American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
We have come to the end of another year. A year of turmoil and strife around the world, political and social division here at home, a culture war for dominance in our beliefs and value systems, economic highs and lows, looming shortages and escalating prices of energy, widespread starvation, deprivation and abundance, expressions of great love and kindness juxtaposed against acts of unspeakable cruelty and violence, all mixed with the warp speed growth of technology in a world that is already dizzy from the accelerating march of civilization to we know not where. And, to cap it off, we all grow another year older as we move on.
The New Year is also a time for celebration. I’ve never quite understood that. Watching people party on New Years Eve as if there’s no tomorrow has always puzzled me. For one thing, I’ve never really been able to figure out what people get out of such self-abuse. They obviously think it’s fun. I think it’s anything but fun. I guess that makes me “square,” but closing out one year and moving into the next has usually given me pause to reflect and think about the mistakes I have made and how I might do better in the future.
Glenn Beck recently put the year-end holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s) in perspective when he observed, “Over time, we’ve mangled these holidays into unrecognizable displays of gluttony and greed… January 1st offers the promise of a new start and a new calendar year, but it’s become an excuse to party and drink so much that you wake up not even knowing what day it is.” (Glenn Beck email Newsletter, December 20, 2007).
He sees the holidays as a three-step process: “Step One (Thanksgiving) is gratitude…Step Two (Christmas) is redemption…Step Three (New Year’s) is hope. The New Year gives us a clean slate, made possible because we’ve already humbled ourselves, given thanks, and found redemption…None of these holidays started out as anything extravagant,” he adds, further noting, “Thanksgiving was just a proclamation, Christmas began in a stable, and the New Year has always just been a day on the calendar. But their magic is in what they represent and in the opportunities they give us.”
So, what is the New Year’s celebration really about? Is it nothing more than a recognition of the fact that we have survived another year and are getting a fresh start in the next year? Perhaps, but the origins of this oldest of all holidays actually date back about 4,000 years to ancient Babylon, when the most popular resolution was to return any farm equipment they had borrowed.
Glenn Beck may be right that New Year’s Day is about hope. Recorded history confirms that for thousands of years people have used it as a reason to whoop it up and celebrate the beginning of a new cycle in their lives. But, it wasn’t always on January 1st.
“In the years around 2000 BC, the Babylonian New Year began with the first New Moon (actually the first visible crescent) after the Vernal Equinox (first day of spring)…The beginning of spring is a logical time to start a new year. After all, it is the season of rebirth, of planting new crops, and of blossoming. January 1, on the other hand, has no astronomical nor agricultural significance. It is purely arbitrary…The Babylonian new year celebration lasted for eleven days. Each day had its own particular mode of celebration, but it is safe to say that modern New Year’s Eve festivities pale in comparison… January 1 has been celebrated as a holiday by Western nations for only about the past 400 years.” (newyears.com, History of New Years by Jerry Wilson)
For some people, celebrating the start of the New Year is a statement of gratitude (or relief) – that they’ve made it through another year and have a chance to start over and do better, hopefully to get it right in the next year, whatever that may mean to each individual. So, let’s party, shuck our baggage from the past and move ahead to a better, more successful and prosperous time.
If that’s what people are celebrating on New Year’s Eve, I can buy that. But, unfortunately, that’s not what I see. What I see is a round of gigantic parties going on around the globe, generally to excess and seemingly without reason, and I wonder why that money can’t be put to some better use?
John Shepler, in his New Year Celebration, New Year’s Eve and Day Festivities Around The World, commented, “There must be something inside of us that needs to unload the accumulated results of fate and our own decisions and start anew. The Romans knew this. The month of January was named for their god, Janus, who is pictured with two heads. One looks forward, the other back, symbolizing a break between the old and new. The Greeks paraded a baby in a basket to represent the spirit of fertility. Christians adopted this symbol as the birth of the baby Jesus and continued what started as a pagan ritual. Today our New Year’s symbols are a newborn baby starting the next year and an old man winding up the last year.”
