Note for Democrats: Spending Less is Not Extreme - Demanding More is...

It has been clear for a while that the Democrats are not interested at all in trying to win over Tea Party activists or people like myself who agree with the Tea Party goals of cutting spending and limiting Government.

Now it seems that the Democrats are taking a position of open hostility against Tea Party attempts to make out Government Representatives more responsible:

"The main thrust is basically that we want to negotiate and we want to come up with a compromise but the Tea Party is pulling Boehner too far over to the right and so far over that there is no more fruitful negotiations," Schumer said on the call. "The only way we can avoid a shutdown is for Boehner to come up with a reasonable compromise and not just listen to what the Tea Party wants. "

Schumer described Boehner as "in a box," over the budget negotiations.

The four senators came on the call after Schumer abruptly went silent and followed Schumer's script closely. - Washington Examiner

Some of our politicians simply have no shame at all. Unfortunately, this is a problem on both the left and the right. However, no amount of spin or even flat out slander of a segment of the voting population is going to change a very simple fact that the Government is recklessly borrowing huge amounts of money that they have no intention of ever paying back. And I think with this in mind, they have no problem trying to spend even more huge amounts of money, simply to buy votes. Keep in mind that the deficit for the current year is about $1.5 trillion out of a $3.5 Trillion budget. Republicans were attempting to cut budget spending by less than 2%. This is defined as extreme by Democrats. It might shock Senator Shumer, but many American families have been forced to such 'extreme' measures with their own budgets.

If Shumer wants extreme, I suggest the Republican members of Congress give it to him and the Democrat leadership. The easiest way to do this is by refusing to increase the debt limit.

Refusing to increase the debt limit will force the Government to operate under a balanced budget. Given how Democrats can't even cut frivolous and wasteful Government spending, this is probably the one way to stop this insanity. Is this an extreme way to go? the budget would have to be cut over 30% (Or cuts plus increase Government revenue). The more I listen to Congress bickering on CSPAN, the more I'm starting to think that this is the only way to go. It would be more tough love than extreme. It would surely be painted as the 'Nuclear Option', but hey, we live in a nuclear world.

At the very least, this should be the opening position for the Republicans in the House. Even if they eventually have to meet the Democrats 'half way', that will still be lots better than where we are being driven right now.

-------------------- --------------------

The US is Going to Have to Take an Axe to the Budget

One thing that has become quickly clear to me while listening to all the talk inCongress of the Continuing Resolutions to fund the Government and just what to cut in terms of spending, that is it going to be impossible to 'apply a scalpel' to the US Budget and carefully cut spending. there are two problems with such a method. First, most every dollar of spending has some Congressman ready to stand up and speak against cutting it. And second, the sheer amount of overspending, around 40% of all spending is borrowed, there is no way that we will be able to get Congress to selectively cut a tiny fraction of that amount.

Ace of Spades has been covering the budget/debt problem for a while:

With just this year's spending, President Obama, Henry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have saddled us with debt that we will probably never pay back, and the White House budget (even before the CBO corrections) agrees. It doesn't even try to pay back these deficits - in fact it doesn't even balance the budget. Ever. - Ace of Spades

I think it is time to axe the budget by starting with a new budget where each kind of spending needs to be justified with total spending limited by the amount of expected revenues.

Does this mean that I want to cut Head Start? Damn right it does. I already pay for two children of my own. It is a responsibility of parents. Shame on the Government for deciding that I should also contribute to support children of other parents.

The budget Axe. It's the new scalpel. It needs to be.
-------------------- --------------------

e-Verify - 'Work Authorization Confirmed'

Homeland Security announced yesterday that it is now possible for people to e-Verify themselves. the idea being that you can check to make sure that your e-Verify information is correct.

On Monday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security launched E-Verify Self Check, which also is available in Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Virginia and the District of Columbia. It will be extended to all states by the end of the year.

"E-Verify is a smart, simple and effective tool that allows us to work with employers to help them maintain a legal workforce," Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a news release. "The E-Verify Self Check service will help protect workers and streamline the E-Verify process for businesses."

The initiative complements E-Verify by limiting bureaucratic hiccups and giving job applicants the opportunity to correct errors in Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases that the system uses. - Tucson Sentinel

The E-Verify Self Check website is here Link (Not sure why they would use an impossibly long url) and it unsurprisingly confirmed that my information is correct and that I am authorized to work in the US.

