Monday, August 8, 2011

Lessons from a Milwaukee Mob (American Thinker)

 

By John F. Di Leo

On August 4, 2011, the opening night of the Wisconsin State Fair, the worst race riot in Wisconsin history occurred.  As darkness fell over the amusement park area known as the Midway before closing time, hundreds of young blacks swarmed out into the parking lot, seeking out white fairgoers to attack -- pulling people off their bikes, out of their cars, to knock them to the ground and beat them: with fists and whatever blunt instruments they had handy.

Now, this wasn't the worst ever in America.  The race riots of the Red Summer of 1919, for example, sometimes involved thousands of people at a time.  But it is certainly something new and terrifying for the Wisconsin State Fair, which, like all state fairs, is normally a peaceful and traditional celebration of the state's agricultural heritage.  It's pure Americana with an extra helping of capitalism, as the ten-day celebration at State Fair Park injects the small suburb of West Allis with its most significant jolt of commercial activity every year.  Homeowners and businesses in all directions rent out parking spaces on their lots, driveways, and yards to the overflow crowds of families who travel hundreds of miles to attend.

Midway, Wisconsin State Fair, 2005.  Photo by Sulfur

A hugely popular statewide event, the fair's tranquil history and suburban location left it unprepared for the events of August 4.  Police jurisdiction is in three tiers: the local West Allis police force first, Wisconsin state troopers second, and the Milwaukee police force third, because only a tiny portion of the expansive fairgrounds fall in the City of Milwaukee proper.  Overwhelmed by the flash mob nature of the unexpected wilding, West Allis apparently never even made time to place a call for mutual assistance from Milwaukee.  At least seven of the dozens injured were the outnumbered and unprepared local police trying to protect fairgoers.

In the public debate the next day, the fair management reported that they would have an increased police presence for the rest of the fair, and they would institute a curfew for the first time; no one under 18 would be admitted without parent or guardian after 5:00pm.  This would likely prevent repeat occurrences in this venue, but of course that is only a partial response (and an unfair insult to the tens of thousands of non-troublemaking teens who attend without incident.  Preventing it from happening again isn't enough; society needs to explore why such barbarism could occur in the first place.

In his very thorough coverage of the event on his WISN talk show, radio host Mark Belling made special note of the demeanor of the mob. Contrary to the traditional liberal assumption that mobs turn violent out of anger and poverty, numerous reports indicated the maniacal grins, the ferocious smiles, the sheer happiness of the attackers.  They were joyful, not angry; this was fun for them.  These thugs engaged in horrific unprovoked violence against innocent, unarmed, unsuspecting bystanders, just because they got a kick out of doing so.

There is much that our society must do to deal with this problem, and police presence is only a very small part of it.  If we treat this as merely a security issue, we will miss the forest for the trees.  For it's larger than just the Wisconsin State Fair; it's just a symptom of a number of significant social cancers.

Americans have always been solidly against mob action, ever since our founding era, when revolutionary student Alexander Hamilton stood down a crowd to protect Loyalist Miles Cooper from the rebel horde.  Our revolution was the opposite of the French Revolution, for example -- a campaign for prosperous tranquility, rather than a campaign for vengeance and anarchy (see Ann Coulter's marvelous treatment of this issue in her new book, Demonic).

But the left has spent some fifty years advocating the use of mob action -- the protest marches of the 60s, the sit-ins of the 70s, even the virtual takeovers of public buildings such as college halls a generation ago, and state capitols this very year -- which brings us back to Wisconsin.

Who participated in the State Fair riots?  This was no single organized gang of trade unionists or a political party, like many mob actions have been in our past.  These were young blacks, mostly male, some of whom obviously knew each other, but many of whom were previously unacquainted with their fellow marauders.  Why did they join in?  What could possess a person to commit vicious attacks on perfect strangers, in public, no less... joining other lawbreakers and becoming -- depending on whether you held the victims for the beating or threw the punches and kicks -- either accomplices to the crime or a criminal yourself?

There are many reasons, and all must be considered to get the full picture.

