exploits with Colombian prostitutes, here’s a look at other Secret Service scandals.

* "EXPLOITS..." CUTE. (NOT!) I'M SORRY, FOLKS, BUT "EXPLOITS" IS A WORD WITH A POSITIVE CONNOTATION. THERE'S NOTHING "POSITIVE" ABOUT DRUNKIN' DEBACHERY ON DUTY.

Agents and officers have complained for years that the Secret Service’s upper management was insular and more interested in shielding itself from problems than rewarding good work.

* AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THIS IS TRUE! BUT HERE'S THE PROBLEM: PLENTY OF AGENTS HAVE BEEN CAUGHT BEHAVING LIKE FRAT HOUSE FRESHMEN... OR WORSE... AS PETTY CRIMINALS. (WE'RE TALKING NOT JUST PROSTITUTION, BUT COVER-UPS, BRIBERTY... IT'S A PRETTY EXTENSIVE LIST.)

By creating so many vacancies, some officials said, Clancy could be making room for younger people to move up in the ranks and bring a fresh perspective.

* OR... PERHAPS WHAT'S NEEDED ARE OUTSIDE HIRES.

(*SHRUG*)

William R. Barker said...

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/01/14/immigrants-can-now-get-mexican-birth-certificates-in-u-s/

The Mexican government on Thursday will start issuing birth certificates to its citizens at consulates in the United States, seeking to make it easier for them to apply for U.S. work permits, driver’s licenses and protection from deportation.

* AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE THIS MAY BACKFIRE... (TIME WILL TELL...)

Until now, Mexico has required citizens to get birth certificates at government offices in Mexico. Many of those living in the U.S. ask friends and relatives back home to retrieve them, which can delay their applications for immigration or other programs.

Now, even as Republicans in Congress try to quash President Barack Obama’s reprieve...

* GOTTA LUV THE MSM... "QUASH"... "REPRIEVE"... AS IF OBAMA HAD ANY SUCH POWER! (HE DOESN'T!)

...to millions of immigrants living illegally in the U.S., Mexico is trying to help them apply for programs that would allow them to remain temporarily in the country and continue sending money back to relatives across the border.

“It is a huge help. It helps individuals really begin to formulate their formal identity in this country,” said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

About half of the 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally are from Mexico, and immigration experts estimate that roughly 3 million Mexicans could be eligible to apply for work permits and protection from deportation under the administration’s plan.

About two weeks ago, California — which is home to more Mexicans than any other state — began issuing driver’s licenses to immigrants in the country illegally.

Starting Thursday, the country’s 50 consulates in the United States will be able to access data maintained by regional governments in Mexico and print birth certificates at the consulates, said Arturo Sanchez, consul for press and commercial affairs in Santa Ana, California.

Consulates should be able to issue birth certificates for nearly all birthplaces in Mexico, but some rural villages where documents are not digitally recorded may not be covered, Sanchez said.

Over the past year, the Santa Ana consulate has seen a surge in the demand for documents. Daily appointments have jumped by a third to nearly 400, with many people trying to get birth certificates, Sanchez said.

Mexican immigrants usually seek birth certificates to obtain a passport or consular identification card so they can then apply for a driver’s license or immigration relief, he said.

In California, Mexican consular officials have supported the rollout of the new driver’s license program, holding information sessions and offering test preparation classes to help immigrants pass the written test required to get a license.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said she believes Mexico is trying to make it easier for its citizens to stay here because of the money they send across the border.

* DUH! (AND ALSO SO THAT HER CITIZENS CAN SUCK OFF THE U.S. TAXPAYER TIT WITH REGARD TO "FREE" SOCIAL SERVICES, INCLUDING EDUCATION AND HEALTH.

Mexican migrant workers, many who live in the United States, sent home $21.6 billion to their families in 2013, according to the country’s central bank.

* I THOUGHT THERE WAS A DRAUGHT...?

(*SMIRK*)

Vaughan, whose organization advocates for tighter limits on immigration, said the integrity of birth certificates is critical because they are used to issue key identity documents like passports.

“If we can trust the Mexican government to do its due diligence and establish a system with integrity, then this will work and it is up to us to make sure we are communicating with them about what we need to see in terms of integrity,” she said. “That is a big if.”

William R. Barker said...

https://cei.org/blog/wsj-editorial-board-abolish-federal-gas-tax

There is no fiscal conservative case for raising the federal gas tax.

Thankfully, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal this morning decided to inject a much needed dose of fiscal conservatism into the debate, calling for an abolition of federal highway taxes and spending programs:

Some highways do need repair and modernization, and the U.S. does need more roads to relieve congestion and encourage trade and economic activity. The real crisis isn’t the amount of money but how it is spent.

