By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press ServiceWASHINGTON, Oct. 26, 2011 – Because U.S. forces are coming home from Iraq by the end of the year, the U.S. Postal Service will stop accepting mail addressed to military post offices in Iraq starting Nov. 17, Defense Department officials said today.
Military post offices in Iraq also will stop processing mail Nov. 17, and service members there should begin now to advise those who send them mail about the Nov. 17 deadline.
Mail still in the postal system through Nov. 17 will be processed and delivered to service members in Iraq, officials said.
In November, U.S. military postal service responsibilities in Iraq will transition to State Department embassy or consulate post offices for service members assigned to Office of Security Cooperation or the Chief of Mission in Iraq.
These sites will provide letter and parcel mail services to service members assigned to the Office of Security Cooperation or the Chief of Mission in Iraq.
The transition will be closely coordinated with the U.S. Postal Service Agency, which will delete ZIP codes for Iraq military post offices from the USPS database to prevent undeliverable mail from entering the postal system after Nov. 17, according to defense officials.
If APO mail arrives in Iraq after a service member departs, mail will be redirected to the new mailing address provided or, if no mailing address was provided, returned to sender.
Any mail mistakenly accepted by a USPS post office after Nov. 17 will be returned to sender once it reaches the International Gateway in New Jersey.
U.S. service members in Iraq who do not receive an absentee ballot by Nov. 17 should contact their U.S. Local Election Office to change their address. Unit voting assistance officers can provide state-specific voting details.
Service members who are remaining in Iraq after Nov. 17 and who are there on behalf of or are assigned to the Office of Security Cooperation or the Chief of Mission in Iraq should coordinate with their chain of command and the servicing State Department mail location to receive a new mailing address.
According to defense officials, conditions and situations in the Iraq transition change often. Officials recommend that service members check the Military Postal Service Agency website and USPS Postal Bulletins frequently for updates.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Military Post Offices in Iraq to Close Nov. 17
From the DoD:
Thursday, October 27, 2011
#OWS Occupiers Complain About 'Freeloaders' And Forced To Eat Peanut Butter And Jelly Sandwiches
By Susan Duclos
Seems the volunteers that do the cooking for the Wall Street Occupiers have a few complaints, feeling they are “overworked and underappreciated,”and are tired of working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.
Here is the kicker though:
NewsFlash: The Occupiers themselves are squatters!!!!
So, the Occupiers (original squatters) don't want the homeless squatting on the land that they themselves are squatting on, and a subset of the Occupiers, the cooks, do not wish to cook and provide food for the actual homeless, people that truly do not have a home, but would rather only provide food for those that choose to live as homeless people.
Let me get this straight- The Occupiers are protesting "greed", they believe the rich should be taxed more to "share the wealth" via wealth distribution, by taking from those that have and giving it to those have not.
Does this mean they are now protesting against themselves?
Others discussing this:
William Teach over at Pirate's Cove calls this "Sweet, Sweet Irony":
Sister Toldjah sends out the hypocrisy alert on tent searches by Occupier "security" without warrants and Occupier requests for winter items to be donated and she notes that it is "absolutely shameless for these *voluntarily* “homeless” people who really aren’t “needy” to be pleading for the type of assistance that the truly homeless and poor desperately need in this city, especially at this time of year around the holidays."
JammieWearingFool wonders if now the Occupiers see "where the Tea Party is coming from" or if the person reported in the Post now "understands how the 53% who pay the freight in this country feel." He doubts it.
Don Surber gets the quote of the day with "In their protest against greed on Wall Street, the dirty, smelly hippies are telling the destitute: Mine, Mine, Mine."
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit says "The squatters at Camp Poopstock are protesting that they are wasting their time, energy and resources preparing gourmet meals for ex-cons, homeless people, drug addicts and other freeloaders. Welcome to the real world."
From the Crawdad Hole "Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife and serve it to the homeless. Next thing they’ll be yelling “Get a job you smelly hippies!“"
Needless to say, we are all having a little bit of fun with this and the fact that the Occupiers are completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy here.
[Update] You can find all WuA's Occupier antics posts at the class warfare label page here.
.
Seems the volunteers that do the cooking for the Wall Street Occupiers have a few complaints, feeling they are “overworked and underappreciated,”and are tired of working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.
“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, said Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.
A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.”
Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.
Today, a limited menu of sandwiches, chips and some hot food will be doled out -- so legitimate protesters will have a day to make arrangements for more upscale weekend meals.
Protesters got their first taste of the revolt within the revolt yesterday when the kitchen staff served only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and chips after their staff meeting.
Here is the kicker though:
Organizers took other steps to police the squatters, who they said were lured in from other parks with the promise of free meals.
NewsFlash: The Occupiers themselves are squatters!!!!
So, the Occupiers (original squatters) don't want the homeless squatting on the land that they themselves are squatting on, and a subset of the Occupiers, the cooks, do not wish to cook and provide food for the actual homeless, people that truly do not have a home, but would rather only provide food for those that choose to live as homeless people.
Let me get this straight- The Occupiers are protesting "greed", they believe the rich should be taxed more to "share the wealth" via wealth distribution, by taking from those that have and giving it to those have not.
Does this mean they are now protesting against themselves?
Others discussing this:
William Teach over at Pirate's Cove calls this "Sweet, Sweet Irony":
This is like Lord Of The Flies on steroids. Child-like Marxists living like the proverbial pigs, though pigs tend to not live in their own “filth”, and are actually rather fussy eaters. They just like mud. And now they’re learning that people are going to try and take advantage of “the government” and get stuff for free because they feel entitled because “the government” is just there to help. The massive amounts of irony cannot be put into words.NewsBusters points out in their headline "Occupiers Don't Like Redistributing Their Own Wealth."
Sister Toldjah sends out the hypocrisy alert on tent searches by Occupier "security" without warrants and Occupier requests for winter items to be donated and she notes that it is "absolutely shameless for these *voluntarily* “homeless” people who really aren’t “needy” to be pleading for the type of assistance that the truly homeless and poor desperately need in this city, especially at this time of year around the holidays."
JammieWearingFool wonders if now the Occupiers see "where the Tea Party is coming from" or if the person reported in the Post now "understands how the 53% who pay the freight in this country feel." He doubts it.
Don Surber gets the quote of the day with "In their protest against greed on Wall Street, the dirty, smelly hippies are telling the destitute: Mine, Mine, Mine."
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit says "The squatters at Camp Poopstock are protesting that they are wasting their time, energy and resources preparing gourmet meals for ex-cons, homeless people, drug addicts and other freeloaders. Welcome to the real world."
From the Crawdad Hole "Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife and serve it to the homeless. Next thing they’ll be yelling “Get a job you smelly hippies!“"
Needless to say, we are all having a little bit of fun with this and the fact that the Occupiers are completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy here.
[Update] You can find all WuA's Occupier antics posts at the class warfare label page here.
.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Why Commercial Crew Is Doomed
NASA's Commercial Crew Development program, or "CCDev", has been a resounding success - and that's why they're not doing it anymore.
Inspired by the earlier Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or "COTS", and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 stimulus to the tune of $50M, CCDev came out swinging in 2010 with five US companies producing impressive results on what was essentially bonus pay to NASA. As such, it was no surprise when a further $270M was provided for the second round, or "CCDev2". This round is now coming to a close, with continuing achievement from US companies with minimal oversight from NASA. Also, a number of "unfunded" CCDev agreements have been made which receive only use of NASA facilities and expertise - they too have been successful.
With all this success, it might seem strange that NASA is dropping the CCDev program - but they are. They intend to move on to a "procurement" process where a number of companies will be required to submit designs, to be reviewed by NASA, with an eventually "down select" to one or possibly two approved providers for the next phase. The Commercial Crew Program, or "CCP", requested funding for the next five years is $850M/year or $4250M total, but at this time it appears unlikely that they will get more than $500M in the first year.
No, that's not a misprint. Here's a graph to hammer home the point.
Why the massive jump? The simple answer is given by acting program director Phil McAlister's comments at the 2011 International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight - the commercial crew office has grown to 250 people, many of which are spending their days writing requirements and regulations and have been for "the last two years". In the near future, a number of these staff will be "embedded" into the companies doing their initial design work. This massive increase in oversight comes with a switch from Space Act Agreements - where NASA pays the partner only after agreed upon milestones have been met - to Federal Acquisition Regulation contracts. Although it is increasingly obvious that "partners" are becoming contractors, and NASA is taking control over the industry, McAlister continues to downplay the change, stating that it is "just rhetoric from people who don't want to engage in debate".
Well here's some debate. Fundamentally, the COTS and CCDev rounds were about partnership. NASA was not in control and this was a good thing - for the industry, for NASA and for the taxpayer. Yes, Space Act Agreements have been proven to work, but it's not just about that - it's about who has control in this relationship. Under the COTS/CCDev program, a partner could say no. They could say they weren't interested in pursuing a proposed milestone and NASA had to negotiate. The pay-on-performance standard encouraged partners to only take on milestones they knew they could achieve and, with good faith, NASA had clearly defined. Those milestones represented where the goals of the partner matched the goals of NASA - which many don't seem to understand are necessarily different.