Shepler also tells us: “Around the world, different cultures have their own traditions for welcoming the new year. The Japanese hang a rope of straw across the front of their houses to keep out evil spirits and bring happiness and good luck. They also have a good laugh as the year begins to get things started on a lucky note…In West Bengal, in northern India, the people like to wear pink, red, purple and white flowers. Women favor yellow, the color of spring. Hindus also leave shrines next to their beds so they can see beautiful objects when they wake up to the new year…In Vancouver, British Columbia, Canadians enjoy the traditional polar bear swim. People of all ages don their swim suits and take the plunge, an event that is sure to get you started in the new year with eyes wide open…In Scotland, they celebrate Hogmanay, the Scottish New Year, usually with great exuberance. Both Edinburgh and Glasgow host street parties for 100,000 people. At midnight, there is the celebration of ‘First Footing,’ where gifts are exchanged.”
Whatever your own view of New Year’s celebration may be, I wish you a happy and prosperous New Year!
Is the media biased? If so, do they favor Liberals or Conservatives? Either way, what difference does it make?
Columnist Cal Thomas recently commented, “In the never-ending contest for the minds (and votes) of those who still bother to think and vote, the disagreement over which side has the greatest influence in the media goes on, seemingly without end…Liberals have many outlets for their ideas. They have the three broadcast networks, (plus) PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and most of the big newspapers. (Only one conservative columnist is employed and regularly carried by The New York Times and he rarely challenges that newspaper’s liberal social agenda.)” (Media Matters – Doesn’t, by Cal Thomas, September 20, 2007).
A 2004 Pew Research survey reported that “While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as ‘moderate,’ a far higher number are ‘liberal’ than in the general population”: 34% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberal, 13% conservatives.” (E&P Staff, Pew Survey Finds Moderates, Liberals Dominate News Outlets, May 23, 2004).
Pew also found that, although most journalists in the survey consider themselves “moderate,” liberals at national outlets increased from 22% to 34%, “while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.”
Furthermore, a 2005 study by UCLA political scientists reported that media bias is real: “…of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center…Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But…it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.” (UCLA News, Office of Media Relations, Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist, by Meg Sullivan, 12/14/2005).
In a recent interview, Brent Bozell III, founder and president of the Media Research Center, made the following observations (among others):
I’ve always believed that every reporter is biased. Every human being who hasn’t been lobotomized is biased. The problem isn’t bias. The problem is not acknowledging the bias that you have. The problem with most liberals in the media is that they make no effort whatsoever to keep their biases in check.
National surveys…acknowledge the bias they have.
Biases can be found in many ways. It begins with story selection – what is news? That’s a subjective call. It is the direction that the news story takes. It is the lead. It is the opening paragraph. It is the conclusion. It is the people interviewed…
(Brent Bozell’s Sense of Balance, By Bill Steigerwald, Townhall.com, March 23, 2007).
“Even the vocabulary of media coverage is biased. Whenever government passes new legislation, we are told that America has taken a major step ‘forward.’ When it repeals legislation, we moved ‘backward.’ And when Washington doesn’t churn out the latest ‘reform,’ it fails to make ‘progress.’” (The Liberal Media’s Misguided Hero-Worship, By Jonah Goldberg, Townhall.com, June 15, 2007).
In his book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, (Regnery) Bernard Goldberg, who was a correspondent for CBS News for 28 years, said: “Many of them (correspondents) don’t consider that they’re leaning in any political direction. They really think they are simply mainstream. There is no other side of the argument except what you hear from a few right-wing nut cases. In their world, mainstream conservatism doesn’t exist.” (newsmax.com, CBS’ Goldberg Exposes Leftist Media Bias, Dec 4, 2001).
A national survey commissioned by the Gannett media organization in 1992 revealed that members of the press voted for Bill Clinton over George Bush by 89% to 7% and that they consider themselves to be Democrats over Republicans by 50% to 14%. In addition, 61% acknowledge that they are liberal as opposed to 2% who say they are conservative. (nationalrevueonline, Are The Media Liberal, February 5, 2003)
Yes, the media is biased – and heavily to the left, but does it matter whether the media is biased left or right? The answer: it depends.
I agree that everyone has biases, so it boils down to how people, such as journalists, allow their personal views to influence their work. Brent Bozell also tells us that journalists should be primarily interested in searching for the truth.
When reportage is allowed to become opinion in the guise of news, the result is neither accurate nor believable. It’s becomes propaganda. The current trend in loss of readership by many of the major newspapers and TV networks provides strong evidence to support this. People are catching on and tuning out, and the numbers prove it.