The warping of our criminal justice system:

For fifty years, the nation's legislatures, and especially the nation's judiciaries, have changed the legal framework's approach to crime.  Until the modern liberal era of the 50s and 60s, the legal structure was designed to protect the innocent from the guilty criminal class, even as individual trials were designed to protect a wrongly accused innocent from being incorrectly lumped in with the guilty.  In the past two generations, however, this framework was overturned, and now protects the criminal at the expense of the law-abiding citizen.  Criminals are caught and released without trial, or tried but released on a technicality, or tried and convicted but released into the community early.  The system has forgotten that it's there to protect the rest of us, not to process the criminals.

The culmination of this tragic migration in jurisprudence is occurring in California even now, as the state contends with a pending judicial order to give early release to some 40,000 convicted prisoners because the jails aren't comfortable enough to satisfy some distant black robe.  How many of the instigators and other participants in the State Fair wilding already had a rap sheet a mile long?  How many had already been caught and released too soon, free to terrorize their society again, or free to jump into the fray and join others, once it was begun?

The toxic political climate

It is unfortunate that there had never been a non-white president before now, but one unexpected minor benefit can now be seen from that history.  When every president was a white male, one could hardly blame political disagreements with one or another on matters of race.  The current president was always a white male; so too were his predecessor and successor.  One could claim that opposition was based on party, or ideology, or perhaps even region, but one could hardly say that opposition was simply because of the guy's race.

Until now.  Many in the mainstream media have been pushing the narrative that all opposition to Barack Obama was driven by anti-black bigotry, ever since he began contending for the Democratic presidential nomination.  Never mind the fact that Obama is a half white American and half Kenyan national, having virtually nothing in common with the life experiences or family history of an American black.  The media has christened him an American black, and have done everything in their power to convince America that public opinion toward Obama is a bellwether for how Americans feel about American blacks in general -- a moronic position, but nonetheless, it is sticking.

The media has successfully ginned up an utterly unjustifiable assumption in the black community that anti-Obama political positions and activity are entirely racially based.  Outrageous as it is, this toxic claim is out there, polluting the minds of a gullible electorate and an impressionable community.  Real anti-white bigotry is arising, a response to non-existent anti-black bigotry imagined and decried by our malicious left-wing chattering class.

The collapse of the urban black community

Half a century ago, census and poll results agreed:  the black community was more responsible, from a social perspective, than the white community.  Generally speaking, in the first half of the 20th century, unwed motherhood, cohabitation, unemployment, divorce, church attendance, and criminal convictions all showed proportionately worse statistics among America's whites than among America's blacks.

This all changed with LBJ's Great Society.  Since the government began to reward cohabitation, sloth, and irresponsible childbearing with a warped welfare system, and since the public schools began their simultaneous attack on morality and religion in the curriculum and discipline in the halls, the community most under the thumb of city governments have suffered the most.

Note that this is not true in rural areas or suburbs, or even in the good neighborhoods of larger cities, where blacks and whites alike own farms, blacks and whites alike own businesses, go to church, obey the law, and serve as honorable and productive members of society.  And of course, like any generality, it doesn't go for everyone in the bad neighborhoods either; there are mixed neighborhoods. But it is undeniable that this cultural destruction  has become most severe for the generations of blacks locked into this dependence.

The warping of the black church

America was settled by immigrants of every race, color and creed.  While we owe our roots to the English settlers who designed our culture and our government, today's Americans are as diverse as the colors of a rainbow.  All these groups arrived with the cultural prejudices of "the old country" and have depended upon the civilizing force of our instruments of assimilation -- the schools, the churches, the employment community -- to soften, or hopefully even eradicate, those prejudices.

An Irish parent might badmouth the English at the dinner table; a Neapolitan parent, the Sicilians... a Lutheran, the Catholics... a Protestant, the Jews... a white, the blacks.  Such once-pervasive bigotry has been largely diminished over the last century, by the media, and by attendance at diverse schools and churches, where the authority figures actively work to minimize that inherited bigotry in support of racial, ethnic and religious tolerance.