During a congressional testimony today, where Elon Musk was a witness for the first time (see this summary in PopMech), Congressman George Miller (D) asked two questions which insisted that eventually NASA will have just the one provider for commercial crew. Later, Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D) expressed concern that NASA is creating a US monopoly on commercial crew. Setting aside that these people are supposed to be telling NASA what to do, not meekly asking for a forecast of the future, the NASA representative - William Gerstenmaier - essentially agreed with the assessment, stating a lack of funding to support two providers.
Oh, did I not mention that? Yes, NASA thinks nearly five billion dollars isn't sufficient to get commercial crew providers to a point where they can start actually paying them for seats. How much exactly they're going to pay them for seats is anyone's guess. SpaceX will happily tell you that they can do $20M/seat, but that assumes 28 seats per year. Which could mean anything because NASA can't actually tell you how many seats they want. NASA at least wants the price of seats on US commercial crew providers to be below the price of seats on Soyuz, but they seem to have no clue anymore why that is. As such, this has encouraged a number of hilarious Congress-does-math moments where the representative will add together the cost of development, price per seat by estimated number of seats, get a number which is bigger than just continuing to buy seats from the Russians and wonder how this is going to save NASA money. Hint: it's not. That's not the goal. The goal is to kickstart the industry by having NASA as an anchor tenant. The only reason to care about the Soyuz price at all is to ensure the US commercial crew providers are competitive in the international market. This should be obvious but NASA/Congress are stocked with morons.
Here's a prediction.. you heard it here first.. that whole lower-than-Soyuz-price thing will go away real soon. I think this will not be the last way NASA breaks the former-partners making them uncompetitive. Ultimately, the product that NASA wants - the mythical space transportation system that will keep the precious astronauts safe on their purposeless jaunts to "occupy" the ISS, maintaining international relations and supervising ants sorting tiny screws in space - is incompatible with actual productive use of human spaceflight. When the commercial markets fail to materialize, the government can say "we told you so!" and essentially nationalize the industry, as they did with launch vehicles.
Briefly, how was it ever supposed to work? The vision, for those who can remember it, was for NASA to simply buy tickets on commercial crew transportation providers. It was supposed that a promise to buy some number of seats per year would have been enough to encourage private development of the vehicles. This of course was naive, as a promise from NASA is about as bankable as a promise from Congress - that is, worthless. So instead, some money was thrown over the wall with a minimum amount of whatcha-gunna-use-it-for? The hope being that private investment would come to the table. This worked! So the sensible next step is to keep doing the thing that works.
Part II: The Market
What would happen if NASA continued to encourage the industry to develop, instead of embarking on a premature "procurement" process for their own piddling little needs? The answer is glorious: multiple commercial crew transportation providers racing to be the first available to offer seats. Actual price competition and ongoing innovation. This would open new markets and the virtuous cycle would open up the entire frontier.
But... so many people can't remember this vision - if they ever knew it at all. We regularly hear the proud proclamation that the government is the only "market" for human spaceflight. Ok, maybe they're willing to grant that there's a market for a few "overly rich tourists", yes, they really use that word, and maybe there's some other countries that would like to have a space program but don't have the wherewithal to slap together their own big-rocket-and-capsule program, but that's just icing on the cake. Even the commercial crew transportation providers seem to be ignorant of the actual market which is out there waiting to be tapped. Even Elon Musk seems to be ignorant of the real market.. there, I said it. Talk of colonizing Mars someday is great, but that's not where the money is right now.
I can hear the space solar power people screaming from the balcony. They know the answer! And while I appreciate their enthusiasm, I think they're wrong. Someday, space solar power will be operational and human spaceflight to maintain those massive solar arrays will be necessary, but that day is not here. We should keep them firmly in mind and think about their needs when making decisions about on-orbit capabilities, but right now they're still on the ground.
No, the market I'm talking about is the one space market that has consistently made profits since the beginning of the space age. In 2005 PanAmSat launched the Galaxy 15 telecommunications satellite, its ownership was later transferred to Intelsat. In April of 2010 control was lost and the satellite starting drifting, causing significant hazard to other satellites. More importantly, the satellite was out of commission and losing money every day. An estimate of the loss of the satellite, was required for accounting purposes and a figure of around $4194M was given, or ~$400M per year for the expected remaining lifespan.
This gives us some idea of the acceptable price for a satellite "rescue" mission out to geostationary Earth orbit. It's hard to imagine NASA screwing up commercial crew so much that such a mission could be made unaffordable by US suppliers, but if seats are available on the Russian Soyuz - as they will be when NASA finally switches to commercial crew - the inability of US human spaceflight providers to beat the Soyuz price will suddenly become important.
Much more interesting, I think, is to consider the current SpaceX pricetag of a Falcon 9 / crew Dragon flight, upgraded to the Falcon Heavy, and before any of the price reductions promised by reusability.. let's say, $200M. At this price it is not inconceivable to imagine sending a crew out annually to service a number of satellites in a constellation. When we consider that routine maintenance has never been done on communication satellites, it becomes obvious that extended lifetimes can be achieved that would more than offset the cost.
In short, NASA isn't the market for human spaceflight, it isn't even the icing, it's the free frogurt - don't eat it.
Inspired by the earlier Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or "COTS", and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 stimulus to the tune of $50M, CCDev came out swinging in 2010 with five US companies producing impressive results on what was essentially bonus pay to NASA. As such, it was no surprise when a further $270M was provided for the second round, or "CCDev2". This round is now coming to a close, with continuing achievement from US companies with minimal oversight from NASA. Also, a number of "unfunded" CCDev agreements have been made which receive only use of NASA facilities and expertise - they too have been successful.
With all this success, it might seem strange that NASA is dropping the CCDev program - but they are. They intend to move on to a "procurement" process where a number of companies will be required to submit designs, to be reviewed by NASA, with an eventually "down select" to one or possibly two approved providers for the next phase. The Commercial Crew Program, or "CCP", requested funding for the next five years is $850M/year or $4250M total, but at this time it appears unlikely that they will get more than $500M in the first year.
No, that's not a misprint. Here's a graph to hammer home the point.
Why the massive jump? The simple answer is given by acting program director Phil McAlister's comments at the 2011 International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight - the commercial crew office has grown to 250 people, many of which are spending their days writing requirements and regulations and have been for "the last two years". In the near future, a number of these staff will be "embedded" into the companies doing their initial design work. This massive increase in oversight comes with a switch from Space Act Agreements - where NASA pays the partner only after agreed upon milestones have been met - to Federal Acquisition Regulation contracts. Although it is increasingly obvious that "partners" are becoming contractors, and NASA is taking control over the industry, McAlister continues to downplay the change, stating that it is "just rhetoric from people who don't want to engage in debate".
Well here's some debate. Fundamentally, the COTS and CCDev rounds were about partnership. NASA was not in control and this was a good thing - for the industry, for NASA and for the taxpayer. Yes, Space Act Agreements have been proven to work, but it's not just about that - it's about who has control in this relationship. Under the COTS/CCDev program, a partner could say no. They could say they weren't interested in pursuing a proposed milestone and NASA had to negotiate. The pay-on-performance standard encouraged partners to only take on milestones they knew they could achieve and, with good faith, NASA had clearly defined. Those milestones represented where the goals of the partner matched the goals of NASA - which many don't seem to understand are necessarily different.
During a congressional testimony today, where Elon Musk was a witness for the first time (see this summary in PopMech), Congressman George Miller (D) asked two questions which insisted that eventually NASA will have just the one provider for commercial crew. Later, Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D) expressed concern that NASA is creating a US monopoly on commercial crew. Setting aside that these people are supposed to be telling NASA what to do, not meekly asking for a forecast of the future, the NASA representative - William Gerstenmaier - essentially agreed with the assessment, stating a lack of funding to support two providers.
Oh, did I not mention that? Yes, NASA thinks nearly five billion dollars isn't sufficient to get commercial crew providers to a point where they can start actually paying them for seats. How much exactly they're going to pay them for seats is anyone's guess. SpaceX will happily tell you that they can do $20M/seat, but that assumes 28 seats per year. Which could mean anything because NASA can't actually tell you how many seats they want. NASA at least wants the price of seats on US commercial crew providers to be below the price of seats on Soyuz, but they seem to have no clue anymore why that is. As such, this has encouraged a number of hilarious Congress-does-math moments where the representative will add together the cost of development, price per seat by estimated number of seats, get a number which is bigger than just continuing to buy seats from the Russians and wonder how this is going to save NASA money. Hint: it's not. That's not the goal. The goal is to kickstart the industry by having NASA as an anchor tenant. The only reason to care about the Soyuz price at all is to ensure the US commercial crew providers are competitive in the international market. This should be obvious but NASA/Congress are stocked with morons.