As one wag put it, “The media, in general, is thought about as highly as Congress, lawyers, used car salesmen, liars, thieves and con men, with very few exceptions.”
Doesn’t leave much room for doubt, left or right, does it?
Defining torture is a little like trying to define pornography. In 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of (pornographic) material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it.” (Emphasis added).
It’s also not easy to describe or define torture, but everyone probably knows it when they see it – or thinks they do. But, in the final analysis, torture is in the eye of the beholder.
Defining Torture
That said, “The question of just what does and does not qualify as torture is a vexed one in American law. The U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the U.S. Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment – all of which forbid torture….Defining torture requires teasing it out of court decisions and legal memoranda…as well as statutory language. As Andrew McCarthy explained in National Review, torture has been variously described as ‘specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering’ or ‘intense, lasting and heinous agony.’” (Taking the Easy Way Out on Torture, by Mona Charen, Townhall.com, November 2, 2007).
So, is it torture to place “…a person on his back on a seesaw board, tilting him backward, covering his face with a cloth, then pouring water into his mouth and nose so that he feels as if he is going to drown?…It sounds pretty bad – but is it torture? The military has required our pilots to undergo it to prepare them for interrogation upon capture. That says something.” (Taking the Easy Way Out on Torture, by Mona Charen, Townhall.com, November 2, 2007).
Walter Pincus, writing in washingtonpost.com noted, “…those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury.”
Is It Reliable?
Discussions of waterboarding generally fail to mention that the practice dates back to the Vietnam War. John McCain, the most widely recognized public figure with direct knowledge of torture, tells us that it does not produce reliable information because those who are subjected to such treatment will say anything to make it stop.
However, a recent Sacramento Bee editorial noted that “…a Palestinian logistics chief for al-Qaida, was captured in March 2002” and that, although he was “fluent in English and friendly,” he didn’t provide any information that could be acted on. The CIA waterboarded him, and John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent, “believes this information ‘disrupted a number of attacks…’”
Other examples of al-Qaida prisoners who are reported to have broken under waterboarding and provided valuable information include the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who also took credit for a string of other terror plots, including the beheading of Daniel Pearl.
Exactly What Is Torture?
So, the question remains, just what is torture? Is it sleep deprivation? Bright lights? Being forced to stand for long hours in uncomfortable positions? Non-stop grilling? Or endlessly playing blaring music, perhaps for days on end?Are these more or less severe than waterboarding someone for less than a minute? That’s right, less than one minute. It appears that there is no record of anyone having ever withstood waterboarding for more than about 35 or 40 seconds.
The Dilemma
We find ourselves caught in a dilemma: Are we willing to accept treatment of prisoners that make us uncomfortable but may produce the sort of intelligence we need to interdict or prevent our enemy’s plans or do we outlaw certain methods of extracting the intelligence we need because it makes us uncomfortable, albeit without doing any permanent damage to prisoners?
Are we expected to simply treat prisoners who have been involved in killing, crippling or maiming people more or less as guests? Feed and house them in conditions that are far superior to the way they live in their own societies, provide them with quality health care, all on the premise that “we are better than they are” and that they will give up information that will help us without any form of coercion?
The waterboarding issue is further confused by the blame game that has become such an integral part of our political process. Who knew about it? When did they know? Did they oppose it then? Do they oppose it now? On and on ad infinitum.
Jonah Goldberg noted in a Townhall.com article, Wishy-Washy on Waterboarding (December 14, 2007: “Earlier this week, we learned that congressional leadership, Republicans and Democrats alike, had been informed in 2002 that the CIA had harshly interrogated high-value al-Qaida operatives, using, among other methods, waterboarding…One of the Democrats in the room: (was) Nancy Pelosi, the current speaker of the House…This is, shall we say, intriguing, since Pelosi and her party have been until recently reaching new heights of sanctimony on the issue of torture and waterboarding…There was ‘no objecting, no hand-wringing,’ an official who was there told the Washing Post. ‘The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.’
Not only did Pelosi not offer a peep of protest, the Washington Post reports that at least two lawmakers (out of a few present) pressed the administration about whether the methods were ‘tough enough’ to get the job done.”
Jonah Goldberg also makes the following point: “…you need to at least consider the likelihood that in the wake of another 9/11 a President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama wouldn’t do things very differently.” (Townhall.com, Wishy-Washy on Waterboarding, December 14, 2007).