So we have one less reason to not have all employers in the US use E-Verify to confirm that people applying for jobs are authorized to work in the US.

Now we just have to get the Government to start deporting illegal aliens are they trip over them.

-------------------- --------------------

Democrats, Muslims, Gun Owners and Tea Partiers

This week the Democrats displayed near unlimited concern that a group of Americans might be unfairly labeled for the actions of a few bad actors within that group:

Republicans criticized their counterparts for cloaking the debate in political correctness by questioning the constitutionality of targeting a specific group. Several Democrats suggested a broader hearing that would look at extremism of all kinds.

“I cannot help but wonder how propaganda about this hearing focusing on the American Muslim community will be used by those who seek to find a new generation of suicide bombers,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the panel’s ranking member.

But Rep. Paul Broun said such arguments miss the point: that al-Qaida and other organizations are successfully radicalizing youth in Muslim American communities.

“We need to know exactly who our enemy is. We need to focus on that enemy and not let political correctness deter us from that,” the Georgia Republican said. “I think political correctness is also an enemy.” - Roll Call

Personally I think the hearings are needed. After all, all things being equal, which community is most likely to breed terrorists inside the US?

Too bad that the Democrats, who are so quick to come to the defense of one community are as quick to label and slander other groups such as pro-life supporters, gun owners, tea party supporters, anti-illegal immigration advocates, conservatives, Republicans and anyone who does not keep in step with their own radical agenda.

Also, too bad that the Democrats are so complicit with refusing to acknowledge actual cases of violence committed by those they defend while accusing persons on the right of fostering violence that never manifests itself.

-------------------- --------------------

Democrat Messaging Republican Cuts - 'Reverse Robin Hood'

So on the way home Tuesday evening I caught a couple minutes of Congress debating how to, and how not to cut Government spending. Lucky me caught Boston Congressman Stephen Lynch's attempt to redefine Republican efforts to cut spending while at the same time not raise taxes against the rich as 'Reverse Robin Hood'. You can catch his comments here (Clicking the image will take you to the CSPAN site where his comments start a couple seconds into the video):

Video Link

I have a couple major issues with his line of thinking.

FIRST, in the case of 'Robin Hood', he was stealing from the rich to give back money that was taken by the Government from the poor. In our present society, the bottom half of income earners currently pay no taxes. In effect the Government is asking/taking nothing from them in the form of contribution as part of a collective payment towards the costs of our society. So what Congressman Lynch is defining as taking from the poor, is in actuality proposals to give less to the poor. There is a huge difference.

Second, he attempts to portray Republicans as evil because he claims that Government giving to the poor could somehow continue if only the Republicans would be big enough to raise taxes on the rich or in his words to ask millionaires 'to give a little more'. This is ridiculous for a number of reasons:

• While he is saying millionaires, he then goes on to talk about raising taxes on those earning $250,000 and more. The last time I checked, that was much less than a million, unless he is inferring that people earning such amounts are already millionaires.
  
• The potential increase in Government revenue by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the richest Americans is nowhere enough to reduce the yearly Government spending deficits. In fact the cost to extend the tax cuts for the richest for ten years is less than this year's deficit (Previous post pointing this out).
  
• The Top Federal income tax rate would have gone up to 39.5%. That is like working two days a week just to cover Federal Income taxes, once getting to that rate. Then tack on more work time to cover state and local taxes, before taking care of one's own needs.
• The President's proposed 2012 budget plans to spend the equivalent of $12,000 per American. So, for my family of 4, the Government will spend $48,000. That is much more than what many families pay in taxes. And there is the reason why the Government has to borrow so much.
  

Congressman Lynch asks what about the single mother's and those in need? They are good questions, but there are other good questions that he and his Democrat buddies never bother to ask, such as

• What about all the other assistance these people seeking aid already receive?
  
• Who is working to help those receiving public assistance make their money go father?

As for the single mothers, how about demanding their respective single fathers pitch in? After all, if it is expected that I and other wage earners are expected to substantially support a good percentage of the population, then perhaps we should have a say on how these people are living their lives?

Before you declare this an unreasonable demand, look at how often aid money is wasted and abused. Remember the news of how Katrina aid given to evacuees was used in all sorts of wasteful ways, and now the Drudge Report is highlighting a Colorado Bill that would Ban the use of welfare cards at Strip Club ATMs. California has also be fighting abuse of their welfare funds. When is this all going to stop? The rest of us have to adjust to the current reality, so should the poor.

