Bob Woodward Tells the Truth About Sequestration – White House Lashes Out – Woodward – a Day Late and a Dollar Short

Bob Woodward speaking on Sequestration - Photo and Article Business Insider: "BOB WOODWARD: Obama Is Showing 'A Kind Of Madness I Haven't Seen In A Long Time"

Bob Woodward of “Watergate” fame, established journalist and associate editor of the Washington Post, has had an epiphany. Apparently, the Obama Administration is playing fast and loose with the facts as they relate to sequestration, and, as a result, Woodward has had the gall to call them out! The details of the “feud” are available on Politico in an exclusive interview entitled simply “Woodward at War” (Here at politico.com) In the piece it outlines Woodward’s incredulity that the President would “spin” the fact that he is responsible for sequestration, not the “Republicans” and has been misleading the public as a result, while using campaign tactics, which one of the White House Aides noted in a somewhat threatening email to Woodward, were to further the White House Agenda. Woodward is not backing down. (Politico) In fact, he he has stepped up editorializing that he Presidents decision to pull back on defense prior to the “Sequestration” is “madness”.(Reuters).

The MSM has countered as of this morning with ABC focusing more on the White House and their operatives:

“Former Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith also opined: “Woodward deserves a lot of credit for taking a macro story about DC dysfunction, competing econ theories & making it all about him,” she said. In the column at the center of the storm, Woodward writes the White House has been deliberately disingenuous about its role in the sequester, and accused Obama of “moving the goal posts” by insisting Republicans agree to new tax revenue as part of any substitute for the sequester. “That was not the deal he made,” he says.”

Woodward is about to come to a new epiphany, outside of certain limited news outlets, the balance of them will side with the White House, in fact, Bob Woodward and his accurate portrayal of events regarding the sequester, will receive little to no airplay or ink. Rather, the media, from local to national, is touting the fears that the white house is propagating.

Since Woodward has been public in his questions on the tactics used by the White House, the left are treating him as “right wing”, and those elected officials in the Republican Party, who were accommodating to Woodward in his newly published book on Sequetration, (Politico) are most likely in shock that he has formed this opinion and publicly.

The bigger question is: Has Woodward been living under a rock for since 2009? He must have missed the histrionics, fear tactics, and “campaign-style” messaging that the white house has delivered on the Stimulus, the Jobs Bills, name an issue. The fact of the matter is, that the White House has cried “wolf” so many times, the general public could care less now. It is not the fact that “Sequestration” is hard for most Americans to comprehend (given the length and obscurity of the word); news agencies are boiling that down to “severe budget cuts” and “lost jobs” in order to get the President’s point across.

The fact that the Congress has brought budgets, proposals, and other reasonable bills forward, during the length of the Administration, all stalled at the desk of either Harry Reid, Democrat Majority Leader of the Senate or the White House or a combination of both – must have been lost on Woodward.

Of course, those previously uncompromising Republicans (who are blamed for the Sequestration - inaccurately), are not going to meet with the White House today (NBC New) Here’s what the general public expects: The two sides will meet, there will be a deal, and all will be well, until the next “crisis”. What is most likely to occur, the decrease in projected spending will be either greatly reduced or eliminated, and there will be tax increases to cover the cost of the increased spending as well as additional spending – in other words, John Boehner will cave in to Obama over a round of golf.

If Boehner does not, it will be a shock to those Conservatives who see Washington as one big Party feast on the American taxpayer. If Boehner sticks to his guns over this non-existent crisis, and insists that these cuts to discretionary spending and defense are made – with zero additional tax increases, in order to get the deficit on the first tiny step towards sanity – it would make him the media’s “Public Enemy #1” and give him some credibility among those who feel he’s been singing, go along to get along in DC.

The later is unlikely to occur.

Woodward, however, being right on target with a subject and publicly so, will come to the realization that those in power, enjoy it, and will continue to abuse their power, regardless of political affiliation. Their popularity with the public relying solely on marketing, and aided by a willing media, will make it difficult, if not impossible for the “Bob Woodward’s” of the world to combat with “hard hitting journalism” – That ship has sailed. What is left are those who know, not all is well, above board, and for the people and those who are led by the nose as if they are being returned to Korea to a certain death by the willing Chinese. There are more of the later, which is a growing problem for the nation, as those who are “easily duped” continue to vote. They vote by issues that will never be solved, and they continue to elect multiple term Senators and Congressional Representatives that are more interested in keeping their power base in DC than serving those who hired them. That is true for both political parties. Which is why, in his Farewell address, the First President of the United States offered his take on Political parties by noting: “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Washington was not alone in the concept of the danger of political parties and the powers they would amass, one might flip through the Federalist papers, where this was a resounding theme, and today, it can be deem prophetic. (Also a note, they where vehemently opposed to the addition of “Freedom of the Press to the bill of rights – the reason: the founders feared the press would align itself with a political ideology, inconsistent with the founder’s visions and use their power to “overthrow the nation” ) (Federalist Papers – available online at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18)

Tuning Out – American’s Aren’t Buying Sequestration - "Crisis Solved" Too Many Times - with Too Many Crisis'

Graph depicting the effect of “Sequestration” – image from Viking Pundit: Read article date 2 23 13 entitled: “Planes full of released prisoners will be falling from the sky!” (sarcasm) and the chart title “Behold the Horrors of Sequestration”.

In 2008 the first “Sky is Falling” crisis emerged from Washington, in a long list of crises that have been generated since – all economic and all based upon the battle between a skyrocketing U.S. debt, and budget reductions versus tax increases. The latest in this series “crises’” is “Sequestration” simply put is a miniscule proposed reduction in the budget, passed by Congress and signed by the President in 2011. What this entailed was a reduction in budget spending for both defense and discretionary funding, not a cut to existing budgets. According to the Huffington Post, the general public, simply either does not care, does not know, or does not believe there is a crisis at all – the general assumption, after so many “Democrats vs. Republicans in the battle of good and evil, is that they will all (White House, Congress and the Senate) come to a “deal” in the nick of time.

What the Huffington Post article does acknowledge is some of the “fine print” regarding how the “sequestration” might affect the workforce:

Federal workers would be notified next week that they will have to take up to a day every week off without pay, but the furloughs won't start for a month due to notification requirements.

(Huffington Post)

It is also an opportunity for politicians to highlight the “us versus them” of Party partisanship - For example the Springfield, MA Republican offers this gem: ”Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Reps. Stephen Lynch and Ed Markey to speak at anti-sequestration rally” regarding three high profile MA Democrats, one recently elected to the Senate and two Congressmen who are vying for the Senate Seat vacated by John Kerry and their attendance at a rally to oppose the problems “Congress” caused, by wanting to “cut” the budget. The Republican, unlike the Huffington Post, fails to mention that Sequestration is a bill that was signed into law by the White House – go figure. More interesting is the comments section (see link above), that apparently does not coincide with the general gist of the article – those commenting appear to cheer on the cuts, rather than oppose them – or understand that these are not cuts at all, rather a reduction in the present budget.

Herein lays the real problem, since the general public is either weary (Huffington Post), or just plain sick and tired of the shenanigans in D.C. by all parties concerned, should a genuine crisis occur, the Fed’s and the Media may find no one is going to pay attention.

Apparently, Rahm Emanuel’s assertion, prior to becoming President Elect Obama’s Chief of Staff in 1988,that ““Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” (Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. ) “They are opportunities to do big things.” (NY Times Article: Obama Weighs Quick Undoing of Bush Policy”) appears to either have backfired, having been used multiple times, over and over again. (Or there’s something afoot and a new batch of “Executive Orders will be announced next week.)

Either way, few American’s will either know or care, and the mighty in D.C. having become more insulated with a News Media that continues to lose audiences, either out of disgust by those who feel all media is “state run” or those whose apathy to the news in general, see a rise in popularity for reality television, or anything other than the evening news. Gone are the days when “60 Minutes” was the “must see show” on Sunday nights for the majority of the nation. There are the “news junkies” those who read, eat and sleep media, but they are far outweighed by those who could just care less.