For my part, I come down on the side of doing what we have to do to protect ourselves. I can accept waterboarding, which doesn’t last more than a minute but has proven effective in obtaining intelligence. People seem to forget or ignore the fact that fighting a war involves the use of force.
Words do have meaning. Consider some examples of the impact that emotionally charged ideas can have when associated with certain words or terms:
>Special interests: Why is it that “special interests” are groups we do not agree with, while those groups we support are like-minded people who have the right values? The tobacco industry is a special interest but the Sierra Club is not. The NRA is a special interest but Planned Parenthood is not. Big business is a special interest but organized labor is not.
>Agribusiness: Why is it that farmers are “agribusiness” (read corporate big business) when we want to influence public opinion, but they are just “farmers” when we buy their produce at an open-air market? Farmers are the “agribusiness” when they seek to limit government intrusion in their lives, but they are hard working members of society when they produce the food we eat. One man’s “farmer” is another man’s agribusiness “special interest.”
>Environmentalism: Why is it that “environmentalism” is good no matter how it affects people? Anyone who wants to curb the excesses of such laws as the Endangered Species Act is willing to destroy civilization in the pursuit of profit. Energy generated from fossil fuels and nuclear power is destroying the world and must be stopped at any cost but everyone drives or flies to the meetings to protest their use. Does anyone see any inconsistency or hypocrisy in that?
>Developers: Why is it that real estate “developers” are unconscionable profiteers who want to rape the land, but contractors are just the good folks who build our homes for us?
>Big Business: Why is it that the oil, pharmaceutical and auto industries, and business in general, are evil and steal and cheat for profit but everyone wants the highest paying jobs they offer and the benefits and way of life their products and services make possible?
>Profit: Why is it that the word “profit” is synonymous with greed but demands for higher pay and greater benefits or government largesse are just simple “economic democracy” or “fairness”? Profit is greed when it’s the other guy’s profit but justifiable earnings for hard work and sacrifice when it’s ours.
>Free speech: Why is it that “free speech” means I can say anything I want, but you can’t say anything I don’t like. My right to “free speech” is absolute, yours must be politically correct or you will be punished. It’s OK for college students to destroy thousands of copies of campus newspapers that contain a story they don’t like, but if anyone tries to prevent them from publishing a point of view they advocate, it’s constitutionally protected speech.
>Segregation: Why is it that “segregation” is against the law and must be prevented, but African-American students on many of our college campuses are deliberately segregating themselves?
>Racist: Why is it that discrimination against blacks is “racist” but discrimination against whites is not?
>Double jeopardy: Why is it that being tried a second time by the Federal government is not “double jeopardy” under the constitution but being tried twice by the state for the same crime is?
>Tax Loopholes: Why is it that tax “loopholes” are deductions someone else gets away with, but it’s not a loophole if we are able to claim the same deduction on our own tax returns? Why is a tax deduction that is written into the law a “loophole,” anyway? How has the meaning of the word “loophole” become perverted to mean any tax deduction we don’t like while the deductions we claim on our own tax returns are legitimate? Everyone claims tax deductions, from the simple “standard deduction” or “exemption” to itemized deductions and business expenses. So, why are many legal tax deductions now called “loopholes”? As far as I can tell, loopholes are really just the deductions we cannot claim ourselves but that someone else can.
>Extremist: Why is it that conservatives and Born Again Christians are right-wing “extremists,” but liberals are not left-wing “extremists”?
>God: Why is it that “God” cannot be mentioned in our schools but we can talk about the Communist Manifesto all we want?
>Gun control: Why is it that “gun control” is the answer to the excess of violence that has overtaken our society when there are already over 22,000 gun control laws on the books? Will removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens cure the problem or do we need to change our “anything goes” mentality and cure the moral sickness that infects us?
Are we ever going to wise up to the way we are misled and manipulated by how politicians and the media use words? We are all members of special interest groups. Just different ones.
Have you looked at your utility bills lately? Really looked? Not at just the total amount as you were writing a check, but more closely – at all the charges that are included? Chances are you have not focused on the myriad of taxes your phone and utility services collect from you. If you have, you probably thought there really was not much, if anything, you could do about it, and you would very likely have been right.