As for the elderly, I do have sympathies, but now I am starting to wonder about their innocence in all of this. They are the ones who elected the politicians who promised them the social welfare whose cost is now threatening to crush the system. They are the ones who permitted the Government to run deficits year after year for most of their lives. Social Security and Medicare entitlements are going to have to be adjusted. It is just a simple reality and given how people are living much longer, it is a fair adjustment to raise the retirement age, for starters.

Third, given that EVEN IF the Government raised taxes substantially, the budget will still spend more than it takes in in revenue, benefits are going to be cut. So Just who is robbing from who?

Decades of deficits have resulted in a mountain of debt. If Anything, the group that is being robbed is not the poor, but the children of this country. So as Representative Lynch would like to call out that Tea Party supporters are throwing the elderly into the harbor, what he is calling for is for all of us to saddle my generation and my children's generation with their irresponsible spending including their cleaning out of the Social Security Trust fund.

Now you would think that the poor would be concerned about their children having to pay for the support that they are receiving. However, given that they were never asked to pay for the benefits their parents received, why should they consider anything other than the possibility of the Government cutting back the benefits (and in many cases free lunches) that they are receiving.

Another Point. The Federal Government is not the only Government around. States are also responsible for providing public services, such as fire, police and education. If the people of a state want more, they they should be asked to pay more. This is not happening, partly because the Federal government has been footing the bill. For example, why is the Federal Government sending aid to Alaska while at the same time the State collects no income tax? Who considers this fair.

There is much more to this issue. Again last night I heard another Congressman use the Reverse Robin Hood comment. And I suspect that she will not be the last.

-------------------- --------------------

Sea Shepherd Kills off Japan's Whale Hunt

News comes out this morning that the Japanese have suspended their whale hunt operations, for now:

AFTER decades of bitterly opposed Antarctic ''research whaling'', Japan has suspended its hunt and is near to formally pulling out only halfway through the season.

Following a sustained pursuit by activists from the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd, the whalers have had their kills slashed at a time when financial demands are tightening in Tokyo and diplomatic pressure is rising.

The sudden shift has raised hopes that Japan may be moving to end its 23-year program, which has killed about 10,000 Antarctic whales. - The Sydney Morning Herald

I have to say that I am somewhat surprised that the Sea Shepherd activists managed to stop the Japanese from whaling. Simply put, they managed this because they were more willing to endanger their lives than the Japanese were willing to fight back, despite managing to ram and sink a Sea Shepherd vessel last year. I do not think the Japanese were beyond sinking another ship this year, if the right accident opportunity presented itself, like in the photo below.

"The Gojira abnormally coming close in front of the Yushin Maru No. 3 bow." - Link

I guess we will just have to see what the Japanese plan next. I would not be surprised if they wait for Sea Shepherd to leave the area and then turn around, or just relocate to some other area. After all, this is a huge loss of face for them, not that killing whales is any better in that respect, but now there is an added level of shame, especially for the sailors who lost to a bunch of mostly disorganized, reckless and poorly trained opponents. Really, it is amazing that none of the Sea Shepherd group has managed to kill themselves all this time. I wonder how they would stack up against pirates...

-------------------- --------------------

BELUGA NOMINATION Pirates Enter Safe Room via the Ceiling

The BELUGA NOMINATION was recently taken by pirates. One open question was how the pirates managed to get into the ship’s Citadel safe room where the crew was hiding. As it turns out, the safe room was not so safe.

Somali pirates captured Beluga Nomination in the Indian Ocean on January 22. The crew hid in a citadel on board the ship for the first 48 hours, according to Beluga. But then pirates were able to open the ceiling of the safe room and took the crew hostage. – Lloyds List

This sounds like a scene right out of the movie Aliens where the Marines were trying to figure out how the aliens got through the barricades intended to keep them out of the living spaces only to realize too late that they were climbing through the ceiling.

This article also points out that the crew was safe from the pirates for a full 48 hours before the space was breached. So where were the naval forces during that time? An attempt was made to re-take the ship but it was not until after the pirates had gained access to the crew.

The article does not note where in the vessel the safe room was located, but if they managed to enter it from the ceiling, I suspect that it was inside the house. This clearly now was a poor decision. Also, if you watch the video of the South Korean raid on a captured cargo ship last month, you can see that the house was peppered with bullet holes. That is another reason not to place the safe room in the house.

So take the information above and treat it as lessons learned. How safe and secure is your Citadel space?