It has therefore been with little short of terror that religion-watchers have noted the appearance of "black liberation theology" in recent decades, spreading like a cancer through the black urban churches of the United States.  While still a minority view, this perverse twisting of religion uses the structure of the church to intentionally spread anti-white bigotry, especially through such outrageous lies as the claims that the government invented AIDS to kill blacks, that the Jews run all the businesses so that blacks can't get jobs, and any number of other outrageous conspiracy theories -- all to poison the malleable young congregations' minds until they hate whites as much as they have been told that whites hate them.

After a century of progress, it's only in recent decades that we have seen this "black liberation theology," as practiced by such pastors as President Obama's old minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, grow in popularity and bear such poisonous fruit as the Wisconsin State Fair mob.  Instead of religion civilizing the next generation, we now have more and more churches and madrassahs that consciously set out to barbarize them.

So where do we stand, as a society? 

We have armies of children, raised more by gangs than by parents, without a proper moral compass.  The society releases criminals into their midst to be role models, discouraging employment by refusing to prepare children for jobs... discouraging marriage by rewarding single parenting, discouraging morality by granting tax-exempt church status to buildings that are little more than breeding grounds for hatred.

As Milwaukee's Sheriff David Clarke and entertainer Bill Cosby have been saying for years, much of the problem is for the black community to correct on its own.   Decent, honorable blacks have been fleeing the slums for decades, to raise their children right in the suburbs and small towns, and who can blame them?  But by doing so, they abandon their cousins to the clutches of the rappers, the gangbangers, and the Jeremiah Wrights.

From outside, the non-black community cannot help with everything, but we can pitch in a little. We can set higher standards for our schools, making a taxpayer-supported school a safe environment in which to learn again.  We can return to the 1990s era welfare reforms that were finally beginning to overturn the Great Society's destruction of the family unit.  We can redirect our criminal justice system to again support the innocent victims and give the benefit of the doubt to longtime incarceration of criminals so that they can't as easily return to their communities and warp young souls.

All these disparate causes -- religion, education, economics, criminal justice  -- have only one thing in common besides the destruction they have wrought:  they are all the province of modern American liberalism.

It is the American left that favors corruption of traditional religion, corruption of the safety net, corruption of the prison system.  Only the left, which has ruled the Democratic party for decades, and virtually every city government where these problems occur, is virtually unanimous in their support of all the very different changes that have undermined a once vital, responsible, and honorable community to render it stagnant, regressive even, feared by outsiders for the very real threats they pose.

Just as affirmative action cheats the accomplished blacks like Clarence Thomas (read his memoir on this subject!), just as the perverse rap industry cheats talented black performers like Darius Rucker (who had to change genres to record good music), all these changes have poisoned the public debate - any commenter is accused of racism for addressing the issue - as well as endangering our communities and contributing to the decline of our entire society.

The needed corrections cannot happen overnight; it will take decades to replace the wrongheaded judges and racism-teaching civic leaders, and it will take generations to get past the lost generations currently at issue.

But it all begins with acknowledging the truth, throwing out the Democrats in federal, state, and local government who have promulgated these toxic policies for so long.

The right has been warning that undermining civilized behavior in the cities will have a societal cost... and in so many circumstances - the wildings and flash mobs all over the country, of which the State Fair mob was just another ghastly example - the right has been proven to be, sadly, absolutely correct.

John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based international trade lecturer; his column appears weekly in Illinois Review.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Congratulations, Class Warriors (American Thinker)


Return to the Article
 


August 5, 2011

 

By Randall Hoven

Class warriors got what they wished for in the first year of the Obama presidency.  Now the 2009 tax return numbers are out, and I can update you on the class wars I wrote about last year.

I wrote then, "Tax figures for 2009 are not yet available.  I suspect they will show the same pattern: loss of federal revenue due to loss of income at the higher levels."

Well, now tax figure for 2009 are available, and yes, they do show that same pattern.

All numbers below are based on the latest IRS data, specifically Table 1.1.  (Note: Table 1.1 is for all tax returns, not just the taxable ones.)  The comparisons are between the years 2007 and 2009, capturing the depth of the Great Recession.

The main reason federal revenues were down was that personal incomes were down.  Total adjusted gross incomes (AGI) less deficits declined $1.1 trillion, or 12%.  However, due to our progressive income tax, the percentage decline in taxes collected was even greater: 22%.