Perhaps both political parties, and the White House, should offer up a version of the drama of “Sequestration” in a medium that might get the public’s attention: Reality Television – scrap the debates, the suits, and the hallowed halls of Washington, fly them to a deserted island, and have them “survive” for points on the passage of a bill. No Limo’s, No Lobbyists, No Staff -just their wit and intellect. Now that would be worth watching. The only problem with that, the Press would have to rely on C-Span for coverage! There would, simply put, be no way to spin it – regardless of the medium: Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, et al. (but the White House Press Corp could complain.)

Of course, none of this will be necessary, as those who know the drill of a crisis, understand that at the last second, John Boehner, the Republican, Speaker of the House, will manage to come to terms with the White House, and all will be well – except the nation might be paying slightly more in taxes to cover the non-cuts, rather reductions in an over-bloated budget – that is if there had been an actual budget in place, which, none has existed since 2008.

Budget Cuts! The Sky Is Falling! Darn Those Republicans! Sequestration – What? – The Fear, The Drama, the News! – Does Anyone Really Care?

Who do you Trust? Either? - President Obama and Congress - Image: the Economist.com

From the local evening news to the daily paper, the cable news outlets to the network news shows, the urgency and fear in the individual reporter’s (or written piece) voice is apparent. President Obama says we are going to lose teachers, firefighters, and we’ll have a big problem funding education and oh, long lines at the airports!! Why? Those darn republicans are going to force budget cuts on the government! Therefore, the sky is falling. What about those budget cuts? The Bill, and it was a Bill, was first brought up in an agreement on the debt ceiling between the President and the Congress, the President signed the bill.

The OMB - (At whitehouse.gov in PDF) listed the consequences of these horrific cuts. In a report on the Budget Control Act of 2011, it is noted that the actual cuts are based on a requirement of eliminating if 1.2 trillion in federal spending. The Report released in 2012 suggests that he President felt that this method was not a smart way to cut the budget (yet he signed the Act).

The estimates and classifications in the report are preliminary. If the sequestration were to occur, the actual results would differ based on changes in law and ongoing legal, budgetary, and technical analysis. However, the report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government func­ tions. Under the assumptions required by the STA, the sequestration would result in a 9.4 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and an 8.2 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration would also impose cuts of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 7.6 percent to other non-exempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 10.0 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs

The above appears to be a ton of cuts that might make it difficult for the government to run, of course, these cuts are explained in some detail as to departments and percentages in billions of dollars going further into the documents. It is also notable that these cuts are spread over a period of time, therefore, the first cuts to take place in 2013 are in billions of dollars – cut that are placed on departments that have already received an increase over the previous year’s budget – huh?!!

On Page 6, for example, it suggests that total defense spending must be cut by 54.8 billion dollars. Which, when one understands how budgets operate in Washington D.C., one can understand that taxpayers have been throwing cash at a cow that basically throws that money out of the nearest window. This is the way budgets are run in any department of the U.S. government: For example: If a small department receives a budget of 1 million dollars and during the course of the year, spending only $600,000 to run the department, the balance must be spent before the end of the fiscal year – on anything – in order for that department to receive sufficient funding for the following year – Thus one finds that government department buying Gold-plated hammers (that is sarcasm) at $25 a pop, or replacing the office furniture, and redecorating – all unnecessary – but necessary by the Government theory of budgeting.

The beyond inefficient budgeting method is part of the problem – reading further into this report and looking at what major services to the public are actually getting cut (less than the average American is cutting their grocery bill), Once one looks closely at the budget cuts to defense, one is reminded of President Eisenhower’s warning “Beware the Military Industrial Complex” – and Eisenhower, for those who are not aware, was a Republican.

Go to page 208 in this document to see the dire cuts to discretionary spending – It’s shocking. For example: The National endowment for the arts, may lose 2 Billion out of the 148 slated for the 2013 budget. Similar cuts are seen throughout the article, most of this is concentrated on salaries to those who oversee the programs.

Then there are the exceptions, which begins on page 225. Read it and weep. (Read entire document here at whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/lesitlative_reports/stareport.pdf

An article at Red State today addresses certain funding cuts where said agencies are no longer in existence – See Redstate.com/why are firemen always the first to be laid off?” Good Question, along with teachers and other local employees of the local governments, the budget and salaries are generally paid for by local taxes, and are the responsibility of the city or municipality. The fact that there were additional hires under the stimulus programs to “create jobs”, is sometimes lost, and that those “created jobs” were only going to last as long as the funds did. Once the funds ran out, those newly hired teachers, were now the problem of the State, City, etc. that hired them with the stimulus funds. The Cities, etc. were, consequently on the hook for the unemployment insurance that was sure to follow – since there was no effort to create non-government funded jobs in the private sector.

Therefore, with all the back to back drama coming out of the White House and the Congress with their budget concerns, sky is falling tactics, one can image that the nation wearies of listening to crisis after crisis – In fact, they are also tired of the news, no matter what form it takes. How many people sit up at night and worry about “sequestration” outside of Washington DC and the newsrooms? – Does the average person, after all the “crying wolf” done by the administration and the Congress with the subsequent results: – “Well, we dodged a bullet there!, no more crisis, we can increase the budget!” “We don’t’ ‘have to shut down the government” – really believe anymore that there are serious consequences to any action taken in Washington?

Does Politico believe it?

That’s questionable considering this morning’s article ”Is Obama telling the truth about sequestration?”

In truth that may be a bit of sour grapes, given that Politico may still be on the outs with the Obama administration over that whole Tiger Woods/Golf-Outing/Press not Allowed situation. However, there appears to be a general, and growing, disbelief in the Federal Government in a top down kind of way, along with their extensions, media outlets – from local to national.

Perhaps it’s a lack of trust in Government institutions or those perceived as an arm of the government: See the July 2012 Gallup survey on Trust in Institutions at www.gallup.com/poll/15258/Confidence-Public-Schools-New-Low.aspx: which suggests the following: The lowest approval went to Congress at 13%, in the 20% range: HMO’s, Big Business, Banks, Organized Labor, News (Televised), News (Print), the Criminal Justice System, and Public Schools. In the 30’s: the U.S. Supreme Court and the Presidency, the Most trusted: The Military, Small Business and the Police. (Read full article at Gallup.com)

Although a little less than a year old, the report may not have changed all that much given the circumstances of the governments daily dire straits, histrionics and prolific spending, stonewalling and basic B.S. by both political parties. One might suggest that the general public has had enough.

MA Special Senate Election – Markey has nod from DNC, but Keep Eye on Lynch – MA GOP – Gomez Appears Capable, Sullivan Not Yet Announced – All Candidates Lack Name Recognition.

The MA Candidates (and potential candidates): Ed Markey(D), Stephen Lynch(D),Gabriel Gomez(R) and Michael Sullivan (R) - images: Markey and Lynch BostonGlobe, Gomez-Boston Herald and Sullivan, Patriot Ledger

The Massachusetts Special Election will take place on June 25th, with primaries held on the 30th of April, and a field that is generally unknown to the majority of Massachusetts voters. That may change, of course, depending on the following factors, Grassroots, airtime and the candidate’s ability to connect and generate turnout. The turnout is generally the big if in MA special elections - , and when a candidate does not, in a short time, connect with the electorate through grass roots organizing to pull ahead, the results of the race normally goes to the party machine that can pull together the votes, namely the Democrats in MA. Scott Brown in 2010 is the best example of a grass roots campaign that exploded and sent him to the Senate, despite the best efforts of the State DNC. The aforementioned tend to blame Martha Coakley, who ran as the opposition Democrat for the loss. However, although Coakley was not the most vibrant candidate, in Massachusetts, the D in front of one’s name in a low turnout election would seal the deal. Brown literally drove across the state and met with individuals, he connected at a time when disgust for Washington among the 50 plus percent of unenrolled Massachusetts voters was high.