In an October 2005 editorial, the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted, “The federal government first taxed phone service in the 1890s and has had its hand on American phone bills in one way or another since the early 1930s.”
It started with the Federal excise tax, now 3%, which currently brings over $5 billion a year into the Federal treasury. Originally imposed in 1898 to pay for the Spanish-American War, it has been abolished and reinstated numerous times, and consumers are still saddled with it over 100 years later, long after it has fulfilled its purpose.
Having discovered a good place to hide taxes from the public, Congress, along with the multitude of state, county and city jurisdictions, just can’t seem to resist the temptation to make the phone companies their tax collector of record for a wide variety of purposes. For example, most states impose additional taxes on phone bills, with California’s Public Utilities Commission currently adding 3.9% to the ratepayers’ burden.
In a Wall Street Journal article, New Taxes, Fees Hit Phone Bills (September 18, 2002), Yochi J. Dreazen reported, “…city, state and local governments have imposed a jumble of taxes, fees and surcharges on telephone bills — and increased existing charges in a quest for greater revenues. Federal regulators have let long-distance carriers add virtually any charges they want to a customer’s bill. Customers are baffled by their wireless and long-distance phone bills and are beginning to complain, authorities report.”
Mr. Dreazen also noted, “The fact that consumer telecom bills are almost entirely free of government regulation only exacerbates the problem, industry observers say. Customers can file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission, but otherwise the agency has no control over what charges appear on a bill.”
Following is a list of various taxes, categories of taxes, or so-called “fees” that are currently “hidden” in our phone bills:
>Telephone Relay Charge and Relay Surcharge: Pays for a special number for hearing impaired customers.
>911 Service Fee, State 911 Surcharge, Emergency 911 Surcharge: Pays for 911 emergency calls.
>State Maintenance Fee, Municipal Tax or Surcharge, Interstate Tax Surcharge, Statutory Gross Receipts Tax, State Tax/Surcharge, Utility Users Tax/Surcharge: A tax by any other name is still a tax. This category varies by state, county and municipality, but they are all taxes that every telecommunications provider is required to collect on their behalf.
>Universal Fund Surcharge, Federal Universal Fund, USF Line Charge: Established to provide certain libraries and rural healthcare facilities with phone service.
>End User Access Fee: A charge to offset the cost of network access and certain signal carriers.
>Number Portability Fee, NP Surcharge: This fee is charged to cover the cost of keepng your phone number when you change carriers.
>PICC charge, Carrier Access Recovery Charge: A fee to pay for lines associated with long distance networks and international calls.
>Data Service Recovery Charge: For DSL customers, a charge for sending high speed data across various carriers’ lines, national and international.
By now you may be thinking, “Enough already. I get the point: The Federal, state and local governments are hiding a lot of taxes in our phone bills.”
However, there is also a relatively new tax known as the E-Rate program, which was added to phone bills about 10 years ago, for the purpose of subsidizing Internet access to schools and libraries. This levy is usually disguised as a “universal service” charge and has been raising about $2.5 billion a year. The Las Vegas Review-Journal also noted in its October 2005 editorial that a congressional oversight subcommittee concluded that the program “. . . is extremely vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse, is poorly managed by the FCC, and completely lacks tangible measures of either effectiveness of impact.”
In addition to telephone services, electrical energy and gas utilities are also taxed.
Where does all this money go?
The state of Washington tells us: “The majority of the funds are distributed into the state general fund. A portion, however, provides financial assistance to local governments for maintenance of public works facilities.”
For those who may think the utility taxes we pay are not really a major item, in 1993, Alameda County, California adopted a policy that limits the total amount for the initial utility tax year to $5,500. That’s not exactly a minor expense for the average taxpayer.
Commenting in an article that appeared in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology (January 1999), Edward T. Howe and Donald J. Reeb pointed out that “state and local electric utility taxes have accounted for about 2.5 percent of total state and local taxes collected nationally in each of the last several years, with notably higher percentages evident in many of the larger states. Thus, any significant loss of tax revenue could have important financial consequences for several states and localities.”
The public is largely unaware of the tax burden that is hidden in their utility bills, which is usually buried in state and local budgets to help finance general fund expenditures.
Finally, in addition to all of the above, at least two other taxes are “hidden” in our phone and utility bills, namely, the property and corporate income taxes that are paid by the companies that provide these essential services.
