Judicial Watch has published their 2012 version of the 10 most corrupt Washington politicians. To those who closely watch the machinations of DC politicians, there are no surprises on the list. This list could easily be 400 - 500 people, but here are the dis-honorees in alphabetical order:
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice
Attorney General Eric Holder
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
President Barack Obama
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
Dishonorable Mentions for 2012 include:
Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)
Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY)
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
Gen. David Petraeus
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
These are the most corrupt of the corrupt. I'd probably quibble a bit about the order, but for those who want to delve into the reasons more deeply Judicial Watch's justifications can be found here.
Professor Anthony Davis is on a roll. In this video, he points out that even a retirement plan that forced workers to invest their Social Security payroll taxes only in Treasury bills would generate 17% more in retirement benefits than the current system, which is also subject to change by Congress at any time.
Grouch: Since the Buffett tax failed to get enough votes in Congress, maybe it's time to regroup and pitch the Neely/GSA tax. Think of the exotic possibilities for boondoggles to relieve the stress of all those hard working government bureaucrats.
Joe and Jill Biden just released their 2011 tax returns. They reported $379,035 in adjusted gross income (AGI) last year, on which they paid $87,900 in income taxes; and they deducted $5,540 for charitable gifts. The table above shows the Bidens 14-year history of AGI and charitable gifts and the average charitable gifts for AGI amounts comparable to the Bidens, according to IRS data via Forbes.
Year
Bidens' AGI
Bidens' Charitable Gifts
Average Gifts for Bidens' AGI
1998
$215,432
$195
$5,315
1999
$219,797
$120
$5,559
2000
$219,953
$360
$5,559
2001
$220,712
$360
$5,559
2002
$227,811
$260
$5,803
2003
$231,375
$260
$5,803
2004
$234,271
$380
$5,803
2005
$321,379
$380
$8,015
2006
$248,859
$380
$6,287
2007
$319,853
$995
$8,015
2008
$269,256
$1,885
$6,769
2009
$330,000
$4,820
$8,269
2010
$379,178
$5,350
$9,544
2011
$379,035
$5,540
$9,544
Grouch: Personally, I don't give a hang just how stingy or charitable the Bidens are. That is their business, and they have to live with themselves and their hypocrisy. But I do care when politicians start using the bully pulpit and taxpayer resources to play the class warfare card, and criticize private citizens about selfishness and not paying their fair share to the world's largest non-voluntary charitable organization, the US Government. The Bidens' behavior noticeably changed in 2008 when Joe was nominated to be Vice President due to the scrutiny he knew his tax returns would receive. Their charitable donations have increased significantly since then, but still fall far short of the average couple in their income bracket. Don't get me wrong.... Joe is free to give as much or as little to charity as he wants, but spare me the lectures and stop drooling over the prospect of taking more money out of my wallet to fund stupid ideas like Solyndra, or light rail service between Las Vegas and Nowhere, California.
"The worst superstition -- the most socially destructive of all -- is the intuitively appealing belief that when there is a problem, government action is the best way to solve it."
A broadside against central planners and lazy thinking, No They Can't takes on public education, regulation, cronyism and green energy, among an array of other issues undermining American prosperity and economic freedom.
Here's how effective the Buffett rule would be at making a dent in the yearly government deficit. Keep scrolling down and down and down and down (ad nauseum)....
It's hard not to conclude that this is more slight of hand by politicians to take the eye of the electorate off of the real problem.
Tony channels iowahawk to spell out the insane magnitude of government spending and show the ridiculousness of the tax the rich mantras of left. Folks, there is only one real solution to this problem: spending cuts coupled with economic growth. Everything else is just stupidity, ignorance and politics (but then I repeat myself). This video is well worth the watch.
To set the stage: An individual mandate is a requirement by a government that certain individual citizens purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service. In the case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed in 2010, the government requires people to buy a good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States, namely a health care insurance plan approved by the government or pay a penalty. Under the rule, most Americans will have to carry insurance starting in 2014. Otherwise, the federal government will levy a penalty on them starting at $95 a year or 1% of their taxable annual income, whichever is greater. By 2016, the penalty rises to $695 a year or 2.5% of taxable income, up to a maximum of $2,085 a year for a family. Individuals and employers will have to inform the federal government of whether they are carrying insurance and whether it meets the law's requirements.
Such a requirement to enter into an act of commerce or pay a penalty is largely unprecedented in US law; hence, the case pending before the Supreme Court.
Now for the entertainment: Here's how some of our best and brightest in Congress responded to the question "where does the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact an “individual mandate?”:
Rep. XXXX - "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Rep. XXX cited the “Good and Welfare Clause” as the source of Congress’s authority [there is no such clause].