Here's a prediction.. you heard it here first.. that whole lower-than-Soyuz-price thing will go away real soon. I think this will not be the last way NASA breaks the former-partners making them uncompetitive. Ultimately, the product that NASA wants - the mythical space transportation system that will keep the precious astronauts safe on their purposeless jaunts to "occupy" the ISS, maintaining international relations and supervising ants sorting tiny screws in space - is incompatible with actual productive use of human spaceflight. When the commercial markets fail to materialize, the government can say "we told you so!" and essentially nationalize the industry, as they did with launch vehicles.
Briefly, how was it ever supposed to work? The vision, for those who can remember it, was for NASA to simply buy tickets on commercial crew transportation providers. It was supposed that a promise to buy some number of seats per year would have been enough to encourage private development of the vehicles. This of course was naive, as a promise from NASA is about as bankable as a promise from Congress - that is, worthless. So instead, some money was thrown over the wall with a minimum amount of whatcha-gunna-use-it-for? The hope being that private investment would come to the table. This worked! So the sensible next step is to keep doing the thing that works.
Part II: The Market
What would happen if NASA continued to encourage the industry to develop, instead of embarking on a premature "procurement" process for their own piddling little needs? The answer is glorious: multiple commercial crew transportation providers racing to be the first available to offer seats. Actual price competition and ongoing innovation. This would open new markets and the virtuous cycle would open up the entire frontier.
But... so many people can't remember this vision - if they ever knew it at all. We regularly hear the proud proclamation that the government is the only "market" for human spaceflight. Ok, maybe they're willing to grant that there's a market for a few "overly rich tourists", yes, they really use that word, and maybe there's some other countries that would like to have a space program but don't have the wherewithal to slap together their own big-rocket-and-capsule program, but that's just icing on the cake. Even the commercial crew transportation providers seem to be ignorant of the actual market which is out there waiting to be tapped. Even Elon Musk seems to be ignorant of the real market.. there, I said it. Talk of colonizing Mars someday is great, but that's not where the money is right now.
I can hear the space solar power people screaming from the balcony. They know the answer! And while I appreciate their enthusiasm, I think they're wrong. Someday, space solar power will be operational and human spaceflight to maintain those massive solar arrays will be necessary, but that day is not here. We should keep them firmly in mind and think about their needs when making decisions about on-orbit capabilities, but right now they're still on the ground.
No, the market I'm talking about is the one space market that has consistently made profits since the beginning of the space age. In 2005 PanAmSat launched the Galaxy 15 telecommunications satellite, its ownership was later transferred to Intelsat. In April of 2010 control was lost and the satellite starting drifting, causing significant hazard to other satellites. More importantly, the satellite was out of commission and losing money every day. An estimate of the loss of the satellite, was required for accounting purposes and a figure of around $4194M was given, or ~$400M per year for the expected remaining lifespan.
This gives us some idea of the acceptable price for a satellite "rescue" mission out to geostationary Earth orbit. It's hard to imagine NASA screwing up commercial crew so much that such a mission could be made unaffordable by US suppliers, but if seats are available on the Russian Soyuz - as they will be when NASA finally switches to commercial crew - the inability of US human spaceflight providers to beat the Soyuz price will suddenly become important.
Much more interesting, I think, is to consider the current SpaceX pricetag of a Falcon 9 / crew Dragon flight, upgraded to the Falcon Heavy, and before any of the price reductions promised by reusability.. let's say, $200M. At this price it is not inconceivable to imagine sending a crew out annually to service a number of satellites in a constellation. When we consider that routine maintenance has never been done on communication satellites, it becomes obvious that extended lifetimes can be achieved that would more than offset the cost.
In short, NASA isn't the market for human spaceflight, it isn't even the icing, it's the free frogurt - don't eat it.
Note To Media: STFU About Obama's Birth Certificate
By Susan Duclos
Back when everyone was speculating on whether Donald Trump was going to jump into the 2012 presidential race and the Birther issue (Obama's birth certificate fiasco) was constantly talked about in the media, I headlined a piece with "Donald Trump's So-Called 'Birther' Claims: The Media Continues To Bring It Up, Trump Just Responds," where I showed examples of the media consistently harping on the issue, then asking Trump about it, then claiming HE was the one bringing it up again and again.
I see the media is doing it again, with Rick Perry after he met with Donald Trump, only this time the media is being called out about it by one of their very own.
MediaIte:
Kudos to MediaIte for pointing out the media's deliberate attempt to create the news instead of just reporting it.
.
Back when everyone was speculating on whether Donald Trump was going to jump into the 2012 presidential race and the Birther issue (Obama's birth certificate fiasco) was constantly talked about in the media, I headlined a piece with "Donald Trump's So-Called 'Birther' Claims: The Media Continues To Bring It Up, Trump Just Responds," where I showed examples of the media consistently harping on the issue, then asking Trump about it, then claiming HE was the one bringing it up again and again.
I see the media is doing it again, with Rick Perry after he met with Donald Trump, only this time the media is being called out about it by one of their very own.
MediaIte:
Let start with the origin of the controversy, the Parade Magazine interview published Sunday:
Q. Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?
A. I have no reason to think otherwise.Q. That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”—
A. Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.
Q. But you’ve seen his.
A. I don’t know. Have I?
Q. You don’t believe what’s been released?
A. I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.
Q. And?
A. That came up.
Q. And he said?
A. He doesn’t think it’s real.
Q. And you said?
A. I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the president of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.
Affording these comments the sort of attention that ought to be reserved for important issues like the economy or national security, while Perry seems to laugh the subject off, makes the media appear petty, humorless and a bit ridiculous (by the way the reference to Obama showing his grades is a more serious and legitimate issue to raise with Perry than the birth certificate). By constantly revisiting the birther issue, the media not Perry, affords this non-issue the sort of credibility it never deserved. A CNN reporter later followed up asking what it will take to “convince” Perry “that the President was born in this country?” At this point, Perry was right to avoid continuing the “distraction” by shooting down the reporter’s question.
In his “keeping them honest” segment last night Anderson Cooper claimed “its a distraction that the Governor himself revived for no apparent reason.” No, Perry didn’t revive it. Cooper and the rest of the media did. Sure, Perry didn’t help the situation, but it’s time for those who find it so outrageous to start taking the lead from Perry and even Trump and accept that, at this point, it is just a “distractive issue.”
Kudos to MediaIte for pointing out the media's deliberate attempt to create the news instead of just reporting it.
.
Paul Ryan Beats Obama Over The Head For Class Warfare Rhetoric
By Susan Duclos
Flashback to a October 6, 2011 piece I wrote where I said:
I also pointed out that by mid-July, Obama started reaping his profits from his political calculation to distract from his dwindling poll numbers and failed economic policies when his class warfare rhetoric gave way to an idea to protest "greed" by occupying Wall Street by a George Soros funded group called Adbusters.
Jump to today, and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, calls Obama out publicly for "sowing social unrest and class resentment."
Via The Politico:
Rick Moran at American Thinker states "It's about time someone pointed out the consequences of Obama's reckless class warfare rhetoric."
I agree.
It should not just be Ryan beating Obama over the head for putting his reelection campaign above the country and for stoking a complete class war . Every single Republican presidential candidate, every GOP Senate and House politician needs hammer home the point relentlessly.
.
Flashback to a October 6, 2011 piece I wrote where I said:Barack Obama gave an obvious campaign speech aimed towards his base on June 29, 2011 where he mentioned breaks for "corporate jet owners" six times.
With a dismal failure of a record on economy where the majority of the public disapprove of his handling of it, the U.S. suffering the highest rates of unemployment under Obama, higher deficits than have ever been seen, and raising the national debt higher than any other president , Obama made a deliberate political calculation to distract from those issues and focus his base on a perceived unfairness of some people being more successful in business than others.
I also pointed out that by mid-July, Obama started reaping his profits from his political calculation to distract from his dwindling poll numbers and failed economic policies when his class warfare rhetoric gave way to an idea to protest "greed" by occupying Wall Street by a George Soros funded group called Adbusters.
Jump to today, and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, calls Obama out publicly for "sowing social unrest and class resentment."
Via The Politico:
“Instead of working together where we agree, the president has opted for divisive rhetoric and the broken politics of the past,” Ryan said. “He is going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators.”
Ryan accused Obama of using “class-based rhetoric” in his re-election campaign. Obama’s tactics, he said, make “America weaker, not stronger.”
“Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were the hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy, and resentment,” Ryan said.
“This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies. Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger. Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country – corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless."
Rick Moran at American Thinker states "It's about time someone pointed out the consequences of Obama's reckless class warfare rhetoric."
I agree.
It should not just be Ryan beating Obama over the head for putting his reelection campaign above the country and for stoking a complete class war . Every single Republican presidential candidate, every GOP Senate and House politician needs hammer home the point relentlessly.
.
Video- Rick Perry 'Creating Jobs'
By Susan Duclos
The Rick Perry campaign releases a 31 second campaign ad called "Creating Jobs', which is launching Wednesday in Iowa.
Description via YouTube:
More at Business Insider.
Just yesterday Perry released his tax and spending reform plan (embedded at link)called "Cut, Balance and Grow" and coupled with the launching of this video in Iowa, Perry is playing to his strong suits which are energy issues and job creation and growth.