Most people usually do not view these levies as “hidden” taxes that are paid by the consumer, but corporate property and income taxes are always built into utility rates. They are passed along to customers as part of the cost of delivering services, rather than as an add-on charge that appears on our utility bills.
Contrary to the popular belief that corporate taxes are only paid by corporations, if you think about it, they are always factored into the costs of all goods or services and are, therefore, included in selling prices.
The myriad of taxes that are levied on our phone bills are another particularly insidious way of taxing Americans without their knowledge or/or consent.
Taxes are assessed on the beleaguered public in so many ways that people often don’t even realize when it happens. They are hidden in our phone and utility bills and assessed on just about everything from cigarettes to tolls on roads and bridges, trailer registration, well permits, and on and on ad infinitum.
Our fearless political leaders have also perfected ways of levying taxes without having to ask voters for their consent or, for that matter, to even make them aware of what they (the politicians) are doing. This game has proven to be a politically useful and seemingly painless way of creating new taxes for favored programs that do not necessarily have the support of the public. The concept works because voters do not fully understand the process and are usually unaware of what is happening to them or when it happens.
It’s brilliant in its simplicity. All the Federal government does is require the states to adopt certain programs or comply with various Federal laws without providing the money to implement them. Figuratively speaking, with a single stroke of the pen, lawmakers are able to impose a wide variety of programs on the states at relatively little cost to the government.
Pretty neat, huh? Need or want something you can’t or don’t want to pay for, just pass a law that requires the states or local jurisdictions to provide it and have them shoulder the financial burden of paying for it.
The concept, which is generally known as “unfunded mandate,” is defined as “… a statute that requires government or private parties to carry out specific actions, but does not appropriate any funds for that purpose.”
The idea has been so successful that many states have imposed their own “unfunded mandates” on various cities and counties in their jursidication. What this accomplishes is to shift the costs down to the local level, where the taxpayers are forced to shoulder the burden of paying for them, thereby creating another tax without voter approval.
“Unfunded mandates” date back to feudal times, when serfs were required to turn over a portion of their crops or earnings to their lords, who eventually “… insisted on the fulfillment of certain duties at the serfs’ own time and expense.” (Wikipedia)
Legislators resort to many tricks to impose taxes on an unsuspecting or ill informed public, but perhaps the most egregious is secrecy. And, “unfunded mandates” are generally adopted without most voters realizing what is happening, which makes them a form of stealth taxation. And, that’s the problem.
However, the states are becoming increasingly active in resisting such laws. In a study titled, Home Rule: How States Are Fighting Federal Mandates, by Thomas Atwood, The Heritage Foundation reported on the impacts of “unfunded mandates.” Among his many observations, Mr. Atwood noted that:
>“Aurora, Colorado, for example, calculates that it will have to repair some 28,000 curbs in order to comply with the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) at an average cost of $1,500 per curb.” (NOTE: With total projected revenue of $228.5 million and a capital budget of $336.1 million for 2006, it is clear that the $420 million cost of curb cuts is far more than the city can afford.)
>“…Anchorage, Alaska’s sewage inflow was so clean that the municipality could not meet Congress’s requirement that all sewage treatment facilities reduce incoming organic waste by at least 30 per cent. Still, the federal Environmental Protection Agency insisted that the city meet the arbitrary standard. Anchorage’s response was to arrange for two local fisheries to dump fish viscera into the river so the city could remove them.”
>“Arizona legislators have complained that the Clean Air Act is too strict even for the naturally occurring dust from Arizona’s deserts, let alone automobile emissions….”
>“….the U.S. Conference of Mayors recently reported that the Clean Water Act alone cost cities with populations greater than 30,000 more than $3.6 billion in 1993. From 1994 through 1998 the ten studied mandates will cost cities $54 billion…”
But, there is hope. The states are starting to fight back. Bolstered by a growing grassroots movement to reassert Constitutional limits on Federal powers, they are taking a variety of actions to resist the Federal government, including simply refusing to comply with Federal mandates they cannot pay for. For example, Mr. Atwood’s analysis noted, “…Asserting they do not have the resources to implement the regulations, many law enforcement officials across the country are ignoring Brady Act gun control standards that require background checks on gun buyers.”