The 47,714 miles of the interstate highway network would likely be less complete absent federal support, but the system was officially finished in 1992.

* DID YOU KNOW THIS, FOLKS? I'LL FREELY ADMIT... I DIDN'T.

It is less rational for drivers nationwide to send so many dollars to Washington for Congress to apportion among winners and losers as they did under Eisenhower. Today, the costs of transportation can be reasonably borne by the people who enjoy the benefits, which will generate more accountability and fewer political boondoggles.

Almost three-quarters of highway spending is already supplied by state and local governments, and if the federal role is reduced, they can decide either to increase their own gas taxes; fund roads some other way, such as tolls or public-private partnerships; or use tax dollars for other priorities like schools. States can build cheaper in any case, since the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rules and Buy America procurement provisions that accompany federal funding don’t apply.

(*NOD*)

Democrats always want to raise the gas tax. When prices are high, that’s the best time to encourage drivers to buy an electric car or take the bus. When prices are low, they can skim some of the proceeds for other spending. The mystery is why Republicans would go along.

* STUPIDITY? RINOism?

I'm not sure about that last line about Democrats. While some Democrats, along with senior congressional Republicans, have called for increasing federal highway user taxes, this position puts them to the Left of the Obama White House, which has stuck to its guns and continues to oppose raising the highly unpopular gas tax.

* PRAISED BE OBAMA! (IN THIS INSTANCE, ANYWAY!)

Among some bad policy recommendations, the Obama administration has actually endorsed a very sensible, fiscally conservative proposal that would lift the current federal prohibition on states tolling their own Interstate Highway System segments. This is something we at CEI have advocated for years and have again included it in our forthcoming Agenda for Congress.

The "mystery" of recent GOP support for fuel tax increases really isn't that mysterious. Unfortunately, the Republicans appear to be under the sway of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which favors fuel tax hikes and opposes road pricing.

* AHH... MAKES SENSE.

In turn, the Chamber is under the sway of its powerful trucking industry members (Chamber president Tom Donohue was previously the president of the American Trucking Associations), who prefer a federal tax-and-spend system that effectively allows them to shift the costs of their use (namely the damage heavy trucks do to roads) onto the traveling public. They fear expanded tolling would reduce this subsidy and, in an effort to be "part of the solution" in the eyes of gullible members of Congress, push politically difficult fuel tax increases instead.

Republicans just won control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in eight years because voters wanted to see some legitimate fiscally conservative governance. Tax increases should not be among the first orders of business.

It is now long overdue for the Republicans to break with the road socialists who dominate their business wing and support surface transportation policies that embrace fiscal conservatism, markets, and federalism.

(*NOD*)

William R. Barker said...

TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/abolish-the-gas-tax-1421281241

Tumbling energy prices are the first lucky break for U.S. consumers in years, but Washington is feeling left out. So the gougers of both parties are joining to steal some of the proceeds with the first gasoline tax hike in more than two decades.

The federal gas tax is now 18.4 cents a gallon and the logic seems to be that motorists won’t notice an extra dime or more since gas prices are down 40% on average from the 2014 peak.

(*GNASHING MY TEETH*)

Congress can then “invest” the windfall in roads, bridges and other projects.

* WHERE'D ALL THAT "STIMULUS" MONEY GO...???

A convenient pretext for a tax increase arrives in May with the expiration of a temporary highway funding bill, and many otherwise intelligent Republicans are open to the idea, perhaps as a tax swap.

* CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND U.S. SENATOR'S OFFICES EARLY AND OFTEN - DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY'RE REPUBLICANS OR DEMS.

Now here is a formula for popularity that only a lobbyist or liberal could love: As one of its first major acts, the new GOP majority would make the commodity that most Americans must buy every week more expensive, offsetting the discretionary-income gains from cheaper gas.

* THEY DON'T CALL THE GOP "THE STUPID PARTY" FOR NOTHING!

Republicans should be talking about downsizing the federal gas tax instead, with a target of zero.

The gas tax — plus a 24.4 cent tax on diesel and other excises — finances something called the Highway Trust Fund, or HTF.

The proceeds from the original 1956 three-cent tax built the interstate highway system and its expansion and upgrades over the decades. The tax was increased in 1982, 1990 and 1993.

The problem is that since 2008 federal HTF spending has far outpaced dedicated gas-tax revenues...

* IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID!

...and Congress has made up the difference with $54 billion in cash transfers from general revenues.