[Update] Via Memeorandum, I see others are discussing this new "Creating Jobs" video release"
The Daily Caller:
Hot Air:
.
The Rick Perry campaign releases a 31 second campaign ad called "Creating Jobs', which is launching Wednesday in Iowa.
Description via YouTube:
As president, Rick Perry will create at least 2.5 million jobs. In Texas, he created over 1 million new jobs while the rest of the nation lost nearly 2.5 million. He will open American oil and gas fields and eliminate Obama's regulations that hurt domestic energy. We'll reduce our reliance on oil from countries that hate America.
More at Business Insider.
Just yesterday Perry released his tax and spending reform plan (embedded at link)called "Cut, Balance and Grow" and coupled with the launching of this video in Iowa, Perry is playing to his strong suits which are energy issues and job creation and growth.
[Update] Via Memeorandum, I see others are discussing this new "Creating Jobs" video release"
The Daily Caller:
Rick Perry’s introductory TV ad, “Creating Jobs,” is set to debut in Iowa on Wednesday.
“Governor Perry’s new TV ad signals two priorities, American job creation and the families of Iowa,” said Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan. “The ad, which will be widely seen on Iowa TV and cable stations, underscores Rick Perry’s commitment to sparking millions of new jobs and his record as America’s jobs governor.”
Hot Air:
It’s an effective ad, concise while covering the broad strokes of Perry’s economic platform. In fact, it’s so good that it prompts the question of why Perry didn’t start off his campaign running ads like these and sticking to this narrative, rather than go negative so early against Mitt Romney.
.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Biden Complains After Reporter Catches Him Off Guard With Question About Rape Reference
By Susan Duclos
Video below of Jason Mattera confronting Joe Biden on rape reference if Republicans don't support Obama's "jobs" bill.
The Hill reports:
More:
Here is a link to that Washington Post Fact Checker piece where they call Biden's claim about rising rape and murder rates, "absurd."
After providing the 2008, 2009 and 2010 FBI tallies on rapes and murder, The Fact Checker continues on:
Biden got called on a lie and then got caught off guard when asked about his rape reference, was even given the chance to retract them but doubled down and now he wants to blame it all on a reporter that dared question him when he wasn't prepared.
[Update] Related- Thug Administration: White House Wants Jason Mattera Investigated for Biden Question
(Spelling correction made to this post)
.
Video below of Jason Mattera confronting Joe Biden on rape reference if Republicans don't support Obama's "jobs" bill.
The Hill reports:
Jason Mattera, who works for Human Events, a conservative magazine, used a pretext to catch Biden off guard in a Senate hallway and grill him on claims the vice president has made about jobs legislation.
Biden’s office has also contacted the standing committee of correspondents, which oversees the gallery, regarding whether Mattera broke the rules by ambushing him.
More:
Biden looked momentarily frozen as what he thought was a friendly gesture turned into a pointed line of tough questions from a conservative interlocutor. Biden had just signed an autograph for an admirer and still had the pen in his hand, according to a source familiar with the incident.
“I didn’t use — no, no, no,” Biden said, furrowing his brow and shaking his finger at the reporter. “What I said — let’s get it straight, guy, don’t screw around with me. Let’s get it straight.
“I said rape was up three times in Flint, [Mich.]. There are the numbers. Go look at the numbers. Murder’s up, rape is up and burglary’s up. That’s exactly what I said,” Biden added.
After initially balking at the questions, Biden stood by his argument that if Republicans continue to block the Democratic jobs bill, “murder will continue to rise, rape will continue to rise, all crimes will continue to rise.”
The Washington Post’s fact-checker ripped Biden’s claims over the weekend, giving the vice president “four Pinocchios” and writing that he “should know better than to spout off half-baked facts in service of a dubious argument.”
Here is a link to that Washington Post Fact Checker piece where they call Biden's claim about rising rape and murder rates, "absurd."
After providing the 2008, 2009 and 2010 FBI tallies on rapes and murder, The Fact Checker continues on:
More important than the raw figures is the rate per 100,000 individuals. Murder did go up—though the rate did not double from 2009 to 2010, as Biden claimed. But rape has gone down. Biden actually asserted it had tripled.
Biden got called on a lie and then got caught off guard when asked about his rape reference, was even given the chance to retract them but doubled down and now he wants to blame it all on a reporter that dared question him when he wasn't prepared.
[Update] Related- Thug Administration: White House Wants Jason Mattera Investigated for Biden Question
(Spelling correction made to this post)
.
#OWS Occupier News: Police Dismantle Rat Infested Occupy Oakland Tent City
By Susan Duclos
Police in Oakland California, in full riot gear, evacuated and dismantled the previously reported rat infested Occupy Oakland tent city after announcing, via loudspeakers, that the Occupiers needed to vacate Frank Ogawa Plaza and Snow Park.
More video at The Blaze and more updated news at Mercury News.
[Update] More at SFGate and Big Government.
Related Occupier antics from WuA
#OccupyDayton: ‘F*ck The Military, F*ck Your Flag, And F*ck The Police’
Audio- Howard Stern Exposes ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Morons
Video- San Francisco Police Vs Occupiers
Occupier News: NY Occupiers Defecate In Doorways, Oakland Evacuating Them
Video- Wall Street Occupier Epic Meltdown
Denver Cracks Down On Occupiers Like New York Was Too Corrupt To Do
Zuccotti Park Owners Threatened By Elected Officials Into Postponing Cleanup Of Occupied Park
Contact Info For Bloomberg: Occupiers Plan To Fight Cleanup and Zuccotti Park Rules
Occupier Wants College Tuition Paid: Embedded Notice To NYPD About Cleanup
What Has Obama Done? Occupier Urges Violence In Occupy LA Protest
Occupy Threat Center Finds Significant Increase In Violent Rhetoric, Boston Cracks Down On Occupiers
Occupier Defecates On Police Car
Pushback Against Occupiers: 'We Are 53% Group
1%'ers to Occupiers: 'I Paid For Everything I Own'
Dems Embrace The Occupiers As They Spiral Out Of Control
TEXT- 'Time To Kill' Email Sent To NY Assembly Members: 'It's time to tax the millionaires!'
Obama's Class Warfare Rhetoric Led To The Death Threats Against The Wealthy?
Occupy Wall Street Vs Tea Party Protests: Biggest Difference, Tea Party Protesters Don't Break The Law
Police in Oakland California, in full riot gear, evacuated and dismantled the previously reported rat infested Occupy Oakland tent city after announcing, via loudspeakers, that the Occupiers needed to vacate Frank Ogawa Plaza and Snow Park.
Police arrived near Frank Ogawa Plaza at about 4:30 a.m. on motorcycles and vans that were full of officers in riot gear. The police formed a line on Broadway and announced on a loudspeaker that the protesters needed to leave or they would be arrested. Several protesters walked out on their own , but many didn't and were arrested. Some protesters resisted and were carried out by police.
More video at The Blaze and more updated news at Mercury News.
[Update] More at SFGate and Big Government.
Related Occupier antics from WuA
#OccupyDayton: ‘F*ck The Military, F*ck Your Flag, And F*ck The Police’
Audio- Howard Stern Exposes ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Morons
Video- San Francisco Police Vs Occupiers
Occupier News: NY Occupiers Defecate In Doorways, Oakland Evacuating Them
Video- Wall Street Occupier Epic Meltdown
Denver Cracks Down On Occupiers Like New York Was Too Corrupt To Do
Zuccotti Park Owners Threatened By Elected Officials Into Postponing Cleanup Of Occupied Park
Contact Info For Bloomberg: Occupiers Plan To Fight Cleanup and Zuccotti Park Rules
Occupier Wants College Tuition Paid: Embedded Notice To NYPD About Cleanup
What Has Obama Done? Occupier Urges Violence In Occupy LA Protest
Occupy Threat Center Finds Significant Increase In Violent Rhetoric, Boston Cracks Down On Occupiers
Occupier Defecates On Police Car
Pushback Against Occupiers: 'We Are 53% Group
1%'ers to Occupiers: 'I Paid For Everything I Own'
Dems Embrace The Occupiers As They Spiral Out Of Control
TEXT- 'Time To Kill' Email Sent To NY Assembly Members: 'It's time to tax the millionaires!'
Obama's Class Warfare Rhetoric Led To The Death Threats Against The Wealthy?
Occupy Wall Street Vs Tea Party Protests: Biggest Difference, Tea Party Protesters Don't Break The Law
Rick Perry's Embeddable Tax And Spending Reform Plan: 'Cut, Balance And Grow'
By Susan Duclos
Governor Rick Perry has unveiled his Tax and spending reform plan called "Cut, Balance and Grow" and he provides an overview at Wall Street Journal and downloadable PDF of the plan, Summary, Press Release and the Sample Tax Return (image shown to the left) which is one page. Perry's site provides an embeddable version which you will find below.
From the Summary, this plan includes Instituting Individual Flat Income Tax Rate of 20% where individuals would be allowed to choose between the existing code or the flat tax system, preserving deductions for mortgage interest, charity and state and local taxes, it includes a standard deduction for individuals/dependents of $12,500 and standard exemptions and other deductions are phased out for filers with annual incomes above $500,000.