States have also been passing their own legislation to combat federal mandates, initiating lawsuits against the federal government based on the Tenth Amendment and other Constitutional issues and suing to recover the costs of federally mandated programs for illegal immigrants.
But it remains to be seen just how much help the courts are likely to be in the states’ efforts to break free of the smothering grasp of the Federal government. To date, they “have ruled that regulations set by federal agencies have the same force of law as associated legislation.”
In the final analysis, the Tenth Amendment may provide the answer to freeing the states from Federal intervention and mindless bureaucratic interference in the lives of their citizens, but as with so many other problems, it will undoubtedly take a very long time for the process to play out.
However, there is an even bigger problem: the attitude of politicians that it is acceptable to pass legislation and levy taxes by hiding them from public view. That will require far more than litigating Constitutional issues to cure. It will take an aroused, informed electorate that refuses to be bamboozled any longer and insists on electing representatives who will truly represent their constituents and not just themselves. And, who knows how long that may take.
Many pundits think Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat Party candidate for the 2008 presidential campaign and that she will very likely win. So, with that in mind, perhaps we can discern some sense of what we might expect under the leadership of our first woman president.
Experience vs Judgment
One aspect of Ms. Clinton’s background that she has been stressing is her experience. However, the fact is, she has never run anything. No business or government agency. Nor has she ever been the mayor of a city or governor of a state. Her sole claim to fame in the leadership arena is that she spent eight years in the White House, as First Lady. In short, she has zero executive experience, nada, none. So, the question is: Does helping one’s spouse qualify anyone to effectively carry out the duties and responsibilities of leading a major organization. For example, what’s the likelihood that the wife of the CEO of a major corporation, such as General Electric or General Motors or Microsoft, could gain enough experience through helping her husband run his company?A recent Wall Street Journal article, Judgment Trumps Experience, observed that two qualities in particular are essential for leadership: experience and judgment. After conducting a five-year study, the writers concluded that judgment is more important than experience. However, I believe good judgment comes from a lot of experience. (Wall Street Journal, Judgment Trumps Experience, by Warren Bennis and Noel Tichy, November 29, 2007)
Tichy and Bennis conclude their article with the observation: “Yes, Mrs. Clinton, experience is not without value. But judgment, fed by solid character, should determine the choice of our next president.”
Judgment and Character
Conceding for the moment that good judgment, “fed by solid character,” is the most important quality for a leader, what do we know about Hillary’s character and judgment? The following examples should give us a pretty good idea.
Missing Billing Records
Hillary Clinton’s Rose Law Firm’s “billing records, sought for two years by congressional investigators and the special prosecutor are found in the book room of the personal residence at the White House. Clinton says she has no idea how they got there…The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of various investigative subpoenas, sparked intense interest about how they surfaced and where they had been. Shortly after the discovery of the records, Hillary Clinton made history. She became the only First Lady ever called to testify before a Grand Jury inquiry.” (Wikipedia)
Sandy Berger (former National Security Advisor)
“What does the Clinton campaign’s use of convicted and disgraced Sandy Berger as an advisor say about the judgment of someone who wants to be president of the United States?…This is a man who was charged and convicted of the unauthorized removal of classified material from the national archives, not someone with a sparkling resume of success…But the facts say he stuffed his clothes with classified material and left the building with it. He also destroyed at least one document that was linked to the Clinton White House’s record on terrorism, hid at a construction site and lied about having the material…If Berger had any shame, he would have removed himself as far as possible from the public eye. Had Clinton any scruples, she would not let Berger have any part of her campaign.” (Emphasis added). (Anything To Win, IBDeditorials.com, October 8, 2007).
Health Care
Of particular importance about Mrs. Clinton’s failed 1993-94 attempt to have the federal government take over what amounted to about 1/7th of the nation’s economy at the time is the fact that the entire process was conducted largely in secret, including the identities of those who participated in developing the plan, which permitted little or no direct input from the hospital industry or the medical profession.The Clinton health care plan would have cost “a staggering $1.511 trillion over the first five years….$1.384 trillion to pay for Clinton’s mandatory health alliances…would have entailed a new payroll tax of between 14% and 17% on every working American…would have created 200 new regional health cooperatives run by 50,000 new bureaucrats…and nearly 1,000 new Federal responsibilities…” including “coercive new fines on U.S. citizens” and “fines and jail terms for physicians” for certain violations of the law. (Carolyn’sLittleWogargaro.com/healthcare.htmlrld, gargaro.com/healthcare.html)
“Is the experience our families are waiting to reap the benefits of actually a new version of Hillary’s 1993-94 attempt to impose socialized health care on America?” (Hillary’s Record, IBDeditorials.com, November 20, 2007).