* BECAUSE THEY SUCK! BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO DO THEIR BASIC JOB! BECAUSE CONGRESS IS AT ONCE INEPT AND CORRUPT!

To cover future HTF obligations and close the deficits, fuel taxes need to rise by 10 to 15 cents a gallon, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The solons now claim the arc of history bends toward precisely that. The real purchasing power of 18.4 cents has slipped amid inflation and the rising cost of labor and materials. Vehicle miles travelled are plateauing and cars are more efficient, eroding the projected growth of the tax base.

* BUT...

But since the 1990s, the Highway Trust Fund has come to fund much more than new roads and bridges and highway maintenance, abandoning the original “user pays” principle behind a gas tax.

(*NOD*)

Drivers now see about a quarter of their gas taxes diverted to subsidize mass transit in merely six metro areas and sundry other programs for street cars, ferries, sidewalks, bike lanes, hiking trails, urban planning and even landscaping nationwide.

* UM-HMM!

Trolley riders, et al., contribute nothing to the HTF.

* DAMN THEIR FILTHY TROLLEY-RIDING SOULS TO HELL...!!!

* BURN! BURN YOU BASTARDS...!!!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Federal spending on such side projects has increased 38% since 2008, while highway spending is flat.

(*RAISING ONE EYEBROW*)

Here’s what the politicians won’t say: Simply using the taxes that are supposed to pay for highways to, well, pay for highways makes the HTF 98% solvent for the next decade, no tax increase necessary.

* GAME... SET... MATCH...!

Your local interstate will not close if HTF “goes broke.” The feds will continue to spend all the money that the gas tax will continue to throw off. Some projects would merely be delayed, or states and cities would fill the gaps.

Another myth is that U.S. roads and bridges are “crumbling,” to use the invariable media description. Federal Highway Administration data show that the condition, quality and safety of U.S. surface transportation are steadily improving. The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank noted in a 2009 paper that roads have “indisputably” improved over the last two decades and that “the surface of the median interstate highway mile is suitable for superhighway speeds not typically permitted in the United States.”

* WITH NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS - MY AREA OF THE COUNTRY FOR EXAMPLE!

(*SNORT*)

Some highways do need repair and modernization, and the U.S. does need more roads to relieve congestion and encourage trade and economic activity. The real crisis isn’t the amount of money but how it is spent.

The 47,714 miles of the interstate highway network would likely be less complete absent federal support, but the system was officially finished in 1992.

* AGAIN... KEY INFORMATION!

It is less rational for drivers nationwide to send so many dollars to Washington for Congress to apportion among winners and losers as they did under Eisenhower.

* YEP! (I MEAN... YA HAD TO START SOMEWHERE BACK THEN... SOMEWHERE AND EVERYWHERE!)

Today, the costs of transportation can be reasonably borne by the people who enjoy the benefits, which will generate more accountability and fewer political boondoggles.

In an ingenious 2013 paper, Pengyu Zhu of Boise State University and Jeffrey Brown of Florida State studied federal highway spending between 1974 and 2008. They found that the gas tax tended to redistribute money from poorer to wealthier states and to regions with lower transportation needs than other parts of the country.

Texas recovered only 88 cents of every dollar residents paid in taxes, while seven states and Washington, D.C. (no surprise) received more than twice as much. Such misallocated resources are the inevitable result of the political mediation of the HTF.

(*NOD*)

Almost three-quarters of highway spending is already supplied by state and local governments, and if the federal role is reduced, they can decide either to increase their own gas taxes; fund roads some other way, such as tolls or public-private partnerships; or use tax dollars for other priorities like schools.

(States can build cheaper in any case, since the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rules and Buy America procurement provisions that accompany federal funding don’t apply.)

Democrats always want to raise the gas tax. When prices are high, that’s the best time to encourage drivers to buy an electric car or take the bus. When prices are low, they can skim some of the proceeds for other spending. The mystery is why Republicans would go along.

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/boehner-%E2%80%9Cno-alternative%E2%80%9D-defunding-executive-amnesty-affront-constitution

House Speaker John Boehner spoke on the floor today in advance of votes on amendments that would block funding for President Obama’s executive amnesties. He spoke in favor of the amendments and mentioned 22 times where the president said he could not implement amnesty without congressional approval.

The following are Speaker Boehner’s floor remarks:

“Let me thank all my colleagues who have worked to put this bill together. Today I rise – and the House rises – to support and defend our Constitution."

* WHERE WERE YOU LAST YEAR...???

“We do not take this action lightly, but simply there is no alternative. This is not a dispute between the parties, or even between the branches of our government. This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself."