-------------------- --------------------

A Very Valid Reason to Raise the Retirement Age in the US

Out comes word that the President will not call for raising the Retirement age as part of controlling Government spending:

The direction of Obama's speech became apparent over the weekend, when the White House informed Democratic lawmakers and advocates for the elderly that he would not endorse the commission's recommendation to raise the retirement age and make other cuts to Social Security - the single largest federal program.

Liberals, who have been alarmed by Obama's recent to shift to the center and his effort to court the nation's business community, applauded the decision, arguing that Social Security cuts are neither necessary to reduce current deficits nor a wise move politically. Polls show that large majorities of Americans in both parties - even in households that identify themselves as part of the tea party movement - oppose cutting Social Security benefits. - Washington Post

This is unfortunate, because there is a fair way to explain why the retirement age should be raised. Simply put, most Americans are living longer. In many cases much longer. And as retirees live longer they put a greater strain on Social Security (as well as other parts of the Government). We need to deal with that strain somehow. One way is to raise the retirement age.

Another way to fix Social Security is to raise worker contributions. I am only in favor of that option if we overhaul the entire program, introducing private accounts. (See my post: Democrats Hate the Idea of Private Social Security Accounts - Because They Cannot Steal From Those Accounts...)

-------------------- --------------------

Violent Prisoner with Escape History let out for Funeral and Runs Away

Here's a great idea. Lets take violent criminals with a history of escapes and give them vacations from jail. What can go wrong:

An inmate who had already escaped from authorities once is on the run again after he was given a leave of absence from a federal penitentiary to attend a funeral in the District.

U.S. marshals say Theodore Dewayne Riley failed to report to officials in D.C., and never returned to the Federal Correctional Institution in Memphis, Tenn. A warrant for him was issued Dec. 1. He had been serving a three-year sentence for felony possession of a firearm for an incident that occurred in the District in 2008.

It's not the first time that Riley has escaped from custody, marshals said. He pulled a similar move back in 2000 when he failed to report to a community care facility in D.C. while serving time for a 1999 aggravated assault conviction, said Marshals Deputy Tony Gause.

Now, members of the Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force are looking for the 30-year-old Riley again.

"With a long history of violence, Riley is obviously a threat to the community and is to be considered armed and dangerous," Gause said. "We need the community's assistance in locating him before he puts other innocent people in harm's way."

Riley has other arrests for gun and drug charges and for destruction of property.

He is described as a black male with dark complexion, standing 5-feet 9-inches tall and weighing 155 pounds. He is known to hang out in Northwest Washington in the Sursum Corda complex at First and M streets, and has relatives in Southeast D.C.

Anyone with information regarding Riley's whereabouts is urged to call Gause at 202-427-0183 or the U.S. Marshals Service at 301-489-1717 or 800-336-0102.

Tips from readers of The Washington Examiner have led directly to 24 fugitives since 2008. Marshals wants to make Riley the 25th.

The Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force, run by the U.S. Marshals Service, is composed of 30 federal, state and local agencies from Baltimore to Norfolk. The unit has captured more than 33,000 wanted fugitives since its creation in 2004. - Prisoner with escape history let out for funeral and gets away - Washington Examiner

This is just one example of how part of our criminal problems are actually brought on us by our own Government. Maybe it's me, but if for some reason these people want to attend funerals, they should keep themselves out of jail. they are not going to let you out if your relatives are sick. So the same policy should be maintained in cases of death as well.

One more thing. The official(s) responsible for letting this criminal out should be held accountable. Maybe they should serve his term until he is returned to his cell. That will be a good incentive to ensure that only those trusty enough will be let out.

-------------------- --------------------

Pirates Kidnap LEOPARD Crew of 6 - Lesson Unlearnt from DANICA WHITE Incident

The MV LEOPARD was recently boarded by pirates. Apparently the crew had managed to disable the vessel which resulted in the pirates taking the crew off the vessel as hostages.

The crew of the coaster Leopard seems to have been kidnapped by the pirates that attacked the ship earlier this week. When a Turkish warship arrived at the Leopard there was no sign of the crew (two Danes and six Filipinos) or the pirates. The Leopard was simply drifting without any crew. Nato forces believe the crew has been transferred to a Taiwanese fishing vessel, which had been seized earlier by pirates and used as a mother vessel for attacking commercial ships.