In the bid to replace Kerry’s seat in Washington, a long-serving, but little known, Congressional Rep, may have a harder time against a non-politician, given the general distaste for the Congress, and Washington in General. The only candidate that has announced (pending 10,000 signatures due on the 27th of February – in order to qualify for the ballot – with an addition 5,000 for insurance should any of the signatures not meet requirements) that is not already serving in Congress or other official capacity is Gabriel Gomez. Gomez, a first generation Columbian American, is a former Navy Pilot and Navy Seal, who works for a Boston based investment firm and sounds more “unenrolled” than either Republican or Progressive or Democrat. That may be the ticket in getting those, generally uninterested, unenrolleds to vote in the primary and the special election.

Name recognition however, may be at issue. Although Gomez is garnering national and local media attention prior to the submission of required signatures, the only other candidates to do so are Ed Markey, and Stephen Lynch, two Democrats that have graced Congress for Decades, but known only in their own districts, one out of 9 left in the State of Massachusetts.

Former Republican Attorney General Michael Sullivan is also considering a run for the Senate, pending signatures, again, a candidate that has served at the State and Federal Level, but, not in Congress, which regardless of whether one is a Democrat or Republican in that body, generally not a peoples favorite at this point.

Gomez is garnering a considerable amount of media attention for two reasons, one he is a Hispanic running for Senate in Massachusetts, and second he is a Republican Hispanic running for Senate in Massachusetts.

Given the fact that the make-up of the Commonwealth, demographically, is, according to the U.S. Census below the national average when it comes to “minorities” – with 81% Caucasian, 7.8% African American’s and 9.9% Hispanic, with 7.7% of those surveyed in 2010-2011 considering themselves White/Hispanic. With Gomez already actively courting the Hispanic vote in the Bay State, he may have the edge, again, especially during low-turn-out.

On this bloggers preferences, Lynch on the Democrat side appears to be the one who at least bucks his party once in a blue-moon (See Voting Record at project votesmart.org). He has also spent less time in Congress, compared to his opposition, Ed Markey. Markey is a “rubber-stamp” party voter who has graced the Halls of Congress since 1976. (Project vote smart) – In other words, part of the problem in Washington is the deeply entrenched, long-serving politicians, who are more interested in the power of the position than in serving the public.

On the Republican side, Gomez is the most interesting of the candidates, no prior government experience, and someone who believes in the ability to change the government, making it part of the solution, not the problem.

All candidates will have the problem of getting their name out to those voters who are a) low-information (do not watch the news, read a paper, or otherwise care), and grab a piece of the pie that’s left. The Democrat who makes it through the primary will have the advantage of a higher Democrat identified voter count (approximately 36%); The Republican will have the 11% Republican identifiers, and will need to garner the balance from the unenrolleds, and Democrats who may not be enamored of the party candidate. It can be done, it’s been done before, by someone who quickly identified with the individual, criss-crossing the state, and making an impression that far outweighed the money spent on television advertising, which, one can be sure, is necessary in this electronic age. The media will, it is assumed pre-nominate the individual with the longest serving record in Washington due to “experience”.

White House Press Corp Drama – Complains About Access, “Forgiven” –Except for Politico – Suddenly Transparency is at Issue.

The White House Press Corp – Image and Article from DM News “Reporters Notebook – Controlling the Message in the White House”>

The drama that has evolved between the White House Press Corp and President Obama began with a golf outing in Palm Beach – the President preferred to Golf alone with Tiger Woods, the Press Corp was invited along for the ride, but there was no access to the President and his Partner during the games. Consequently, the Press Corp became disgruntled and frustrated over “lack of access” to the President during what surely must have been a crucial meeting. Perhaps it was not so much the lack of access to the actual golf game, for if that is the case, the once-proud organization has been rendered completely useless. It would be better if, after being perceived as nothing more than a “mouthpiece” for the past 5 years and asking relatively no tough questions, those who truly are journalists, and care about their unique position as watchdog between the Oval Office and the Public, have simply had enough.

The White House Press Corp has a history - that began in 1914 at the suggestion of President Wilson. Although not a formal institution at the time, there were reporters who had been assigned to cover the President, Wilson unsure about who to include, passed the decision off to the “Congressional Standing Committee of Correspondents”, the original reporters (11) were incensed, and thus the Official White House Press Corp Association was formed. (WHCA) Generally speaking one would conclude that a journalist assigned to the White House, would be a watchdog of sort, having more access to the President than any others in their field. Ample opportunity has been given in the past to give those members the ability to ask tough questions, and develop, through print, a complete portrait of the individual who held the highest elected office in the nation. Developing, if one will, a series of snapshots that would give the reader a more complete idea of who was sitting in the oval office – a serial biography.

This particular President, compared to his predecessors, according to some, has been given a pass in general, on every topic, on every decision, by those in the media that have access or not – Bush and Clinton enjoyed no such “look the other way” behavior by the crème de la crème, of said media, the White House Press Corp. Times have changed.

Now, that those members had dared to complain, some of their counterparts rallied around the President (See Rachael Maddow, MSNBC, video on the subject (1:45 mark) at Mediabistro.com., the balance ignored the story completely. To those who complained, the President met with all of them, except for one, Politico.

Politico’s most recent piece, is a follow-up to the litany of complaints regarding access and including those links to articles written under the Politico banner regarding access. The Title “President Obama holds off-record meeting with top White House reporters”, speaks about the invitation to the Press Corp, to meet with the President after the complaints, with the exception of Politico’s White House Press Corp member – apparently due to being unapologetic to the President. Politico.

For a once-respected organization, that gave more formidable men and women that Carney, the current Press Secretary, fits, the current crop is perceived as rather benign, taking notes, rather than rendering Carney speechless, without comebacks and stuttering while C-SPAN camera’s roll on.

What did they expect?

More to the point, what good would a pass to watch the President golf with Tiger Woods accomplish? – It’s certainly not the PGA, and there was an appropriate reporter following the game – one from Gold Digest. One might not expect the President of the United States to give any pertinent information during a golf outing, a time when one is enjoying a break from “work”. Moreover, if there was something going on that the Press Corp could file, besides the fact that the President was golfing with Tiger Woods, it is doubtful that there would be anything in the Press as a result. Not in this era, not with this President and not with the collective Press.

When one is looked at as more of a propagandist than one who truly practices a craft, then one has a lot of nerve complaining. That is how this is being perceived by those who have read, watched or listened in stunned disbelief while “Rome” burned, and there was a virtual “blackout” of any further questions that may have answered questions or otherwise shed light on situations that left more than a few on the table. The situation is Benghazi for one, given the national coverage, or lack therefore, of the events leading to the deaths of an American Ambassador, and those Marine’s attempting to protect him. The general public, (otherwise considered “low information voters”) are not even aware of what occurred. (Moreover, the lack of attention to actual news has developed “low information voters” to begin with – the Press being an accomplice so to speak.

One used to count on the news to enlighten, not entertain, or be a mouthpiece for a political idea, a party or President – Op-eds, or editorial content was found in one section of the paper, or one segment of the news, rather than scattered through any given publication, including the sports section, where they now reside.

Politico, being one of the aforementioned, appears to be nothing more, at this point, than a child being “punished” for disobeying a “parent”, and shouting loudly on order to get that “parents” attention. Perhaps if they should loud enough, the President will grant them access – Once granted, they will go back to being the willing, and useful, left wing of the White House. Should they stand for an organization and a profession that had been held in the highest esteem by the general American Public since 1690, when the short-lived Publick Occurrences Both Forreign and Domestick, out of Boston, was published (History.org), then that would spark the beginning of a revolution of sorts, leaving ideology at the door, and doing a bit of straight reporting. Something that is sorely missed, by those who had a belief in the press, at a time when the editorial section was the only place one would find opinion in the grand old newspaper.