Rep. XXX responded, “the federal government can do most anything in this country.” [fails to grasp the concept of enumerated and limited powers]
Rep. XXX replied, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”
Rep. XXX said “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest [...] It doesn’t matter to me.” When asked, “Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority …?” He replied, “I don’t know.”
Sen. XXX said he is “not aware” of which Constitutional provision authorizes the healthcare bill.
Sen. XXX added, “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there’s no authority?”
Sen. XXX told a questioner, “I’ll leave that up to the constitutional lawyers on our staff.”
(Names withheld to spare those who voted for them the embarrassment.)
Yes, these are some of the genius sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. "I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Reason.tv -- "AEI's Peter Wallison argues in the video above that the financial meltdown was largely a consequence of government housing policy that underwrote unsustainable economic activity. He draws heavily on the research of Fannie Mae's former chief credit officer, Edward Pinto (now at AEI), which found that federal housing agencies drastically underreported the number of high-risk mortgages on their books. According to Wallison and Pinto, there were about 28 million high-risk mortgages in the U.S. in 2008; roughly 70 percent of those mortgages were owned by government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Grouch: The jury will probably always be out on this question. There'll never be a definitive answer, just a lot of competing theories shaded by political agendas. My own personal belief is that government provided the fertile ground for the banks, mortgage lenders and Wall Street firms to plant the seeds of greed and recklessness. No one area is completely responsible, but collectively they are all responsible. While it is a noble goal for the government to want to increase home ownership, this policy often results in distortions of lending standards and perverse incentives that lead to malinvestment and people in homes with mortgages they can't afford.
Our Fisker Karma cost us $107,850. It is super sleek, high-tech—and now it’s broken. We have owned our car for just a few days; it has less than 200 miles on its odometer. While doing speedometer calibration runs on our test track (a procedure we do for every test car before putting it in service by driving the car at a constant 65 mph between two measured points), the dashboard flashed a message and sounded a “bing“ showing a major fault. Our technician got the car off the track and put it into Park to go through the owner’s manual to interpret the warning. At that point, the transmission went into Neutral and wouldn’t engage any gear through its electronic shifter except Park and Neutral.
We let the car sit for about an hour and restarted it. We could now engage Drive and the same error message disappeared. After moving it only a few feet the error message reappeared and when we tried to engage Reverse the transmission went straight to Park and again no motion gear could be engaged. After calling the dealer, which is about 100 miles away, they promptly sent a flatbed tow truck to haul away the disabled Fisker. We buy about 80 cars a year and this is the first time in memory that we have had a car that is undriveable before it has finished our check-in process.
The taxpayers are only into this company to the tune of $528.7 Million through the Stephen Chu Hedge Fund Venture Capital Fund at the Department of Energy.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. ~ Benjamin Franklin
The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government published today by the Heritage Foundation shows many disturbing trends. This Index tracks the growth in government dependence dating back to the early 1960s. Some of the most troubling trends are:
One in five Americans—the highest in the nation’s history—relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance. That’s more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington.
Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.
The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).
At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.
In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care.
As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.
As a corollary to the Heritage Foundation study, Stephen Moore poses a series of questions in the WSJ worth pondering concerning fairness:
Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?
Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?
Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?
Is it fair that the three counties with America's highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?
Is it fair that soon almost half the federal budget will take income from young working people and redistribute it to old non-working people, even though those over age 65 are already among the wealthiest Americans?
Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is "subsidized"?
Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs?
The BLS says the unemployment rate has dropped to 8.3% last month. But how did they come up with that number with so many people still looking for work. This little game show cartoon gives you some idea on how the numbers are calculated.
Found this Kafkaesque little parable and mind teaser on the ideas matter website.
"The Tale of the Slave"
from Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pp. 290-292.
Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.
There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.
Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.
Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.
The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?
Grouch: My answer is this story never ceased to be anything but the tale of a slave.
Grouch: Let's hope whoever wins the next Presidential election has the good sense to wind down these companies and let them assume their proper place on the dustbin of history.
Update: The Treasury Department is investigating this report that Freddie Mac, the mortgage giant, bet against homeowners’ ability to refinance their loans even as it was making it more difficult for them to do so.
The report came just as the Obama administration had been escalating its efforts to push Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ease conditions for homeowners, including those who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.
Last Friday, the Treasury announced that it would offer increased incentives to lenders to forgive portions of homeowner debt, saying pointedly that for the first time the incentives would be offered on loans held by Fannie and Freddie.
But Fannie and Freddie, which said they would review the increased incentives, have long declined to allow debt reduction on the loans it holds or guarantees, saying that it would create unnecessary losses for taxpayers. The companies, which are financed by taxpayers, have also maintained barriers to refinancing, like risk-based fees for homeowners, even as mortgage interest rates have dropped below 4 percent.