The ship’s owner, Shipcraft A/S, in Hørsholm has not been available for comment on the situation. - Shipgaz

This is not the first time a Danish-Flag vessel with a crew of six has been taken over by Pirates. The MV DANICA WHITE was captured by pirates back during the summer of 2007. they had a crew of six. Amazingly, the Danish Maritime Administration blamed improper watchkeeping as part of the reason why the vessel ended up in the hands of pirates:

If there had been proper lookout from DANICA WHITE, the pirate boats could have been spotted app. 30 minutes before they reached DANICA WHITE. However, due to the slow speed of the ship, DANICA WHITE could not have sailed away from the pirates, but the crew would have been able to raise the alarm in time and shown the pirates that they had been spotted. (6.5) - DMA (page 5) - Link, 'DANICA WHITE Hijacking - 'Minimum Safe Manning' Partly to Blame'

My post on the issue, DANICA WHITE Hijacking - 'Minimum Safe Manning' Partly to Blame, takes issue with this given that the Danes permitted the ship to be crewed with so few seafarers to the point of being impossible for the crew to maintain a proper watch.

Just watch, when this is all over, the crew of the LEOPARD will be blamed for losing control of their ship and being taken hostage by pirates.

Here is a photo from the NATO site showing the amount of barbed wire the vessel had wrapped itself in. This of course does little good if the pirates manage to get the ship to stop for any reason.

View the NATO Press release here. (Note PDF Format)

And here is a NATO photo of help arriving too late.

The vessel apparently had a Citadel space. I wonder what happened and how the crew ended up in the hands of pirates if they did indeed have a space and managed to get into it. Of course these spaces are only as good as their ability to keep the pirates out until help arrives. Otherwise the pirates can just wait until you run out of food or water, or worse create a situation where you want to get out, such as setting the vessel on fire or attempting to sink it. NATO does note the following in regards to coming to the rescue of crew under attack by pirates:

The use of a CITADEL DOES NOT guarantee a military response. Before owners, operators and masters commit to a policy that recommends the use of a citadel, it is important to understand the criteria that military forces will apply before a boarding to free the ship can be considered:

• 100% of the crew must be secured in the CITADEL.
  
• The Crew of the ship must have self-contained, independent, 2-way external communications. Sole reliance on VHF communications is insufficient.
  
• The pirates must be denied access to propulsion.

The following points should also be taken into consideration when preparing CITADELS:

• All emergency equipment in the CITADEL should be fully and regularly tested for functionality.
• The communications system should have a power supply for a minimum of 3 days, based on a continuous open line (Consider satellite communications / satellite e-mail.)
  
• A full list of emergency contact numbers including UKMTO should be held inside the CITADEL.
• At least 3 days of food and water provisions for all the crew should be available in the CITADEL.
• Medical supplies, including medication for the treatment of physical trauma, and sanitation should be made available.

- PDF Link

This will surely be an interesting piracy incident to keep my eyes on.

-------------------- --------------------

"DREAM ACT" - Innocent Children? What about their Guilty Parents?

So out of all of the possible things Congress could do to start digging this country out of the mess it is in, the Democrats have decided to work on passing a mass amnesty bill for illegal aliens.

7:19pm ET: If you stepped away from CSPAN just now you missed a quick, stirring, strong speech from Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in support of the DREAM Act. She said:

These children have not broken they law. These are are not criminals. [Note: Bullshit] The only nightmare I can imagine is the nightmare of violating the rights of these individuals who want an opportunity to serve America. First of all they have to be in the country for five years already. And they cannot change their status for another ten years…Do we violate our rights and our beliefs about we all are created equal?

And so I ask my colleagues to support a DREAM Act that invests in America, that allows people to serve America. It is not amnesty. It is people wanting to serve this country, pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Stand for what is right. Vote for the DREAM Act. Believe in our values. We are all created equal.

- Link

This is a scam, plain and simple. If this was about simply what the Democrats claim it to be, than the bill would would not have been written with some many crappy provisions in it, including the provisions that allow even criminal aliens to become legal under this proposed act, which is why I call BS Congresswoman Lee's comments above.

Also, keep in mind that by calling the children innocent, there is a guilty party the Democrats are ignoring, the parents of these illegal alien parents. The bill does nothing to punish the guilty party. Hell, the Democrats want to legalize them too. Hell, I might be party open to given these so-called victimless children a shot at legal status provided that their guilty parents are deported. After all, it is these parents that put both their children and us as a country in this position. Me, I say send them home. If their home countries are so bad than this is exactly what they need to reform, US-educated young adults to foster reform and improve living conditions back in their parents home. I do not see how we as a country need to be responsible for the bad behavior of others.