Fired Ohio Woman Sues Employer – Suggests Cause was her Vote for Obama – The Manipulation and Downfall of Being a “low-information” voter.

Applebees announced layoffs due to Obamacare - Image with article from the Examiner

Headline: from the Ohio Dispatch : “Ohio woman claims she was fired for Obama vote”, goes into some detail regarding a woman who filed suit against her former employer, a defense contractor, claiming her loss of employment was due to her personal vote for President Obama – she filed the suit (3) three months after her separation. (Read balance of story and comments here at dispatch.com)

The comments under the article are accusatory towards the woman, based upon her vote, rather than what should be obvious, for the most part. Those commenting are suggesting that if the owner of the company fired her due to her vote, it was justified; however they are missing two points.

The first is that the woman most likely was fishing for any excuse to find income after the separation, the national proclivity to bring suit over just about anything, is not lost on the general public (given the findings made in terms of suits filed on the most ridiculous of cases.) What better excuse, than an employee who is found to be out of a job, especially one who had been “last hired”, in a declining economy, with little to stand on, possibly believing that her separation was due to her political leanings?

If one however, reads one’s local or national news outlets, including online, broadcast and print, then one understands that the economy has driven the number of available jobs, and the number of layoffs. In addition, due to the costs to employers of the Affordable Health Care Act, there was sufficient notice, through the media outlets mentioned, that employers were more than vocal about the additional need to scale back on employees hours, as well as noting the costs would make it impossible to either keep those hired, or hire additional employees.

One might look at headlines today, based on a simple “Google News” search and find the following using “layoffs health care law” (simple search):

January 26th, 2013 "Aurora Health Care Says It Will Lay Off Employees Because Of Obamacare " (Huffington Post)

February 1, 2013 "Medical Company Blames ‘Obamacare’ For Layoffs Of Nearly 100 People" (CBSDC)

February 8, 2013 "Looming layoffs, pay freezes, hold the R&D: Regional manufacturer says medical device tax under healthcare law will hurt business”(Penn Live)

Today, February 21, 2013 "Farmington hospital to cut up to 40 jobs"(WGME Maine)

(The above is particularly disturbing for those who are concerned about availability of health care in general, as there are multiple articles in this vein, from Hospitals across the nation. Staff is being reduced to cut costs – those costs cutting measures are associated with the Affordable Health Care Act, as it pertains to providers of Health Care. In short, under the Affordable Health Care Act, providers must find ways in which to reduce the cost of healthcare generally. One such cost cutting measure that patients may face is the 30 day waiting period for appointments to treat the same diagnosis. This is designed to insure that hospitals’ make the “right call” and provide the correct treatment the first time an individual visits their provider. If not, the Hospital is footing the bill, should that individual present the same systems, and visit that provider within (30) thirty days. All things being equal, should human error occur, the provider may make the decision to push an appointment up – or offer a new diagnosis. As private hospitals are owned by corporations which have an obligation to make a profit in order to continue operations, an alternative is to reduce their overhead, (they are also subject to the employers additional costs to implement this act.) is to lay off staff, and/or to reduce hours.)

The above are relatively new articles, however, if one goes back a bit further into 2012, as the costs to employers under the law became more defined (Nancy Pelosi “Sign the Bill now, find out what’s in it later” approach come home to roost), the writing was on the wall and the front page:

For example: October 14, 2012 ”YET ANOTHER CEO ASKS EMPLOYEES TO VOTE ROMNEY FOR SAKE OF THE COMPANY (AND THEIR JOBS)” (The Blaze). Although the article points to the Blaze, a blog, cites MSNBC as the source for the individual companies who were, in desperation, trying to drum up votes for Mitt Romney out of fear of the costs of “Obama Care” to both the employer and employee.

August, 2012 "California Obamacare: LA County Prepares For Massive Health Care Restructuring" (Huffington Post)

The list of companies that have laid off since it was clear the mandate would go forward with the re-election of the President can be found on blogs such as ”Share This Massive List of Post Election Firing and Layoffs…”(The Economic Collapse Blog)

Using “low Information voters” – a term that is in itself, insulting, but for lack of another term and politically correct, is a new tactic by politicians - Those who are deemed “low information voters” are those that either do not avail themselves news on a local or weekly basis, if at all, or limit themselves to their local and national broadcast news. Therefore, they are somewhat easily “fooled” into thinking or voting a certain way, or for that matter, may fail to take shelter in light of a coming storm!

Understanding that the ”news” may be boring, and more to the point, that finding news sources and information by multiple outlets, may be too time consuming and/or challenging for the average voter (which is truly the term that should be used). Of course, news may be depressing, or incomprehensible, (given the state of our education system in the U.S.) – or shunned due to one political bent or the other (i.e. Fox on the left, MSNBC on the right) This type of news consumer is more prone to believe their separation of employment was caused by a vindictive employer knowing how they voted. On the face of it, ridiculous, however, in truth, they may simply not know better. If one is honest, especially those commenting on the Dispatch Article (Paragraph 1), they might know a family member, or several, friends and coworkers, who are not particularly keen on reading, listening or watching news in depth. The current state of affairs offers more teaching moments than not, when one considers that to be well-informed and educated on a subject gives on more power to make an informed decision.

Detroit – Running out of Money – The Corruption, the Waste and the Rocky Road Forward.

The City of Detroit, not unlike cities across the country, taking on increasing debt, has reached its limit. According to the New York Times , the City of Detroit has been found to be fiscally unsustainable, and yet, somehow suggests that the City, with a majority African American Population and run by Democrats for Decades, is somehow a race issue, as the State as a whole has a “ population is nearly 80 percent white and Republicans, including Mr. Snyder, control the capital.”. (NY Times). That said, The City’s finances, reviewed by a State panel, and found to be dismal, to the point where the Govenor may appoint a City Manager – appears to have a rather long history of financial struggles – mostly based on corruption, incompetence and the cost of running a City, all under the supervision of those same Democrats that the NYTimes suggests are somehow victims.

Put aside the race baiting and the partisanship and one finds this City’s problems are a fiscal issue, one where , regardless of what has taken place in the past, attempting to fix the problem is the only way out, even if that means a State Manager is necessary (See City of Springfield, MA under the guidance of the Commonwealth). When Cities spend too much on City employee pensions and salaries, (those that are above the medium for private and public sector works in a given state), that is a starting point, but not the entire problem, there is the unchecked and rampant fraud committed by the City employees and elected officials, there is the exodus of city residents, where fewer tax-paying residents are able to support the aforementioned and eventfully, something has to give.

A timeline of Detroit’s decent into ruin by Reuters: suggests the problems began in 1973 under a long-term Coleman Young, who ran the city until 1993 (some late highlights from Reuters follow: read the entire article here at reuters.com:

In September 2008, Kilpatrick left office after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice charges, and City Council President Kenneth Cockrel became interim mayor.

The U.S. Census reported in March 2011 that Detroit's population fell in 2010 to 713,777 - a 100-year low and a 25 percent decline from 2000. The drop threatened key tax revenue sources that were tied to a population of at least 750,000.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder in June 2011 signed legislation allowing Detroit to continue collecting income and utility taxes. Bing warned in November 2011 that Detroit faced a projected cash shortfall of about $150 million by the end of March 2012.

In March 2012, about half of Detroit's unions accepted pay cuts and other concessions to save the city $68 million annually. The Michigan Court of Appeals allowed the review team to continue working on a potential consent agreement with the city. An interim bond issue to raise $80 million for Detroit's near-empty coffers was sold.

In June 2012, Detroit's top lawyer asked a state court to void the consent agreement on the basis that the state owed the city money. The lawsuit postponed plans for a bond sale to replace the March interim borrowing and raise a total of $137 million for Detroit. Bing, meanwhile, warned the city could soon run out of cash, putting a debt service payment on $1.5 billion of pension debt in peril. As a result, Detroit's credit ratings were cut further into junk.