Cut, Balance and Grow eliminates taxes on Social Security benefits, tax dividends and capital gains, the death tax with no federal sales tax or value added tax.
Perry's plan also reduces the corporate income tax to 20% while eliminating corporate loop-holes and special interest tax breaks and transitions to a territorial tax system and it allows locked-up overseas capital to br brought back to the U.S. at a reduced rate of 5.25%.
The Cut, Balance and Grow plan also fixes the federal regulatory system by putting an immediate moratorium on all pending regulations, setting up a full audit of all regulations passed since 2008 (regulations that fail the audit will be repealed).
Federal regulations will automatically sunset unless renewed by Congress. Each agency will have an annual budget instituted and a searchable database with all regulations in force will be created.
Social Security reform under Perry's plan will include the preservation of benefits for current and near-term beneficiaries, provide protection to the Social Security trust fund, allow younger workers to invest in personal retirement accounts, allow state employees to opt-out of Social Security, gradually increase full retirement age to reflect gains in life expectancy and use price growth to index benefits for higher income beneficiaries.
The plan also addresses Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Last but not least, Balancing the Budget, which includes capping federal spending at 18% of the GDP to balance the budget by 2020, reducing the non-defense discretionary spending by $100 billion in the first year and demand a balanced budget amendment that does not raise taxes.
Full plan embedded below.
Cut, Balance, and Grow
Perry concludes over at WSJ:
Conservative reactions:
The Club for Growth, a conservative economic group, praised the proposal.
Grover Norquist, via Twitter states "Texas Governor Rick Perry's flat tax alternative is a great step forward. Doesn't create a VAT or sales tax that could grow" and "Perry's flat tax has the classic lines of a Steve Jobs' product. Seamless...... and Steve Forbes likes it. I'll take two."
[Update- My initial reactions while reading through the plan] This is a bold plan willing to address the harsh realities of a system that is in place which is unsustainable on many fronts.
Each of the areas, balancing the budget, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, tax reform and regulatory changes are issues that need to be dealt with.
Combined they would work toward the goals of balancing our budget and lowering unemployment by creating conditions favorable to job growth, creating revenue not only through the tax code but by having more workers paying in to the system as job growth commences and unemployment goes down and addressing the entitlement issue to which has been shown to be unsustainable long term if left as is.
More reactions from conservative groups are expected after everyone has had time to read through the plan.
Quick additional Note- I am only showing conservative reactions because in my personal opinion anything that addresses entitlement reform, balancing the budget and flattening tax rates will be opposed on principle by Liberals. If a plan does not include tax increases and spending increases then liberals will automatically hate it. So, it is a given that liberals will hate Perry's plan.
[Update] A few conservative pundit reactions are out, with Hot Air wondering if this could be a "game changer" and Riehl World View saying it is a "comprehensive plan worthy of significant discussion."
[Update] More conservative pundit reactions with Dan Mitchell at International Liberty grading the plan "Some Missing Homework, but a Solid B+," and Bryan Preston at PJ Tatler concluding "Rick Perry’s flat tax plan is a solid and serious effort that’s bold yet well within the GOP mainstream. It avoids gimmickry, deals with the mess that is our current tax code and introduces Social Security reform that could see to that program’s future viability. Overall it is a very pro-growth plan that rolls back much of the damage President Obama has done."
More coming as people dig into the meat and potatoes of the plan.
(Updates and corrections made to this post and sentence structure)
Governor Rick Perry has unveiled his Tax and spending reform plan called "Cut, Balance and Grow" and he provides an overview at Wall Street Journal and downloadable PDF of the plan, Summary, Press Release and the Sample Tax Return (image shown to the left) which is one page. Perry's site provides an embeddable version which you will find below.From the Summary, this plan includes Instituting Individual Flat Income Tax Rate of 20% where individuals would be allowed to choose between the existing code or the flat tax system, preserving deductions for mortgage interest, charity and state and local taxes, it includes a standard deduction for individuals/dependents of $12,500 and standard exemptions and other deductions are phased out for filers with annual incomes above $500,000.
Cut, Balance and Grow eliminates taxes on Social Security benefits, tax dividends and capital gains, the death tax with no federal sales tax or value added tax.
Perry's plan also reduces the corporate income tax to 20% while eliminating corporate loop-holes and special interest tax breaks and transitions to a territorial tax system and it allows locked-up overseas capital to br brought back to the U.S. at a reduced rate of 5.25%.
The Cut, Balance and Grow plan also fixes the federal regulatory system by putting an immediate moratorium on all pending regulations, setting up a full audit of all regulations passed since 2008 (regulations that fail the audit will be repealed).
Federal regulations will automatically sunset unless renewed by Congress. Each agency will have an annual budget instituted and a searchable database with all regulations in force will be created.
Social Security reform under Perry's plan will include the preservation of benefits for current and near-term beneficiaries, provide protection to the Social Security trust fund, allow younger workers to invest in personal retirement accounts, allow state employees to opt-out of Social Security, gradually increase full retirement age to reflect gains in life expectancy and use price growth to index benefits for higher income beneficiaries.
The plan also addresses Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Last but not least, Balancing the Budget, which includes capping federal spending at 18% of the GDP to balance the budget by 2020, reducing the non-defense discretionary spending by $100 billion in the first year and demand a balanced budget amendment that does not raise taxes.
Full plan embedded below.
Cut, Balance, and Grow
Perry concludes over at WSJ:
Fixing America's tax, spending and entitlement cultures will not be easy. But the status quo of byzantine taxes, loose spending and the perpetual delay of entitlement reform is a recipe for disaster.
Cut, Balance and Grow strikes a major blow against the Washington-knows-best mindset. It takes money from spendthrift bureaucrats and returns it to families. It puts fewer job-killing regulations on employers and more restrictions on politicians. It gives more freedom to Americans to control their own destiny. And just as importantly, the Cut, Balance and Grow plan paves the way for the job creation, balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility we need to get America working again.
Conservative reactions:
The Club for Growth, a conservative economic group, praised the proposal.
Here is the Club for Growth statement:
“Rick Perry’s plan for tax reform would be massively pro-growth,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “A Flat Tax like the one proposed by Perry would unleash years of economic growth if it is passed into law. Furthermore, eliminating the tax on dividends and capital gains would immediately add trillions of dollars in new wealth to the economy, benefiting all Americans. Perry clearly understands that revitalizing the economy should start with a complete overhaul of a tax code that has nearly choked economic growth to death. Conservatives looking for a champion to carry the banner of a pro-growth tax reform will surely rally behind this bold proposal.”
“I continue to be disappointed that Governor Romney has yet to embrace a flat or fair tax,” added Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “He would be wise to avoid using class warfare when comparing his current proposals to those of Governor Perry or Herman Cain. The Club for Growth is looking for bold leadership on tax reform from the Republican nominee – not demagoguery or platitudes.”
Grover Norquist, via Twitter states "Texas Governor Rick Perry's flat tax alternative is a great step forward. Doesn't create a VAT or sales tax that could grow" and "Perry's flat tax has the classic lines of a Steve Jobs' product. Seamless...... and Steve Forbes likes it. I'll take two."
[Update- My initial reactions while reading through the plan] This is a bold plan willing to address the harsh realities of a system that is in place which is unsustainable on many fronts.
Each of the areas, balancing the budget, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, tax reform and regulatory changes are issues that need to be dealt with.
Combined they would work toward the goals of balancing our budget and lowering unemployment by creating conditions favorable to job growth, creating revenue not only through the tax code but by having more workers paying in to the system as job growth commences and unemployment goes down and addressing the entitlement issue to which has been shown to be unsustainable long term if left as is.
More reactions from conservative groups are expected after everyone has had time to read through the plan.
Quick additional Note- I am only showing conservative reactions because in my personal opinion anything that addresses entitlement reform, balancing the budget and flattening tax rates will be opposed on principle by Liberals. If a plan does not include tax increases and spending increases then liberals will automatically hate it. So, it is a given that liberals will hate Perry's plan.
[Update] A few conservative pundit reactions are out, with Hot Air wondering if this could be a "game changer" and Riehl World View saying it is a "comprehensive plan worthy of significant discussion."
[Update] More conservative pundit reactions with Dan Mitchell at International Liberty grading the plan "Some Missing Homework, but a Solid B+," and Bryan Preston at PJ Tatler concluding "Rick Perry’s flat tax plan is a solid and serious effort that’s bold yet well within the GOP mainstream. It avoids gimmickry, deals with the mess that is our current tax code and introduces Social Security reform that could see to that program’s future viability. Overall it is a very pro-growth plan that rolls back much of the damage President Obama has done."
More coming as people dig into the meat and potatoes of the plan.
(Updates and corrections made to this post and sentence structure)
Monday, October 24, 2011
Wikileaks is broke, shuts down: Assange whines
*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita* Poor Julian Assange just can't seem to catch a break these days - and he is blaming it all on those nasty corporations, and banks.