This position might seem heartless, however where do we draw the line? There are millions outside the country in need. how about the US instill it's laws and values on those third world countries? See, now I am evil for supporting an imperialistic America. however, look at the bright side if the US took over these countries:
The illegals will become legal residents

• They can come out of the shadows
• They will be free to move about the US
• They can go travel to and from home without having to sneak across the border
• Increased wages for those in the new territories due to minimum wage laws
• Compulsory free education for children
• Improved health care
  
• etc....
  

Again this bill is a scam. The 'Dream Act' is nothing more that the 'Anchor Baby Creation Act of 2010'.

-------------------- --------------------

Liberals Have No Right To Demand That Others Pay More In Taxes Than They Do

It seems that Liberals are all up in arms about the President agreeing not to raise taxes on all Americans. This goes against the Liberal/Democrat demands that taxes be raised for the richest Americans.

First, one argument that Liberal Democrats were making, and something that Congressman Pelosi was using as an argument to raise taxes, was that all Americans were still going to get a tax cut, up to a certain point. In other works that the richest paid the same taxes as those earning less than them for that same portion of earnings, i.e. under $250,000 for couples. This however is disingenuous and the Democrat's first lie, because not all of the tax breaks are extended to Americans that exceed a certain income level. One of those tax breaks that cuts out is the child tax credit.

Credit worth as much as $1,000 per child

If you have children who are under age 17 at of the end of 2009, you can get a $1,000 tax credit per child on your tax return. A tax credit reduces your tax bill dollar-for-dollar, so three qualifying children, for example, can cut what you owe Uncle Sam by $3,000. The credit may be limited if your income exceeds the levels listed below.

And the credit does not affect the exemptions you take for dependents—worth $3,650 each in 2009. The child tax credit is in addition to those exemptions.

Credit is phased out at higher income levels

The child tax credit is reduced or eliminated if your adjusted gross income is above certain thresholds. The credit amount is reduced by $50 for each $1,000 (or fraction thereof) by which the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds the threshold amount.

The threshold is:

• $110,000 on a joint return
• $75,000 for an unmarried individual
• $55,000 for a married individual filing a separate return

- TurboTax

The argument for higher taxes for the rich made by Liberals also ignores a simple fact that the tax system is progressive and those that earn more pay a higher percentage of tax on their higher earnings with or without keeping the current tax rates. Click on the images below that cover both the current rates (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%) and the previous rates (10%, 15%, 27%, 30%, 35% and 38%) and in each case, the rich always pay a higher percentage in tax on their higher earnings. (Tables found here)


Liberals are also complaining that the announced tax deal by the President is unfair in that it extends the tax break for two years but only extends unemployment for 13 months is another weak argument. Simply put, unemployment payment is supposed to be temporary aid in order to help people find replacement work. It is crazy to extend such payments for years. This has the ability to distort behavior against taking other work, especially if the new work does not pay as well as the old job did. Unemployed were never entitled to unlimited unemployment benefits. To offer up another year is doing little more than creating a class of permanently unemployable 'workers'. This needs to stop.

The argument made by Liberals is distorting the actual cost of extending the current tax rates. they are using the cost to extend the current tax rates for the next ten years. Comparatively speaking, this amount is much smaller than any one year deficit during the Obama Administration. It is also about the same cost as the failure known as the 'Stimulus Bill'. As I wrote before:

As for the number that the President is commenting on there above, while being large, they pall in comparison to the actual deficit total. As for the $700 billion cost the President mentions, that is the cost to extend the tax cuts for the rich for the next ten years. In comparison, 'The total deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.42 trillion'. - Link

The argument made by the Liberals also ignores that the richest Americans already pay the majority of taxes. the lower half pay next to nothing. Take a look at the mint.com graphic below. The bottom half of the population is paying no Federal income taxes. How is that fair? Everyone should contribute. Many do not and this is distorting rational decision making as they are only looking at the Federal Government in terms of handouts. So it then becomes in their best interest to ensure that the richest are taxed as much as possible. It also perverts the perpetration of fraud among benefit recipients who, instead of reporting fraud, instead also look to benefit by replicating the crime, since it does not cost them anything.