In July, Bing imposed 10 percent pay cuts on workers.

Michigan voters on Nov. 6 repealed the state's emergency manager law.

The governor on Dec. 27 signed a new emergency manager law to take the place of the law repealed by voters in November. The new law, which takes effect in late March, gives fiscally struggling cities and school district options for dealing with their problems.

An audit released on Jan. 3 showed Detroit's cumulative deficit jumped to $326.6 million at the end of fiscal 2012 on June 30, from $196.6 million in fiscal 2011.

Bing announced on Jan. 25 that the approval of more goals by the city council would allow Michigan to send $20 million of the bond proceeds to the city.

As the formal review of Detroit continued, Snyder revealed on Feb. 11 he had a "short list" of candidates to fill the job of Detroit's emergency financial manager if he decides the city needs one.(Reuters)

Therefore what took place in Detroit began with one city administration followed by others, who kept pushing the increasing public employee debt “can” down the road, The City lost 25 percent of its population over a 10 year period, which eroded the already stressed tax base, and by not dealing with the problem at any time between the 1980’s to 2012 – the current Mayor, Bing, is trying to stop the bleeding with band-aids – but, that began in 2012 with a City Union agreement. The state’s voters passed a bill that took the States ability to help failing cities away, the State’s Govenor signed a new law reversing that bill, in order to step in and save Detroit, but it’s Detroit’s call.

Looking at Detroit’s Demographics is an eye opener: Based on 2009 census data the population of Detroit was 711,700, noting a loss of 25% over the prior census, medium income in Detroit was $18,614, with a medium rent of $749., (City Data),

Compared to a similar metropolitan area in terms of population in the Midwest, with a population of 807,584, the Medium Household income was at$40,278 and the medium rent at $715. (City Data).

That suggests a majority of those living in Detroit were in poverty, with a high rental costs, and those that could, left the City and possibly the State.

Now what?

A former Chief of Communications from the City of Detroit suggests the only option for the City is a managed bankruptcy. Commenting on the report released Karen Dumas, suggests Detroit’s woes, began a decade ago (contrary to Reuters findings), and follows with a short laundry list of issues that should have been corrected:

The city's long-term liabilities surpassed $14 billion, what it cost American taxpayers to bail out the entire auto industry.

The city charter is structured in a way that shackles the city and keeps it from making changes needed to survive.

And the city broke the law -- a lot -- by not amending its budget to prevent deficit spending. It kept paying for things that it could not afford. For instance, it paid last year for 285 employees at 36th District Court. The court has 350 employees, not counting judges. And the court owes the city $199 million.

The city did not balance its checkbook every month, just once a year.

The city sometimes recorded expenses in the wrong place, wrong account or the wrong year.

Some information about city workers did not match information in the personnel files.

When the city paid some insurance claims, they kept a record of the payments, but not of the claims that forced them to make the payment.

The city had no process for anonymous reporting of ethical or fraud violations.

The city used restricted funds to pay for things those funds could not pay for. That's why they're called restricted funds. As a matter of fact, some funds shared the same bank accounts.

The city sometimes determined weekly paychecks without computers and without having the amounts verified by managers. So some paychecks, perhaps many paychecks, were wrong.

And the city kept breaking the rules and operating like it was the 1950s until it accumulated $13 billion in bond debts and a $326-million deficit.

(Detroit Free Press)

On Pensions and the City Management:

From the Detroit Free Press: 2010: “Risky bets cost Detroit pension funds $480 million”, reviews the mess pension fund managers made out of Detroit’s City Pension fund. Detroit’s Mayor Bing, responded to the Free Press: Asked about the losses, Mayor Dave Bing said in a statement: "The current obligations of the city's two pension systems are unsustainable."

He did not elaborate.

On City Pensions:

From the New York Times: an article entitled “Public Pensions, Once Off Limits, Face Budget Cuts” reviews the City of Detroit as well as other cities nationwide as to Union pensions. On Detroit specifically:

The struggles of Detroit, of course, are extreme. The report by the arbitrator, Thomas W. Brookover, noted that although the city’s unemployment rate was officially 28 percent, there was evidence that less than 37 percent of the city’s residents were actually working. The population had crashed. Property tax revenues were dwindling. Detroit had drained its rainy day fund, reduced overtime, offered property-tax amnesty, sold public assets, borrowed money, allowed casinos to set up shop — and still its deficits kept growing.

The average pension for retired police officers in Detroit is not especially rich: it is $28,501 a year. But with more than twice as many retirees as active workers, Mr. Brookover wrote, the costs of paying for the pensions “threaten both the city’s fiscal viability, as well as its wherewithal to provide public safety for its citizens.”

Detroit’s efforts to cover those costs through aggressive investing have not helped. In a 2010 report, an auditor warned that $103 million of alternative investments were unaccounted for. The city’s bets have included Tradewinds Airlines, which went bankrupt for the third time in 2008, and a luxury hotel in Detroit. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating.

The city initially sought to freeze its pension fund immediately, which is almost unheard of in the public sector. The arbitrator rejected that proposal, but agreed that the city could reduce the rate at which lieutenants and sergeants earn pension benefits from 2.5 percent of their salary per year to 2.1 percent. Although rare, the reduction is not particularly large, given the magnitude of Detroit’s problems. The arbitrator did not try to find a solution to the fund’s imbalance. (Read balance of article here

(New York Times)

What happened in Detroit is obvious, a long standing and unchecked, systematic destruction of a once great city, by those in charge for decades at the City level. From corruption to incompetence, to downright criminal activity, the City has found itself on a precipice. As it is obvious why this occurred, fixing the problem is also obvious, not only for Detroit but for any municipality or town across the nation. If elected management is in any way, shape or form, incompetent or corrupt, there should be a mechanism in place to remove said individuals though a City recall, Union contracts should be reviewed and adjusted to the public sector in each individual municipality. Above all, the taxpayer to City obligations should be considered for all budget projections, and those findings should determine city wages, and services. Federal intervention is not an option, as the National debt and budget reads like Detroit’s. (Which makes one wonder, why, the President on budget cuts, is suggesting that firefighters, teachers, etc. will be laid off or fired, when the City hires, and fires, these employees, based on what the City has in its coffers, rather than the Federal Government? What has possibly worsened the situation (most likely), was the stimulus and job bills during the administration that was given to Cities and Municipalities to increase their employees, and create jobs. The problem arose when the funds ran out, and the City, now straddled with unemployment compensation, ran into deeper debt as a result of the Federal Aid.) It is unfair to those teachers, firefighters and police officers and all working for the City of Detroit, who have retired from any City System, to have to live in fear of a City going into bankruptcy, and the result, a loss of all benefits. It is now a human rights issue as well. If now is not the time to bring fiscal sanity to the table, across the country, when?

The Washington Power Struggle – Ted Cruz and Mark Rubio – Dangerous to the Status Quo – To Both Major Political Parties.

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio - Serving Public Contrary to Party Leadership - image Latino Fox News

When one thinks of the center of power in the United States, one instantly identifies Washington, D.C. the wealthiest City in the nation, the home to the President, Senators and Congressman, and their lobbyists. There are the political party leaders, and then the rank and file members – who are expected to do whatever is necessary to keep everyone at their peak of personal power, and when one member rocks the boat, there’s hell to pay.

The Republican’s now have two such members in their ranks – Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas, and Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida – both Hispanics and both staunch Conservatives.