You see, when you get rid of rich people, like class warriors want, you also get rid of the taxes they used to pay.  Of the $250-billion drop in personal income taxes, $175B (70%) was due to declines in incomes over $200K.  No rich people, no taxes from rich people.

The chart below shows the total incomes of those making over $200K and over $1M per year from 2006 through 2009.  The total income on those making over $1M was cut almost in half from 2007 to 2009.

In the Great Recession, the "rich" suffered the most.  (For convenience, I use the term "rich" loosely here, simply meaning higher incomes in a given year, not wealth.)  The tables below show how the number of "rich," their incomes, and taxes collected from them all declined.  These tables also show that the higher the income group, the greater the decline in income and taxes on that income.

Total number of returns

 

2007

2009

% change

AGI over $1M

392,222

236,883

-40%

AGI over $200K

4,535,623

3,924,490

-14%

AGI under $200K

136,535,348

134,057,713

-1.8%

 

Total income (AGI less deficit)

 

2007

2009

% change

AGI over $1M

$1,401.1 B

$726.9 B

-48%

AGI over $200K

$2,847.2 B

$1,964.3 B

-31%

AGI under $200K

$5,951.3

$5,861.1

-1.5%

 

Total tax

 

2007

2009

% change

AGI over $1M

$310.0 B

$177.5 B

-43%

AGI over $200K

$609.7 B

$434.3 B

-29%

AGI under $200K

$506.0 B

$431.6 B

-15%

I can think of two ways to solve the dilemma, if you call lack of federal revenue a dilemma.  (1) Create more rich people.  (2) Raise tax rates on those making under $200K.  Wow, class warriors aren't going to like those choices.

After all, raising taxes on those making over $200K, as President Obama constantly urges, does no good if no one is making over $200K, as all of Obama's other policies constantly promote.

It's a conundrum.

Randall Hoven can be followed on Twitter.  His bio and previous writings can be found at randallhoven.com.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/08/congratulations_class_warriors.html at August 05, 2011 - 06:59:25 AM CDT

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Gunshot Demographics (Gunlaws.com)

 

The ugly underbelly of the anti-gun-rights position

How "The Bad Part of Town" and failed social policies
are used for sinister attacks on the right to keep and bear arms,
and help justify the law enforcement world and its budgets.

While anti-rights activists speak emotionally about
"gun violence""gun deaths" "human tragedy" and saving lives,
what they refuse to say is this—

Homicide in America has demographic, geographic, social and economic factors
which, if acknowledged and openly discussed, would transform the debate,
and place blame where it really belongs:
on the causes and people that fuel the violence we hear about
(but rarely actually see for ourselves, except on TV "news").

The real blame is hidden, because the truth is so painful.
Crime is not spread across the streets of America.
Crime, and crime using guns, happens in isolated areas
for well known reasons the media and politicians hide from you.

But, it's useful to blame guns instead of criminals,
and blame guns instead of politicians and social policies,
and blame guns instead of festering pesthole neighborhoods,
in the effort to disarm the public and transfer power
to the government and away from the people.

A picture is worth a thousand words.
Thank you, Baltimore Sun newspaper,
for posting the interactive maps
that define the problem clearly—at last
(blue is choking, green is blunt force, red is shooting,
black is stabbing, white is undetermined) :


BALTIMORE: All homicide victims, 2007


BALTIMORE: Black homicide victims, 2007


BALTIMORE: White homicide victims, 2007

Try the maps yourself, it's fun,
change the ages, sex, race, etc. and see what happens:
http://tinyurl.com/6a4jkn

The "gun problem" is not about guns.
It's about people, select groups of people.
This isn't a stereotype, it's a fact.

These Baltimore Sun maps show a terrible problem
but do not clarify who the murderers are.
Police have those maps.
Don’t shoot me, I’m only the messenger.
Blame the newspaper for letting the dirty little secret out—
it’s not a gun or murder problem, it’s a demographic problem.
Is "demographic" a code word for "the bad part of town"?