Not a very encouraging insight into Mrs. Clinton’s character and thinking as a potential president of the U.S.
Campaign Donations
“…FEC records show she’s taken cash from Islamists so tainted that past Democrat candidates have returned their money…Some of the donors, in fact, are under active federal investigation for supporting terrorism, money laundering and tax fraud…But that hasn’t stopped Hillary from pocketing their money.” (Hillary’s Jihadist Donors, IBDeditorials.com, November 9, 2007).
Sealing Records
“Hillary claims it wasn’t her decision to have her records sealed, forgetting that her husband wrote a letter asking they be sealed until 2012. This is the woman whose Rose Law Firm records disappeared for two years until they mysteriously reappeared in the book room of the most secure building on the planet.” (Slick Hillary, IBDeditorials.com, November 1, 2007).
A $5,000 Bond for Every Baby Born in America
Another grand Clinton idea that was quickly abandoned because of the potential cost of this vote-buying scheme and which, when the details were analyzed, proved to be poorly thought out and impractical.
Energy Policy
“…government spending is clearly what Hillary’s White House job experience would translate into…Her energy policy…consists of a $50 billion alternative fuels fund and $20 billion worth of new ‘green vehicle bonds’ funding intensified gas mileage regulations.’” (Hillary’s Record, IBDeditorials.com, November 20, 2007).
National Security
“If a new policy paper she’s published in Foreign Affairs is any clue, she would simply follow the lead of her husband…Like Bill, Hillary would purse a hippie ‘denuclearization’ policy that ends testing of nuclear weapons in our stockpile, while slashing the budget for developing defense systems to protect the U.S. from incoming enemy ICBMs.” (The Lady and The Nuclear Dragon, IBDeditorials.com, October 29, 2007).
Being Picked On By Men
Dick Morris, in his November 5, 2007 blog, commented that “she (Hillary) is whining about the boys who share the presidential debate stage with her…She says they’re picking on her!…And she doesn’t like it. Her aides say it’s just because she’s a woman.” (dickmorris.com/blog/?p=191).What on earth does she think she will have to deal with as president? Most major powers around the world are led by men, especially those in the Middle East. Is she going to claim that they are also picking on her when she doesn’t like the way they talk to her?
Other Examples of Hillary’s Character
There are too many examples of Hillary Clinton’s failings to detail in full or even list here. But, a few that readily come to mind are:Cattle Contract Investments: Turning a $1,000 cattle futures investment into almost $100,000 in ten months without any prior investment experience or know-how, Hillary claimed it was accomplished merely by following the recommendations of her financial advisor. However, with that capability, why didn’t’ she ever do it again? Why not make a million dollars, or five million, or ten million? Also, she initially claimed the money was a gift from her parents, until the Clintons’ 1978 and 1979 tax returns were made public and the actual source of her profits was exposed.
Travelgate: In 1993, shortly after her husband took office as president, seven longtime employees in the White House Travel Office were fired and the Director was investigated and ultimately prosecuted for embezzlement. He was cleared at trial and in 2000 the Independent Counsel stated that Hillary Clinton had made factually false statements during the investigation.
Gifts: “The Clintons came under strong criticism after disclosing that they were taking with them $190,000 in gifts received over the past eight years.” Hillary, in particular, was criticized “for accepting a rash of presents just before she was sworn in as a senator and became covered by strict ethics rules that prohibit the receipt of any gift worth more the $50. (Washington Post, February 10, 2001)
Imaginary Conversations
Finally, have we forgotten that Hillary once claimed she had imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt. The only problem was that Mrs. Roosevelt had long since departed this earth at the time.I don’t know about you, but I’m not at all comfortable having someone in the White House who has “imaginary conversations” with the dead. Isn’t that what Mahmoud Ahdmadinejad claims – that he communicates with the 12th Imam?
Hillary’s long track record of significant mistakes and weakness of character are very worrisome. Among other things, it reveals the sort of extreme hubris Americans don’t like to see in their leaders.
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