Today, he held a press conference in London to say that Wikileaks is suspending their operations temporarily, because they are broke.
We are forced to temporarily suspend publishing whilst we secure our economic survival. For almost a year we have been fighting an unlawful financial blockade. We cannot allow giant US finance companies to decide how the whole world votes with its pocket. Our battles are costly. We need your support to fight back. Please donate now. (here)
If you really must, go to the link above (that's Wiki's site) and watch the video of Assange telling how Wikileaks needs YOU!
In case you have been living under a rock for the last few years, Wikileaks is the group who have endangered many lives by their cavalier release of classified information, both military and political.
As Wake Up America wrote back in November 2010:
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Wikileaks Releases Largest Classified Military Leaks In History
Part #2- Examples Of Progressive Liberal Wikileak 'Fawners.
Part #3 "The Obama Administrations Utter Failure To Stop Wikileaks"
Part #4 "Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Wanted By Interpol For 'Sex Crimes'"
Major newspapers throughout the world released the first wave of information from the largest U.S. Military leak in history, which they obtained from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has also put the some odd 250,000 leaked cables on the Wikileaks site, despite the site having gone dark and made inaccessible earlier today from supposed DOS attacks.
Wikileaks is believed to have illegally obtained these cables from a former intelligence analyst, 22 year-old Bradley Manning, who has been held in solitary confinement awaiting court martial. He has been charged with charged with unauthorized downloads of classified material while serving on an army base outside Baghdad.
More on that at The Guardian.
The White House appealed to Wikileaks not to release these documents, stating it would put countless lives at risk and jeopardize relations with our allies, but to no avail, Assange was determined to released the secret cables...
Read the rest of that here.
In October, 2010, War on Terror News had a column on Wikileaks:
WikiLeaks - Exposing Those Dirty Little Secrets
WikiLeaks was established back in 2006 by Julian Assange, "a man with a near genius IQ" say some. According to the NYT's Assange redefined "whistle-blowing by gathering secrets in bulk, storing them beyond the reach of governments and others determined to retrieve them, then releasing them instantly, and globally."
Mr. Assange crossed the line when he released classified documents and video pertaining to the Afghanistan War. Completing his journey across that line with his newest release of more classified documents pertaining to the Iraq War, life for the near genius Julian Assange has dramatically changed.
On October 23, 2010 the NYT's described Julian Assange as a "hunted man" who is in such fear of our intelligence agencies that he can barely be heard when he speaks to others. He resorts to encrypted cell phones, fake names, cash only transactions, trusting nobody, not even his once loyal followers.
Oh how the mighty have fallen......I am more than pleased at his sudden change in lifestyle! He is a RAT of the lowest kind!
Adm. Mike Mullen tweets "Another irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by Wikileaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information. 1:19 PM Oct 23rd" The Admiral urged media "to not publish" any of the leaked information.
Under the guise of exposing the dirty little secrets of our military actions in first Afghanistan and now in Iraq, Assange has exposed countless men and women to harm far greater reaching than he ever anticipated. He most likely feels the world has a "right to know" what goes on behind the veil of "confidentiality"
So where is the harm? After all any names that were deemed important were removed....or at least they tried to remove them all. "The harm" is in providing a whole bucketful of looks inside our operations, movements.....basically giving the enemy bits and pieces of "our playbook!"
There is no timeline on when this information will no longer be useful to our enemies.
Let's not forgot about PFC Bradley Manning who is currently in the brig at Quantico, VA. He is "suspected" but not convicted....yet, of providing Assange with the information that has been leaked. PFC Manning was in a perfect position to betray his country, working in Army intelligence. ...
You know WOTN has more, here.
What about Bradley Manning? Wikileaks at one time was supposedly supporting him financially. From Wired:
WikiLeaks Contributes $15,000 to Bradley Manning’s Defense
By Kim Zetter January 13, 2011
WikiLeaks has finally made good on a months-old pledge to contribute financially to the defense of 23-year-old Bradley Manning, according to a group raising money for the imprisoned Army private suspected of providing WikiLeaks its most important U.S. releases.
But the sum, $15,100, is less than half the $50,000 WikiLeaks originally promised. It’s also less than the group pledged in December, when WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said WikiLeaks would immediately transfer $20,000 to Manning’s defense fund.
The Bradley Manning Support Network, which expressed frustration last month that it had not received the promised pledge, praised WikiLeaks’ contribution Thursday. ”This donation from WikiLeaks is vital to our efforts to ensure Bradley receives a fair, open trial,” wrote Mike Gogulski, the network’s founder, in a press release....
Yes, there is more here.
Not content with publishing military classified information, Assange and Wikileaks then went on to publish diplomatic cables, which caused more than a few red faces in the global community.
I also recently wrote about Wikileaks endangering the lives of Iraqi Jews.
Today, The Christian Science Monitor has this:
Secrets are safe as WikiLeaks, starved of funds, halts operations
WikiLeaks will not release any more secrets until it can raise enough money to keep going, according to the clandestine group's website. It has been choked by financial institutions that no longer process online donations to WikiLeaks.
Call it "the empire strikes back" – against WikiLeaks.
The self-described anticensorship website announced Monday that it is calling a halt to releasing secrets until it can raise enough money to keep its operation going. On the WikiLeaks website, its operators declared it to be the victim of a "blockade" by financial institutions that refuse to process online donations to the organization.
"We are forced to temporarily suspend publishing whilst we secure our economic survival," the website said. "For almost a year we have been fighting an unlawful financial blockade. We cannot allow giant US finance companies to decide how the whole world votes with its pocket. Our battles are costly. We need your support to fight back. Please donate now."...
CSM has a lot more, and it is well worth the read, here.
Wikileaks has caused major damage around the world, and endangered many lives. Along the way, Assange has whined about a world-wide conspiracy against him and his group, even as major media colluded with him to release the document dumps that HE decided the world had a right to know - needed to know.
He collected 1.2m GBP or so as advance payment in a deal to write his autobiography, but later reneged on that, and as yet has not returned the advance to the publishing company. He HAS whined loudly that the publishing company went ahead and published what he had already given them.
From the Telegraph:
Julian Assange writes the first unauthorised autobiography
'All memoir is prostitution' says the WikiLeaks founder with the £1.2 million advance.
By Nigel Farndale24 Sep 2011
The story of how Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, became the first man in history to write an unauthorised autobiography will make a great chapter in his authorised autobiography, should he ever reach an agreement with himself to write one. I’m sure he will because you can’t really call yourself a celebrity these days unless you have at least a couple of autobiographies under your belt, preferably before you reach your thirties....
[...]
I’d like to be able to reveal that Julian Assange angrily disowned his memoir (the one he got a £1.2 million advance for) on the grounds that it was badly written by his ghost, but as with every other aspect of his mercurial life, it is not that simple. In fact, it is so complicated that I’m not sure I can summarise it here. I’m pretty sure it involves money, though. Indeed, his only significant comment on the subject has been to say that “all memoir is prostitution”....
More here.
I am guessing that Assange is having to rethink just what he is willing to do to raise funds for his ongoing crusade as self-proclaimed champion of the peoples' right to know!
For now, I guess we can say that sometimes silence IS golden.
Has anybody told Bradley Manning yet?
Oh, and one more thing, about that Wikileaks logo?
From logoblink:
Is this Wikileaks logo a rip-off ?Although they are too similar, I’m sure it’s not on purpose and the second logo is just the same by coincidence. Just two common ideas. Why I think so ? Because if you are man of truth , a man who has principles you’ll never rip off a logo. And the Wikileaks are men of honor, right ?...
There's more here.
Video- RNC Ad- For every million dollars Obama raises, $6.4 billion is added to our national debt.
By Susan Duclos
A new 31 second RNC video ad below, focusing Obama's job. Campaigning for reelection and fundraising, not his secondary job, you know, the presidency.
H/T NRO's The Campaign Spot:
Description under the video at the GOP YouTube page:
CNN's Political Ticker reports on the video:
The Republicans can keep bickering all they want among themselves in their fight to win the Republican nomination, but in my mind, the one that keeps their eye on the ball as the RNC is doing, and hits Obama hard and often on his record of the last 2 1/2 plus years, is the one that should be our nominee.
.
A new 31 second RNC video ad below, focusing Obama's job. Campaigning for reelection and fundraising, not his secondary job, you know, the presidency.
H/T NRO's The Campaign Spot:
Description under the video at the GOP YouTube page:
Instead of focusing on getting the 14 million unemployed Americans back to work, President Obama continues to focus on protecting his own job. "His Job" highlights President Obama's latest campaign swing on the West Coast.
CNN's Political Ticker reports on the video:
The spot from the RNC accuses the president of focusing more attention on his reelection than the unemployed in America.
"For each new campaign office President Obama opens there are over 15,000 new foreclosures," the ad says. "For every million dollars Obama raises, 6,400,000,000 dollars are added to our national debt. Don't you wish we had a president who cared about your job?"
"It's abundantly clear by Air Force One's travel log where his priorities are," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.