First, Sen. Rubio, who delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union in in February, 2013. (Link includes full text of speech - NPR). Apparently, Rubio became thirsty and grabbed a bottle of water off camera – which quickly developed into Bottled-Watergate via a media hailstorm suggesting that one drink would stymie any future political ambition possibly held by the Florida Senators. In an op-ed by conservative columnist, Cal Thomas, in Newsday Rubio, and his Senate counterpart, Ted Cruz of Texas are portrayed as a “double threat”, first to the Democrats as they see Rubio communicating with Hispanics (which, said minority are considered “owned” by that political party), therefore, a sip of water becomes a full-blown career ender. (With Ted Cruz, it is also about his connection to the Hispanic Community, however, as Thomas suggests the Democrats have a vested interest in eliminating Cruz, not necessarily, it is more likely the Republican Leadership- see Red State on Cruz which follows.) The import of the State of the Union and the Response for the American Public is not as pivotal as it was in decades past – therefore one would imagine it is more about power, controlling power, and consolidating minorities in order for those that hold the power in D.C. to maintain that power.)

Background on the State of the Union

The first televised State of the Union was introduced by Democrat President, Harry Truman, and televised in 1947 (History.com), eventually drawing huge audiences, up to three quarters of the adult population watched on the new medium of television by the 1960’s. (History Channel, The Presidents). As the televised State of the Union developed over the decades, a response by the opposing political party was added. in 1966. (Senate.gov/artandhistory) The last State of the Union in February, drew 35 Millions, (Washington Post), which indicates that fewer U.S. citizens are interested in what the President, or the opposition might have to say - there’s also alternative cable channels.

On Cruz and his being a thorn in the side of Republicans see Erick Erickson of Red State’s take on that subject. Erickson outlines the business as usual in D.C.; the party leadership assigning lobbyist and allocating committee seats to newcomers in order to bring them around to a status point of view. As Ted Cruz is not playing along, therefore, leaks to the press about Cruz are more than likely coming from the left of center Republican Leadership. (Think McConnell, McCain and Graham). Red State).

When a politician who’s ideals outweigh their commitment to power, one of two things happen, either they become part of the party establishment after a period of time, they face a primary in the next term, or they decide one term in Washington is more than enough (Read: A National Party No More” by Zell Miller, one term Senator from the State of Georgia.)

Although one might not politically agree with either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party, the fact that our elected officials, who are elected by the people of their districts or states based upon their individuality rather than party (one would hope), once elected, those members are expected to become part of the “machine” that is Washington. This occurs in both parties (See Rahm Emmanuel and the Blue Dog Democrats), and does little but continue the partisan politics that pervade both Houses of Congress. Moreover, nothing actually gets accomplished other than the growth of wealth and consolation of personal power in the current two-party systems. It is refreshing when a member of either House, goes “off the reservation” and openly revolts by doing exactly what they said they would do – so far.

Danica Patrick – Making History at Daytona – First Women to pull a Pole position - From the Feminist Perspective

Danica Patrick - a first - image from usa today

From U.S.A. Today: Danica Patrick, became the first woman in the 65 year history of NASCAR racing to pull a pole position for what is considered the premier auto racing event in the U.S. – the Daytona 500 Patrick, is no stranger to firsts for women, in 2005, she finished 4th at the Indianapolis 500, being the first woman in the race, and the first to finish at that high a placement. (Biography.com).

Although this blogger is not a huge fan of NASCAR, or U.S. racing (preferring the Grand Prix with its pomp, circumstance, et.al), the image of a woman leading in any male-centered field, especially since Patrick did not take anything away from her personality as a result of “playing with the boys”, is a rather important for women in general. It was not uncommon in the 1970’s for one to want to work in any position (even something so mundane as sales) only to find that as a woman, one was expected to mimic the boys – in the manner of dress, (grey suit, white press shirt, pumps), to the beverage of choice, (“get rid of the girly drink – have a scotch!”). Therefore, it’s a bit refreshing when one sees a woman, competing at the predominant level in a male centered career, “doing it her way” (to steal part of a phrase from Sinatra).

Just a side: Although in President John F. Kennedy, signed the “Equal Pay Act” in 1963 noting at that time, women earned only .60 cents on a dollar, for work comparable to their male counterparts, (Read JFK's Statement here fifty years forward, women now manage to earn 10 cents more. Therefore, what may seem to some, a trivial event, at a NASCAR (of all things) race, where a woman garners another first, to those who have experienced, and waited and watched for the last fifty years, for improvement, a little satisfaction is in order.

Although a believer that the most qualified political candidate, regardless of gender, should be given the nod by “we the people”, it remains a rather steep climb for any woman to break the glass ceiling, in government and politics in general. Understanding that Sarah Palin (love her or no), was the first woman to be nominated to a V.P. slot on a national ticket since Geraldine Ferraro ran as the V.P. nominee n 1984 – with the same amount of disrespect, speaks volumes. It was not the win or the loss (as those are determined by the front-runner and the mood of the nation); it was the way in which both women were measured – 30 years apart. Moreover, as Hillary Clinton was vying for the top slot in 2008 – qualified, and competent, (although one may or may not agree with her political ideology), what the general public heard was “pantsuits”, hair, etc.” rather than the fact that she had solid ideas as to health care, voted on a bi-partisan manner –and was every inch a suitable candidate. (She was the most qualified of the bunch, in this opinion.) – Although strides have been made, since the 1920’s (The first decade a woman could cast a vote!), there is still much to be done. (Obviously, Equal Pay Acts, and the newly re-minted Obama Administration version) did and most likely will do little more than perhaps, another 10% in pay equity and opportunities.

In looking at candidates, what political strategists look to is the candidate that will appeal to “women” - in a recent scramble to find appropriate candidates for a MA special election, one such individual suggested that Ben Affleck would make a perfect Senate candidate – his appeal to “woman” being one of the main reasons. Apparently, in the male mind, a vote for a pretty face would be a trump card for women. No offense to Mr. Affleck, who is passionate about politics, and as a citizen, more likely just as capable if not more so than those now in D.C. – it was the though process behind the choice, that rankles. Somewhat sadly, it is true, that for some the trees are obscured by the forest, which may go a long way towards explaining the state of the Union as it stands. It is not that a woman should be chosen based solely on the fact that she may be the only alternative to a male, but on competence. Whether that woman is running for the Presidency, or a Congressional Seat, or the same position in the accounting department of what-ever firm, the measure should be competency, and if competent, she should be hired, at the same salary as her male counterpart.

Bloomberg – NYC to Expand Electric Car Outlets 20% - New York Times – Test Drive Ended Up on Flatbed – Fantasy Versus Reality and the Cost of Funding Business. Bloomberg Should Retire in DC

President Obama invests in "Electric Cars" - Image and article from www.igocars.org - Will Obama Help Grow an Electric Car Bumper Crop in Hawaii"

In his State of the City address, New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, outlined an aggressive end to his third term according to Bloomberg.com In the address, Bloomberg plans to ban Styrofoam, compost food waste from Staten Island and insure the city is more friendly to Electric Cars, mandating that 20% of all future parking spaces be “outfitted to charge electric vehicles” (Bloomberg.com). In the same week, in the same city, an apparent disagreement with the viability of using an electric care started between New York Times auto reporter, John Broder, and the car manufacturer Telsa. (New York Times) The gist: Broder test drove a model of the electric car, one which is designed to go the distance, from Washington to New York City. Apparently, Broder took a detour, and the car ended up being transported back to New York, along with Broder, on a flat bed truck. Going from D.C. to New York City, is not a Sunday drive, however, it’s not a cross country trip either, one would think that the battery would hold up for at least as long as one’s laptop. Telsa fired back that the author of the article didn’t like the car and was therefore biased. The fact that the cars do not perform well in colder climes, apparently is a non-starter with the U.S. government funded business.

Adding fuel to the fire, a scathing editorial on Philly.com by by the Washington Post’s Charles Lane, suggests that the New York Times reporter had a point. In addition Lane included the Obama administration in his dressing down of the high priced, inefficient and tax-payer funded fiasco:

Who wants a $101,000 car that might die just because you take "a long detour"?

President Obama repeatedly declared that, with enough federal aid, we can put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. His administration has invested about $5 billion in grants, guaranteed loans - including $465 million for Tesla - and tax incentives to buyers.