Public Enemy Number One Defined:
Many of these aren't "gun deaths" at all, they are "war deaths."
It's the endless fruitless government-run War On Some Drugs.
It's a declared war. Combatants in the war are killing each other.

End the war, declare a truce, call for an armistice—
Watch a large part of the "gun problem" fade away.
But that would hurt the effort to disarm the public,
and would end many of the jobs programs fraudulently
labelled the war on drugs, so don't expect it to happen
any time soon.

Thank you Chicago Tribune for doing the same thing:

ChicagoShootings
CHICAGO MURDERS BY AREA, 2008
Chicago Tribune Data and Map


Public Enemy Number One Officially Identified:

In a story almost without precedent, CBS identified Chicago’s high murder rate as almost totally gang related and geographically isolated. In modern America, that identifies these as war deaths in the War on Some Drugs, and not “gun deaths” as the media likes to frame the argument (to vilify firearms and create public fear).

With surprising candor, CBS announced, “Gang and gun violence continue to be the dominating threat on our streets," according to a police e-mail to CBS. "Up to 60 percent of the shootings are gang related. More than 90 percent of the offenders have criminal histories and up to 80 percent of the victims have criminal histories."

It’s unclear how the police concluded that only 60% of these crimes are gang related, when 90% of the shooters have criminal records and 80% of the victims do too. It’s also a fairly typical police distortion to suggest gun violence is the dominant threat “on our streets” when these gangland rubouts happen on their streets (see map), and normal citizens who have fled the crime-ridden war zones only get to see it on the "news" from the “bad” neighborhoods. Just look at those maps. CBS compares Chicago’s rubout rate to the wars against islamofascists in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is just bad reporting.

And about that "War on Some Drugs"
Next time you get the chance, ask your elected leaders:

With regard to the war on drugs, is the war succeeding? When could it be declared a success, the expense of waging it cease, and the tax-based infrastructure surrounding it be decreased or dismantled? If it can't be declared a success, when might it be declared a failure and brought to a close? How do you respond to critics who say the war on some drugs is really just a federal-agent jobs program that provides price supports for the cartels? For more real questions the "news" media fails to ask, check out The Liberty Poll.

The Racial Component
of Crime Shootings Is Real

Another news organization, overwhelmed with dead people from criminal violence, broke ranks with the standard "news" narative and identified the real problem (along with the failed war-on-some-drugs federal jobs program) -- blacks killing other blacks -- and a breakdown in the family unit leading children into role-model-free amoral behavior:

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090920/NEWS01/909200364/10

Growing audacity among city gunmen
The News Journal (Wilmington, DE)
September 20, 2009
Byline: Adam Taylor & Ira Porter

Contact Ira Porter at 324 2890 or iporter@delawareonline.com.
Contact Adam Taylor at 324 2787 or ataylor@delawareonline.com.

These numbers were provided by the Delaware Criminal Justice
Council, a government law enforcement planning and funding group.
The council said it is seeing the same trends developing in 2009
that are revealed in the 2008 numbers, the most recent available.

140: Number of people shot
Sunday: Day of week when most shootings took place
12 to 1 a.m.: Hour when most shootings took place

THE VICTIMS
91%: Male
80%: Black
23.5%: Were 18 21 years old (the largest age group)
53%: Would not cooperate with police to find who shot them
78%: Have criminal histories
65%: Have been arrested at least twice on drug charges
37%: Have been arrested for felony weapons charges
17%: Qualify as "career criminals"
44%: Are suspected to be "actively involved" in drug trade
80%: Whose first arrest came as a juvenile

THE SUSPECTS
97%: Minority males
91%: Black males
48%: Were 18 21 years old (the largest age group)
92%: Have criminal histories
57%: Have been arrested at least twice on drug charges
81%: Have been arrested for weapons charges
43%: Qualify as "career criminals"
65%: Are suspected of being "actively involved" in drug trade
89%: Whose first arrest came as a juvenile
92%: Cases where victim and suspect were black
31%: Shooting cases cleared by the Wilmington Police Department

Use the link, read the story, get close to the truth, if you dare.