* AS IT WAS... er... LAST YEAR - RIGHT?

“I appreciate all the efforts of those working to fix our broken immigration system, especially since I’m one of them."

* UH-HUH...

* SORRY. DON'T BUY IT. YOU'RE AN AMNESTY SUPPORTER. YOU SIMPLY WANT TO TAKE WHAT YOU SEE AS "CREDIT" FOR YOURSELF.

"But what we are dealing with is a president who has ignored the people, has ignored the Constitution, and even his own past statements."

* FAIR ENOUGH... BUT... YOU HAD ALL YEAR LAST YEAR TO POUND THIS HOME - AND YOU REFUSED.

“In fact, on at least 22 occasions, he said he did not have the authority to do what he has done."

“To think that the president of the United States studied constitutional law is one thing …. he taught it as well. But now his actions suggest he’s forgotten what these words even mean."

* HERE'S THE PROBLEM: CLEARLY OBAMA DOESN'T FEEL BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION. BUT... I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT YOU SEE YOURSELF BOUND BY IT EITHER.

“Enough is enough. By their votes last November, the people made clear they want more accountability from this president. And by our votes here today, we will heed their will, and we will keep our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

* SO... OATHS WEREN'T IN EFFECT IN... er... 2011... OR 2012... OR 2013... OR 2014?

“22 times President Obama said he did not have the authority to take unilateral action on immigration."

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

“March 31, 2008: ‘I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to … not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President...’

“May 19, 2008: ‘I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.’

“May 5, 2010: ‘Anybody who tells you … that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.’

“July 1, 2010: ‘[T]here are those … who have argued passionately that we should … at least ignore the laws on the books... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.’

“October 14, 2010: ‘I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there.’

“October 25, 2010: ‘I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. … I can't just make the laws up by myself.’

“March 28, 2011: ‘America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.’

“April 20, 2011: ‘I can't solve this problem by myself. … I can't do it by myself.’

“April 29, 2011: ‘Some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works’

“May 10, 2011: ‘They wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.’

“July 25, 2011: ‘The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. … But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.’

“September 28, 2011: ‘We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.’

“September 20, 2012: ‘What I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do.’

“October 16, 2012: ‘We're … a nation of laws. … And I've done everything that I can on my own.’

“January 30, 2013: ‘I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law.’

“January 30, 2013: ‘I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.’

“February 14, 2013: ‘The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States.’

“July 16, 2013: ‘I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative.’

“September 17, 2013: ‘My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law…’

“November 25, 2013: ‘The easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. … That’s not our tradition.’

“March 6, 2014: ‘And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore … any of the other laws that are on the books.’

“August 6, 2014: ‘I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers.’”

William R. Barker said...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/01/15/protesters-shut-down-i-93-in-milton-somerville/

Protesters chained to cement barrels and locking arms inside plastic tubing shut down parts of Interstate 93 in Milton and Medford during the Thursday morning rush hour.

* BARRELS ARE KINDA ROUND... RIGHT? THEY... er... ROLL... RIGHT? NEXT TIME JUST ROLL THE BARRELS OFF THE ROAD AND LET THE PROTESTERS "ROLL" WITH THE BARRELS!

Chanting “Black Lives Matter,” some activists created major traffic delays in the area by attaching themselves to 1,200-pound barrels unloaded from a white box truck in East Milton Square at about 7:30 a.m. Police arrested 27 protesters on charges of trespassing, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, and they will appear in Somerville District Court later Thursday.

The protesters linking arms in Medford were taken off the highway at 8:30 a.m.

* BUT... FOR SOME UNREPORTED REASON...

It was nearly 10 a.m. before all highway lanes in Milton could be reopened.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

State police said the protest had dangerous unintended consequences, citing an ambulance that had to be diverted. That ambulance was carrying someone with life-threatening injuries suffered in an Easton crash to Boston, but had to be redirected to Brockton because of the traffic.

* THE PROTESTERS SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT.

“People’s rights are people’s rights, but you’re endangering people’s lives with this kind of conduct,” Alben said. "Hopefully the court system will hold them accountable.”

* THAT DOESN'T SOUND TOO HOPEFUL TO ME...

(*SIGH*)

Gov. Charlie Baker thanked police and first responders for handling the disruption professionally.

* HMM... WAS IT HANDLED PROPERLY? PERHAPS IT'S JUST ME, BUT HAD I BEEN COMMANDER ON THE SCENE I BELIEVE I COULD HAVE HAD THE SITUATION DEALT WITH IN FAR LESS TIME WITH FAR LESS INNOCENT PEOPLE PENALIZED.