Yet Americans bought just 71,000 plug-in hybrids or all-electric vehicles in the past two years, according to GreenCarReports.com. That's about a third as many as the Energy Department forecast in a 2011 report that attempted to explain why Obama's goal was not preposterous.

Federal billions cannot overcome the fact that electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids meet few, if any, consumers' needs. Compared with gas-powered cars, they deliver inferior performance at a higher cost. As an American Physical Society symposium on battery research concluded in June: "Despite their many potential advantages, all-electric vehicles will not replace the standard American family car in the foreseeable future."

(Philly.com)

Lane goes on to quote notables from the world of car manufacturing, suggesting the idea of manufacturing electric cars was somewhat of a “mistake”. Moreover, in closing, Lane notes that the Obama Administration’s, Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, does not even own a car.

The entire premise upon which this former capitalist United States was based was simple. One would invent and build something the public might want, and would be either a success or fail dismally. If one failed, one had the option of declaring bankruptcy and trying again. That changed when the U.S. government has decided which businesses to “back” or “partner” with, fund that business, include mandates to protect and promote that business, and when that business fails, add more funds. Meanwhile, there is a need to increase taxes, to cover additional debt by those “lawmakers” who only leave Washington DC by flying over the rest of the nation.

One would suggest that those who are pushing for more tax payer funded projects test them personally, first, before funding begins. Should those living in the wealthiest city in the nation (DC), find a product less than worthy, it might end the insanity – or not, given that there may be a ton of money in DC, (which does not produce a thing other than taxpayer cash), but zero common sense. When Bloomberg retires, perhaps he can find a job with the Obama administration, he’ll fit right in.



Food for thought

Horse meat – what’s the Beef? – Europe Reels from Horse meat Scandal - Obama OK's Horse meat for Sale in U.S.

Horse meat for sale in the U.S. - article Ivn.us - Horse Meat In the U.S. ...

According to the Daily Mail, horse meat is routinely used in the U.K for food for human consumption, but not for pet food. Additionally, the horse meat contains traces of drugs that could be dangerous to humans, and the biggest problem is that is has been “passed off” as beef.

In the UK, it may not be seen as atrocious or anti-cultural to eat horse meat; the problem arises when it is labeled as beef. Cultures, such as the U.S. and most of Europe, for the most part, do not regard eating horse meat as desirable. In the U.S. horses are considered to be pets, rather than food for consumption. Cultures that do not find eating horse meat as “taboo” according to National Geographic are Europeans from France, the Netherlands and the Island of Sardinia, with the largest consumer of horse meat being the Chinese, followed by Kazakhstan, Russia, Mexico, Mongolia, Argentina, and Japan.

The sale of horse meat for consumption was banned in the U.S. in 2006, but that band was lifted by President Obama according to Petside.com. (See The Louisville Courier: Obama Administration OK's horse Meat

Frankly, this blogger recalls a local horse meat shop set up in the 1970’s when beef prices skyrocketed. The shop did not last long, as there was little to no demand by consumers – substituting anything for beef was more acceptable than eating horse meat. (See Macaroni and cheese.) One has to ask how the UK equivalent to the FDA allowed the practice of businesses selling the family pet as “beef” and if the FDA is keeping an eye on the sale of horse meat for human consumption in the U.S.

See Senate Bill 1176 to ban the sale of horse meat for consumption in the U.S. introduced in 2011.

Obama State of the Union February 2013– Loaded with Ideas – Some Good Points – Bigger Government – Lackluster event –and the Wealth and the Fashion – America on Display

>br>


The First Lady, Michelle Obama, stunning hair, stunning dress - image CBS News



President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address for the beginning of his second term. A Complete transcript is available at www.npr.org.

There was general applause throughout the speech, not over much, but surprisingly bi-partisan, specifically as the President hit on several sound ideas, two in particular stood out: immigration reform and decreasing the tax rate on manufactures that return to the U.S. and create jobs. However, he opted to blame “big business” for making massive profits, prior to announcing an end to loopholes for more tax reform which, in essence is a tax increase. For some larger businesses, that may be an incentive to move elsewhere – or return to manufacturing in Mexico, etc. An across the board simplified reform of the tax code would be more beneficial to most Americans, as some of the loopholes that are subject to close are mortgage interest deductions and the ability to deduct interest on student loans.

Immigration reform, which is way overdue, was spelled out in terms that would please anyone – fix the borders, put actual boots on the ground (perhaps U.S. Military that is due back from Afghanistan and could be kept on the payroll, rather than unemployed, while keeping human and drug trafficking down on our southern borders), given those here illegally an opportunity to become a citizen, but having them go to the back of the line, giving preference to those who have legally gone through the process, and finally overhauling or simplifying the legal immigration process (which is extremely costly, requires thousands of dollars for lawyers, testing and fees) – the president mentioned speeding up the process, however, a lowering of the fees involved and a realistic test that an 8th grade student could pass, would accomplish a deterrent to illegal immigration and increase the line for legal immigration). Overall, in his plan for immigration reform, including an English only segment, the President sounded less progressive and more conservative in his approach.

The balance of his programs, however, required “investments” in infrastructure and education. Investments, as anyone knows, are taxes and or outlay by the government. The fact that the initial stimulus was to put millions to work on construction projects fixing roads and bridges, somehow contradicts the 2013 call for billions to be spend on repairing those same bridges. There are several in Massachusetts that have been in the “construction” stage, for more than 2 years, part of the original stimulus. One can imagine if there are two in one small Western Massachusetts cities, how many more would be languishing half finished across the nation, based on the original spend.

He spoke about how these programs would not add to the deficit. Unless he is anticipating a rather large haul through closing loopholes one has only one recourse, and that is to take on additional debt. However, if he pushes through a low tax rate on manufactures, which will increase the workforce, he will be generating revenue through additional private enterprise.

The education cooperatives were somewhat bothersome, as they involved schools in cooperation with government and businesses. A student comes through high school, with skills and a two year college degree, and is hired by the company which partners with the government and the school. It sounds like a win-win – however, in his remarks he also signaled that more people cannot afford higher education, and therefore, this is an alternative. The President did go father suggesting colleges should cut back on tuition rates, which would give everyone an opportunity to save and go to college. Perhaps he is aware of Texas Govenor Rick Perry’s plan that called for state University and Colleges to produce a 4 year degree, tuition and books included, for $10,000. Perry’s plan succeeded as colleges and universities took up the challenge.

The president does have a great sense of humor, but somehow, when he joked, there was little response, and he is funny. Thus the lackluster response. Overall, it was a good speech, challenging both parties to work together to get things done, and laying the responsibility on Congress (and because they are his ideas and plans, a leader takes the responsibility as well (note to the President), and Congress should act, on several of these programs suggested by the President there is enough bases on his address, to get the job done.

In watching State of the Union deliveries in the past, political junkies watch C-Span, as those attending are ushered in, and nothing beats the sound of the Sergeant of Arms introducing the President, which is generally followed by 5 to 10 minutes of continuous applause. Perhaps speaking of the improving economy, and the need to be realistic about college spending, and specifically more reforms, was a sobering message in a room, in a City, that has the most wealth of any in the United States, and is, consequently growing in leaps and bounds – based on nothing more than tax dollars and lobbyist.

They are the self-styled and media and academia heralded “elite” of our society. A Society in which no one man or woman is more “elite” than the next and we all, every citizen, from the least to the greatest, has the opportunity to reach for the moon or fall just as far. It is a bubble in Washington, where out-of-touch of the city limits, one imagines a different America.