The Democrats in Congress are talking about extending the Tax Cut for the middle class, because the poor don't pay anything. They are also ignoring the real problem which is spending. The Government is addicted to spending. As with any addition, the cure is never more, in this case money, but less. (and do not forget the other problem which is simple waste...)

UPDATE:
OK, I got the additional unemployment time wrong:

Just wanted to point out that the unemployment benefits extension doesn't give the 99ers another 13 months. The 99ers are still done after 99 weeks. This new bill just covers those behind the 99ers who are about to lose benefits.

I won't denigrate these people. I will say that people who can't find work for two years should perhaps move to where the opportunities are. - Lou Minatti

As for that last comment about moving, I have written about that before. It is hard to find work when the jobs have moved from your part of the country. Yes, some are moving overseas but many are just moving to cheaper parts of the country. There are lots of jobs here. Just ask all the illegal aliens doing them. See my posts ""The economy will recover faster if workers are willing to seek out and seize distant opportunities"", "Don't Redistribute wealth. Redistribute the poor" and "Don't Redistribute the Wealth - Redistribute the Work!" for more on that.

-------------------- --------------------

MAREX - Sea Shepherd Partly at fault for Sinking of ADY GIL

The Maritime Executive has news regarding investigation findings on the Sinking of the Sea Shepherd's ADY GIL:

Both Captains to Blame for Collision Between Activists and Whalers

The January collision between a Japanese whaling ship and a protest boat has now been officially blamed on both sides.

Maritime New Zealand says there is no evidence that either side intentionally caused the collision. The organization has placed blame on both captains saying they both failed in acting properly to avoid the accident. - The Maritime Executive

Given what Sea Shepherd has been up to down there, I would tend to put the blame on Sea Shepherd for the accident. After all, they have been attacking the Japanese and the Japanese certainly have a right to defend themselves. And I would say that the ADY GIL posed a potential huge problem for the Japanese given it's speed. I think it made perfect sense for the Japanese to try and damage the ship if given the opportunity. This is probably why the New Zealand Authorities declined to find the Japanese vessel at fault.

For your enjoyment, here is the video of the ADY GIL's last moments.

--------------------

--------------------

I look forward to seeing what the Japanese plan to do to defend themselves next season.

I also look forward to the end of this mindless whaling.

-------------------- --------------------

Airport Security is a Mess Because the Government Refuses to Profile

TSA has gone and managed to piss off the entire country simply because they refuse to employ technology that can help them identify travelers who are more likely to be a threat than others. That technology is profiling.

The nun being frisked as pictured on the Drudge Report? A waste of time. The children getting disturbing in-depth pat-downs, disturbing and damaging to our country's future.

The simple fact is that most every American traveler is absolutely no threat to airline security. Zero threat. Most every real threat can be identified by first profiling the travelers. This is something that they can (and should) be doing from the moment the person purchases a ticket.

Now are security officials going to find things hidden on children and on grandma? Sure they are. History has no shortage of evidence of children being used to smuggle things through security. Are these things dangerous in respect of airline security? No. And I say finding pot strapped to a kid getting ready to board a plane is not the job of TSA. And even then, I bet that profiling will in most cases identify the parents most likely to do such a thing. Anyway, they already have a way to detect smuggled drugs by way of drug sniffing dogs.

The Government, and Democrats specifically, is/are greatly responsible for the problems that resulted in all of us getting probed at the airport. Think about it for a second. Criminals are not put in prison. Dangerous terrorists are let free. Millions of illegal aliens are roaming around this country with de-facto immunity from the same Government Department that is probing the rest of us. As it is, the 9/11 hijackers were well-known to the government already. And with that it is worth noting 'the wall' created by liberals within the Government to actively prevent the sharing of information concerning threats to this country. The ongoing result of this failure to use the information we have is the mess at security checkpoints at every airport in the country.

At this time I for one refuse to let my children go through a full-body scanner. There is no way that the Government can convince me that this is either necessary or done in a way that protects the privacy of my children nor done in a way that does not save the images for future potential abuse. I for one am convinced that the Government is lying that they are not saving copies of the scanned images. After all, they would be crazy not to. Otherwise how are they are going to review what might have happened in the case of a breach of security?

I certainly hope this is a temporary problem. Scanning everyone is not only not fun for passengers but also surely no fun for security screeners. Worse, I believe it helps the real terrorists hide in the crowd of just another person to get the same treatment. It is they who should have a spotlight trained on them. Not the rest of us.

-------------------- --------------------