The Republicans can keep bickering all they want among themselves in their fight to win the Republican nomination, but in my mind, the one that keeps their eye on the ball as the RNC is doing, and hits Obama hard and often on his record of the last 2 1/2 plus years, is the one that should be our nominee.
.
The Future Of America Could Be Rhode Island: Broke
By Susan Duclos
A simple piece pointing to three must-reads which will explain how the financial disaster facing Rhode Island, is America's future if we do not learn from the mistakes that are right in front of us.
NYT Teaser:
Then head over to Walter Russell Mead's Blog piece titled "Rhode Island: Athens of America?"
Teaser:
Last but not least,we have a Reuters' piece with the headline "U.S. rating likely to be downgraded again: Merrill."
Teaser:
As Rhode Island goes, so goes America unless we get our fiscal house in order.
As a country we are borrowing money at an alarming rate just to pay for government spending and there are clear choices to be made about which direction will get us back on track, a track which 75.8 percent of the country believes is heading the wrong way now. (Numbers at that link change as new polls are released)
(Click to enlarge)
Republicans want to cut taxes, slash spending and scale back regulations they say are strangling private-sector job creators.
Democrats are pushing proposals designed to create jobs by increasing spending and raising taxes.
The 2012 elections will be the most critical of our time. The country must decide to follow it's present course under Obama or force a change by removing him from office.
Voters must decide if they are part of the nearly 76 percent that believe the country is on the wrong track or the nearly 18 percent that think we are heading in the right direction.
Then they need to vote accordingly in 2012.
.
A simple piece pointing to three must-reads which will explain how the financial disaster facing Rhode Island, is America's future if we do not learn from the mistakes that are right in front of us.
NYT Teaser:
After decades of drift, denial and inaction, Rhode Island’s $14.8 billion pension system is in crisis. Ten cents of every state tax dollar now goes to retired public workers. Before long, Ms. Raimondo has been cautioning in whistle-stops here and across the state, that figure will climb perilously toward 20 cents. But the scary thing is that no one really knows. The Providence Journal recently tried to count all the municipal pension plans outside the state system and stopped at 155, conceding that it might have missed some. Even the Securities and Exchange Commission is asking questions, including the big one: Are these numbers for real?
“We’re in the fight of our lives for the future of this state,” Ms. Raimondo said in a recent interview. And if the fight is lost? “Either the pension fund runs out of money or cities go bankrupt.”
All of this might seem small in the scheme of national affairs. After all, this is Little Rhody (population: 1,052,567). But the nightmare scenario is that Ms. Raimondo has seen the future of America, and it is Rhode Island. As Wall Street fixates on the financial disaster in Greece, a fiscal wreck is playing out right here. And the odds are that it won’t be the last. Before this is over, many Americans may be forced to rethink what government means at the state and local level.
Then head over to Walter Russell Mead's Blog piece titled "Rhode Island: Athens of America?"
Teaser:
Rhode Island is looking more and more like Greece, and not in a good way. That is one message of this important piece by Mary Williams Walsh in the New York Times. Years of blue social policy have wrecked local and state government finance in the country’s smallest state, and now the bills are coming due. Services are being cut to the bone and elderly retirees are losing money they thought was secure.
In Rhode Island, it is Democrats, not nasty union-hating Republicans, who are doing the dirty work. Democratic mayors are telling their unions that there isn’t any money — not because they are vicious corporate stooges who hate working people and want to see them suffer, but because There. Isn’t. Any. Money.
Because Rhode Island listened to timeserving blue politicians too long, and union leaders and public sector workers lost their grip on any mathematical realities beyond the numbers at the ballot box, the pension system grew more and more out of control. State and local governments lurched into a crisis. Vote yourself a raise, vote yourself a pension: why not?
But there is financial math as well as political math and in any war with financial arithmetic, the money numbers win. If there isn’t any money, the checks won’t clear. Ultimately, you will have to fire existing workers, stop paying pensions or a mix of both. That is where Rhode Island is now: its economy can’t generate the revenue to support its existing governance system and to pay its pension obligations.
Last but not least,we have a Reuters' piece with the headline "U.S. rating likely to be downgraded again: Merrill."
Teaser:
The United States will likely suffer the loss of its triple-A credit rating from another major rating agency by the end of this year due to concerns over the deficit, Bank of America Merrill Lynch forecasts.
The trigger would be a likely failure by Congress to agree on a credible long-term plan to cut the U.S. deficit, the bank said in a research note published on Friday.
A second downgrade -- either from Moody's or Fitch -- would follow Standard & Poor's downgrade in August on concerns about the government's budget deficit and rising debt burden. A second loss of the country's top credit rating would be an additional blow to the sluggish U.S. economy, Merrill said.
"The credit rating agencies have strongly suggested that further rating cuts are likely if Congress does not come up with a credible long-run plan" to cut the deficit, Merrill's North American economist, Ethan Harris, wrote in the report.
As Rhode Island goes, so goes America unless we get our fiscal house in order.
As a country we are borrowing money at an alarming rate just to pay for government spending and there are clear choices to be made about which direction will get us back on track, a track which 75.8 percent of the country believes is heading the wrong way now. (Numbers at that link change as new polls are released)
Republicans want to cut taxes, slash spending and scale back regulations they say are strangling private-sector job creators.
Democrats are pushing proposals designed to create jobs by increasing spending and raising taxes.
The 2012 elections will be the most critical of our time. The country must decide to follow it's present course under Obama or force a change by removing him from office.
Voters must decide if they are part of the nearly 76 percent that believe the country is on the wrong track or the nearly 18 percent that think we are heading in the right direction.
Then they need to vote accordingly in 2012.
.
Democracy in Libya? Not so fast
*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita*
The msm is full of news of the fledgling 'democracy' rising from the mass graves of dead bodies in Libya.
The world has watched as NATO and its allies have supported the 'protesters/rebels/insurgents/freedom fighters/alternative government/National Transition Council,' up to, and including, the death of the despot Gadhafi.
The new flag was hoisted, at the UN:
All well and good, and to paraphrase a famous Leonard Cohen song: "Democracy is coming to...Libya."... Really? Even as I write this the CBC is headlining "Today, Libya begins a new road to democracy, human rights..." Really?
The BBC is running headlines like:
However, all is not rosy in Libya. For many months, some have been watching the Libyan 'uprising' with great trepidation. War on Terror News has written many columns on these new 'democracies,' one being The State of the War and The World back in May 2011. WOTN also wrote a long column in February 2011: Who is the Muslim Brotherhood?
NATO may congratulate themselves on a mission accomplished, but by now, some must be asking what shape this 'democracy' in Libya - funded and armed by the rest of us, will take. Back in March 2011:
Sounds great, doesn't it?
Not so fast:
Much more here, and well worth the read.
And the CBC report I am listening to right now?
[Paraphrasing here]: ...
Ya think? A very wise friend of mine - closely involved in the effort to liberate Libya from Gadhafi - has commented that within ten years Libya will be shooting at us. I am not so optimistic, and figure it will be much sooner than that, before the Sharia law, Islamist extremists of Libya will turn their anger and their weapons on us - their 'liberators.' You know, those weapons that we have given them over these last few months. Yes, we have seen this before.
Demonstrations in Libya of burning the American flag and "down with America" screaming mobs in 3...2...1
Pay attention.
The world has watched as NATO and its allies have supported the 'protesters/rebels/insurgents/freedom fighters/alternative government/National Transition Council,' up to, and including, the death of the despot Gadhafi.
The new flag was hoisted, at the UN:
Sep 20, 2011 -UN raises new flag for Libya
The pre-Gaddafi Libyan flag flies in front of the United Nations headquarters (Keystone)
The United Nations in Geneva has decided to display a new flag representing Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC).
In the presence of Libyan UN ambassador Ibrahim Aldredi, the green, black and red flag was hoisted on Tuesday. A small group of Libyans gathered and sang Libya’s new national anthem.
On Friday, the UN’s general assembly decided to recognise the NTC as the official representative of Libya. According to a UN spokeswoman, the flag was raised at the request of the Libyan authorities.
The new flag features a half-moon and a star, and was already the national flag of Libya from 1951-1969. It replaces the green flag of the Moammar Gaddafi regime....(here)
All well and good, and to paraphrase a famous Leonard Cohen song: "Democracy is coming to...Libya."... Really? Even as I write this the CBC is headlining "Today, Libya begins a new road to democracy, human rights..." Really?
The BBC is running headlines like:
Gaddafi death: The bloody birth of a new Libya
22 October 2011The death of Muammar Gaddafi has removed a big problem for this country's transition rulers. It has also imbued the new Libya with original sin it may regret.
The leaders of the National Transitional Council (NTC) during the months of the fight against the colonel often spoke about building a country based on rights, not revenge...(more here)
However, all is not rosy in Libya. For many months, some have been watching the Libyan 'uprising' with great trepidation. War on Terror News has written many columns on these new 'democracies,' one being The State of the War and The World back in May 2011. WOTN also wrote a long column in February 2011: Who is the Muslim Brotherhood?