Finally, on gun control, the president introduced the grieving parents of the 15 year old girls shot in a park not far from the President’s home. There was former congresswoman, Gabriel Gifford’s, as well as others who had experienced the heartbreak of finding a loved-one murdered. Yet, the focus was on the legal gun owners, and restrictions that are similar to those in Massachusetts. (Criminal background checks for one, which makes sense – and the inability to sell firearms to criminals –the first thought was “Fast and Furious”. What most American’s understand is that there is too much violence in this nation, whether it is with a gun, or beating someone to death, or using a machete, a golf club, a tire-iron – there will always be crimes of passion. The crimes though, that are so prevalent are gang related for the most part, and those guns used, are hardly legally purchased. Additionally, on those who have committed mass murders, such as Newton, Colorado, Virginia Tech, at el, the perpetrator(s) were on medication for mental illness. In every single incident. What this tells us is that reform in the mental health field is more important to prevent mass murder than gun control. Reform such as mandatory visits with one’s psychiatrist to monitor prescription use. As of now, some drugs can be obtained, depending upon the state, at a physician’s office, with no follow-up.

The President now has three years, and a very ambitious agenda, if can accomplish two of the many, he would make great strides and up his political capital, and capital in general on the talk circuit. The two that seem most likely are immigration reform and cutting the corporate tax rate. That said he will have to really push both Congress, and the irascible Harry Reid in the Senate, to get the job done on any of the proposed. I like what our President had to say in party, and in part, not so much (the bigger government at no cost is something that defies math). Therefore, to reach this moderate conservative poetical junkie, he did a good job, however if one in the center right approves, does the base?

Check the Huffington Postfor that side of the response. Marco Rubio delivered the rebuttal. According to Forbes - Senator Rubio delivered an “Impressive Response to Obama's State of the Union Address” Rubio can speak, and he is passionate about the nation and as a conservative and Cuban-American, he is the poster boy for immigration. He agreed with the President, especially on immigration, and delved into two areas of disgreement, more government and the ability to pay for larger programs. He made sense. Yet, he was roundly criticized for taking a break to sip some water during his speech (Slate andCBSNews (difference- very little). That fact alone puts Rubio in contention for 2016. If all the mainstream and left media could find to fault Rubio’s first Republican response to the State of the Unions was in need to take a sip of water during the speech, and said placement of the bottle factored into the this, then Rubio may be squeaky clean for 2016.

Right now, however the focus should be on getting those programs through, again, with bi-partisan work, and knowing, as the President said, not everyone one each side of the aisle will be happy, as they have to give a little to get a little – he may also be speaking of himself, as he has to sign the final bill.

Finally, as a woman, and one who likes fashion, at any age, and specifically when one puts their own spin on their look, it amazes, that those viewing the fair, First Lady, Michelle Obama, and not loving her bangs, are simply out of any loop. She is an extremely attractive woman, who dresses appropriately at such events, and looked less stunning, more age appropriate, and extremely well groomed. One thing American’s do enjoy is a “First Lady” We can at the least be kind, or in cases honest, rather than throwing back partisan critiques on hairstyle and dress. P.S. I love Hillary Clinton in a high placed ponytail too. Instant facelift, defines features, and softens the face, all at the sometime. I missed seeing Clinton at this State of the Union, instead seeing the former Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kerry in her stead. Not quite as inspiring.

Who is Dr. Ben Carson and Why are Conservatives Now Hopeful for 2016?

Dr. Benjamin Carter - 2016? - Image from Dallasweekly.com

There’s been a bit of chatter the last few days in the outlying hinterlands of Massachusetts about a brilliant conservative who is hoped to be running for President in 2016 - quoting one political junkie from the eastern end of the Bay State – “untouchable”. When speaking of “untouchable” and a candidate for any position in government, one is also speaking to electability and the penchant for the opposition (i.e. liberal/progressives) to damage a reputation or find something that will be a tag line to “scare the herd” into voting in opposition to said candidate. In 2012, it was some non-existent “war on women” - someone, some Republican, was going to take away their $7 to $9 monthly supply of birth control. Of course, that was if they worked for a religious organization, the Catholic Church for example – something that was not brought into the national conversation.

Anyone who has watched the political scene for any length of time understands that no-one individual is “untouchable”, as no-one is perfect, and if they are fairly perfect, then something must be wrong. Who would be the perfect “untouchable” candidate? To Conservatives, that’s one Dr. Benjamin Carson, Professor of Neurosurgery, Oncology, Plastic Surgery and Pediatrics, Director, Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery and Co-Director, The Johns Hopkins Craniofacial Center (John Hopkins), who had , in a recent interview noted that “he was retiring from surgery in June” (Hot Air). The author of “Gifted Hands”, had delivered a speech, at the National Prayer Breakfast, and had the unmitigated gall of criticizing “Obamacare”, in the presence of the President. (Real Clear Politics) It is not that Dr. Carson is the first medical practitioner who is concerned and critical of national health care as structured under the President’s, plan, but, he is the first one to do so on the national stage, in the face of the President.

Immediately following, what was seen as criticism of the President, there was the usual Democrat response – From the Washington Times: It sure didn’t take long for Democrats to strike back at Thursday’s National Prayer Breakfast remarks made by Dr. Benjamin Carson that took a conservative tack and criticized the national debt and current fiscal tax-and-spend policy. On a CNN on Sunday, Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky accused Dr. Carson of hypocrisy, saying he actually used political correctness — which he had denounced in his speech — for his personal gain.

“Well, I think that there’s a political correctness that he was trying to use to appeal to a conservative audience,” she said, on CNN, as reported in Israel Matsav. She also criticized Dr. Carson for making what she described as a “political speech” during a religious event, calling his timing inappropriate — as well as his “invoke[ing] of God as support for that kind of view.” Ms. Schakowsky said Dr. Carson’s comments are simply indicative of “where many of the Republicans and tea partiers are right now,” and said that “we need to have an economy that works for everyone.” (Washington Times). Note: If Dr. Carson was not seen as a threat to hold a political office, there would not have been an immediate response.)

One might have to break it to the Congressional Rep, the National Prayer Breakfast is a political event, and Dr. Carson, in his speech was talking about the human condition and its relationship to one government program., in a setting that was full of politico’s – apparently, Dr. Carson left his “politically correct “speak” at the door”

Which led to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: simply titled “Ben Carson for President”

One understands, if one is a hard right conservative that the Wall Street Journal is hardly the body of hard right news – it is more moderate in tone, therefore, Dr. Carson is growing a fan base well ahead of his “retirement from surgery” or any formal (or non) announcement for the top job in D.C, in 2016. From this perspective, it is the time when those thinking about a run, are getting their ducks in order, and those who would be political junkies are seeking the “right” candidate. Dr. Benjamin Carson, might be the right medicine for the problems we, as a nation face, - whether one is conservative or moderate – that remains to be seen – yet, he walks the walk and certainly talks the talk - in not a politician, a relative or spouse of a politician or member, no matter how remote of a political "dynasty"– refreshing.

Listen to Dr. Benjamin Carson (video below)





There was also a movie.......

Pope Benedict XVI To Step Down –The Firebrand of the Holy See

Benedict meets with Fidel Castro, March of 2012 - Reuters

Reuters: The following is the text of the resignation of Pope Benedict

"Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

"Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer."

The announcement is dubbed a “shock” by the BBC, as it was “entirely unexpected” Generally, it is rare that a Pope resign, according to CBBC Newsround, the last Pope to resign was in the 1400’s, was Gregory XII, on July 4, 1415; prior to that Celestine V, abdicated in 1294. (popes and papacy).

Pope Benedict cites his age, and the global nature of the papacy in today’s world, as reasoning for his resignation. Benedict was relentless in his anti-abortion – pro-life message (Catholic News Service). In a meeting with then, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi a Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion, Democrat, the pope instructed Ms. Pelosi on the duty to protect all human life (politicalvelcraft.org), a rarity for a Pope in recent years to speak out privately or publicly to leaders of the U.S. on the subject.

Most recently, the Pope had traveled to the Island of Cuba (and other nations), calling for an end to the U.S. embargo on that island as well as promoting Democracy in the dictator-state.

He was outspoken, modern, (his twitter account), and steadfast in his ministry. It remains to be seen if the next Pope chosen by the College of Cardinal will be another leader in the vein of Benedict. One might think, however that Benedict would have some input into the choice.