NATO may congratulate themselves on a mission accomplished, but by now, some must be asking what shape this 'democracy' in Libya - funded and armed by the rest of us, will take. Back in March 2011:
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
By Praveen Swami, Nick Squires and Duncan Gardham
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against 'the foreign invasion' in Afghanistan
Photo: AFP25 Mar 2011
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".
His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008....
Ooooops! There's more here.
Is there ANYbody shocked by this?BHO of COURSE had to issue his statement:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23, 2011 – President Barack Obama congratulated the Libyan people on their Liberation Day, saying the nation is beginning a “new era of promise.”
[...]
“On behalf of the American people, I congratulate the people of Libya on today’s historic declaration of liberation,” Obama said in a written declaration released by the White House today. “After four decades of brutal dictatorship and eight months of deadly conflict, the Libyan people can now celebrate their freedom and the beginning of a new era of promise.”
But Obama noted that much hard work remains in Libya. He said the officials of the Transitional National Council must turn their attention to the political transition ahead.
“We look forward to working with the TNC and an empowered transitional government as they prepare for the country’s first free and fair elections,” the president said.
Obama called on Libyan leaders to respect human rights, to reconcile with Gadhafi’s followers and bring together disparate armed groups under government control. He also called on Libyan leaders to secure weapons and dangerous materials. [Yes, emphasis mine]
“As they take these steps, the United States will continue our close cooperation with our international partners and the U.N. support mission in Libya to help advance a stable, democratic transition,” he wrote....(DoD here)
Sounds great, doesn't it?
Not so fast:
Op-Ed: Questions For A New Libya
Oct 23, 2011
By Sadiq Green.
Last Thursday, Libya celebrated the capture and death of longtime ruler Moammar Gadhafi with gunfire and jubilation. Now the work of building a new nation will begin in Libya and all the world will be watching to see what type of new nation emerges.Questions abound on what's next for Libya beyond the obvious one: What will the new era mean for Libyans, the Middle East, the United States and the world at large? No one can be certain of what is next for Libya or if it will really become a full fledged democracy in the end. Will the future be better for Libyans? Exploring these other questions may provide some answers.
Will Libya descend into civil war? Libya is historically a tribal country with ethnic divisions prone to factional strife and vendettas. During the colonial period, and under Gadhafi’s rule, that was largely suppressed.
[...]
Can Libya build a democracy? Gadhafi's death is clearly a defining moment in the history of the region. Yet it remains to be seen whether the new Libya will be the democratic nation that many western leaders are rooting for. ..
[...]
Has NATO created more Islamist enemies? Perhaps the most troubling aspect from the uprising and death of Gadhafi may very well be the emergence of Islamist extremists and other hardliners from within the ranks of the Libyan rebel opposition. Islamist groups have been the biggest winners elsewhere in the Arab uprisings, and they may not necessarily welcome a secular government. Add to that the west and their propensity to turn a blind eye with regards to backing unsavory elements in the short term in order to establish whatever greater goal they're after. There has never been a clear understanding of who the leaders of the rebel movement are and/or whether some of the so-called freedom fighters actually had allegiances with Al-Qaeda and other unsavory groups. There are concerns that the new Western assisted regime will ultimately end up being more anti-west than Gadhafi was. It is not inconceivable that we could see Gadhafi’s regime being replaced by a Sharia regime populated by Al-Qaeda elements.
Gadhafi's death raises more questions than it answers, with perhaps the most pressing being whether can Libyans manage the transition from brutal dictatorship to functioning democracy. They only begin to scratch the surface of what is most assuredly a very historic, exciting and wary time for Libya's people. ...
Much more here, and well worth the read.
And the CBC report I am listening to right now?
[Paraphrasing here]: ...
' ...NTC Officials are saying Libya will be more pious...based on Sharia law. ..
This is bound to raise some eyebrows....'
Ya think? A very wise friend of mine - closely involved in the effort to liberate Libya from Gadhafi - has commented that within ten years Libya will be shooting at us. I am not so optimistic, and figure it will be much sooner than that, before the Sharia law, Islamist extremists of Libya will turn their anger and their weapons on us - their 'liberators.' You know, those weapons that we have given them over these last few months. Yes, we have seen this before.
Demonstrations in Libya of burning the American flag and "down with America" screaming mobs in 3...2...1
Pay attention.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Better Red Than Dead: By The Numbers
By Susan Duclos
I so stole the headline from the first paragraph in a Forbes piece I read written by Merrill Matthews titled "The Red State in Your Future," where he delves into data that shows how Red states on the whole are doing far better than Blue states economically.
Red states are not only doing better economically than Blue states but the policies enacted in Red states are also providing conditions which make them superior, by the numbers, to Blue states in relation to job growth.
This is a point I made back in late May with a two part piece I wrote called "Red States Add More Jobs Than Blue States." The breakdown over the last decade showed that Red states had a totaled 451,600 private-sector job increase from April 2001 to April 2011, Blue states had a totaled 2,041,300 private-sector job decrease from April 2001 to April 2011 and Purple states (swing) had a totaled 597,900 private-sector job decrease from April 2001 to April 2011.
Part one is here and part 2 is here.
From part one:
Matthews@Forbes quotes a The Daily Beast article, highlighting figures which show the five biggest losers in terms of ‘residents lost to other states’ were California (Blue), New York (Blue), Illinois (Blue), Michigan (Blue), and New Jersey (Blue) and those that gained the in the "relocation sweepstakes, as he calls it, were Florida (Purple), Texas (Red) , North Carolina (Red), Arizona (Red), and Georgia (Red).
Democrats believe that the government must borrow more funds to "spend" more money to stimulate the economy and that taxes should be raised on the people who are already taxed more than any other income group to provide revenue.
Republicans believe that we need to cut government spending to live within our means, ease regulations on businesses so they can grow and provide a permanent tax level so small businesses will have stability and security so they will expand and hire.
States taking up the mantle of fiscal responsibility instead of "tax and spend" are showing impressive results.
Political parties, Republican and Democrat, and their supporters, can argue until the cows come home, on what policies work to create jobs and kick start the stalled economy, but numbers don't lie.
.
I so stole the headline from the first paragraph in a Forbes piece I read written by Merrill Matthews titled "The Red State in Your Future," where he delves into data that shows how Red states on the whole are doing far better than Blue states economically.One reason for that shift is that red states are taking fiscal responsibility while many blue states aren’t—and it shows. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a bipartisan association of conservative state legislators, recently released its fourth edition of “Rich States, Poor States,” by the well-known Reagan economist Arthur B. Laffer, the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore, and Jonathan Williams of ALEC.
The study looks at factors that affect state prosperity and economic outlook, such as tax burdens and population change. What’s clear is that red or red-leaning states dominate the top positions while blue states have the dubious distinction of dragging in last. In the economic outlook section, for example, the top 20 states are bright red or lean red, while eight out of the bottom 10 are very blue: New York, Vermont, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois, Oregon and Rhode Island.
Most of the “poor states” states, as ALEC calls them, have the highest personal income tax rates and the largest unfunded state pension liabilities. But instead of taking the red-state approach by lowering taxes and/or cutting spending, the blue states tend to want to raise taxes even higher, just like their White House mentor.
Red states are not only doing better economically than Blue states but the policies enacted in Red states are also providing conditions which make them superior, by the numbers, to Blue states in relation to job growth.
This is a point I made back in late May with a two part piece I wrote called "Red States Add More Jobs Than Blue States." The breakdown over the last decade showed that Red states had a totaled 451,600 private-sector job increase from April 2001 to April 2011, Blue states had a totaled 2,041,300 private-sector job decrease from April 2001 to April 2011 and Purple states (swing) had a totaled 597,900 private-sector job decrease from April 2001 to April 2011.
Part one is here and part 2 is here.
From part one:
Apply state-by-state politics to the national argument that has been raging over the the federal deficit, government spending, spending cuts and job creation, where both sides of the political spectrum have their own opinion, for lack of a better word, on what needs to be done to address each issue, especially job creation.
It comes down to what set of ideas work and while everyone has their own opinion, if we go by the actual numbers, only one set of ideas seems to consistently provide the desired results in regards to private sector job creation.
Matthews@Forbes quotes a The Daily Beast article, highlighting figures which show the five biggest losers in terms of ‘residents lost to other states’ were California (Blue), New York (Blue), Illinois (Blue), Michigan (Blue), and New Jersey (Blue) and those that gained the in the "relocation sweepstakes, as he calls it, were Florida (Purple), Texas (Red) , North Carolina (Red), Arizona (Red), and Georgia (Red).
Democrats believe that the government must borrow more funds to "spend" more money to stimulate the economy and that taxes should be raised on the people who are already taxed more than any other income group to provide revenue.
Republicans believe that we need to cut government spending to live within our means, ease regulations on businesses so they can grow and provide a permanent tax level so small businesses will have stability and security so they will expand and hire.
States taking up the mantle of fiscal responsibility instead of "tax and spend" are showing impressive results.
Political parties, Republican and Democrat, and their supporters, can argue until the cows come home, on what policies work to create jobs and kick start the stalled economy, but numbers don't lie.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)