Viciously Anti-Gun-Rights L.A. Times
Joins The Truth Squad

Homicide Blog since 2007 clearly shows who's getting murdered.
All 740 of them.

It's not "gun violence," it's social violence for one tiny class of people.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126853039&ft=1&f=2

If you don't want to visit the link and read the whole thing:

<snip>
"The truth about homicide," senior reporter Jill Leovy says, "is that it is black men in their 20s, in their 30s, in their 40s. The way we guide money and policy in this country, we do not care about those people. It's not described as what's central to our homicide problem, and I wanted people to see that. I wanted people to see those lives and to see that that's our real homicide problem in America.

<snip>
"The money needs to go to black male argument violence," she continues. "Anything else -- you're dealing with the margins of the problem, statistically, and it's not right."

"Homicide is not a mass syndrome in America," she says. "It's a concentrated group of people and that group of people is still horribly affected by homicide."

In 2007, L.A. County's murder rates were especially low. Even so, Leovy says, black men in their 20s were dying at rates of around 140 per 100,000 per year.

"As a middle-aged white lady, my death rate is probably 1 or 2 per 100,000 -- maximum," Leovy says. "These young men are dying at 140. They're in a war zone, and the rest of us are living in a different country."

"The real homicide problem is not the numbers that everybody focuses on, it's the disproportion."

Contact:
Alan Korwin
BLOOMFIELD PRESS
"We publish the gun laws."
4848 E. Cactus #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 FAX
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog

Encourage politicians to pass more laws...
with expiration dates.

Complete alphabetical list

Gun LawsGun Rights Gun PoliticsFree SpeechDVDsSelf Defense and Safety

SurvivalPolice GuidesKnivesNovelsThe Founders PackageHistory of Rights

ButtonsRecent Additions 1Recent Additions 2Women & KidsFirst-Time Gun Owners

Newest ProductsPackage Deals

  Home 
  Books 
National Directory
Position Papers
  Alan’s Blog 
   FAQ  
  New Stuff 
  Search 

Bloomfield Press


gunlaws.com and bloomfieldpress.com are domains owned by Alan Korwin.

Alan is a nationally recognized author of numerous books
on gun laws and other topics.

If you like this site you'll like his books. Take a look

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

WASTEFUL OLD FOLKS

Email | Unknown | Unknown

Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:01:13 AM by Arrowhead1952

Sent with nostalgia...

The Green Thing

In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana .

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Spend It Like Bush (American Thinker–Randall Hoven)

By Randall Hoven

What if, over the next decade, the federal government spends as irresponsibly as President George W. Bush did?

Compare two things: the 2012-2021 federal budget as proposed by President Obama in February (and as scored by the Congressional Budget Office in April), and the actual average spending level from 2001 through 2008 as a fraction of Gross Domestic Product. We'll keep the CBO's predictions of revenues and GDP untouched so that only spending differences are compared.

The CBO scored Obama's proposed budget as costing $46.2 trillion over 2012-2021, or 23.5% of GDP on average. Since the CBO expects $36.7 trillion in revenues over that time frame, the 10-year cumulative deficit would be $9.5 trillion. That is the Obama plan, and the only one he has put in writing this year.

For President Bush's numbers, we can use the White House Office of Management and Budget numbers (Table 1.2). Federal spending under Bush, from 2001 through 2008, varied between 18.2% and 20.7% of GDP, and averaged 19.6% of GDP.

Now we can do a simple ratio calculation. If we were to spend at the Bush rate (19.6% of GDP) instead of the Obama rate (23.5% of GDP), total spending over 2012-21 would be $38.5 trillion instead of $46.2 trillion.

That is a $7.7 trillion difference! Here is a table, to make the comparisons easy.

2012-2021 Federal Budget Projections

 

Obama's Plan

(as scored by CBO)

At Bush's Spending Rate (as % of GDP)

Revenues

$36.702 T

$36.702 T

Spending

$46.172 T

$38.509 T

Cumulative Deficit

$9.470 T

$1.807 T

Cumulative Deficit

4.8% of GDP

0.92% of GDP

Debt held by the public in 2021

$20.806 T

$13.143 T*

Debt held by the public in 2021

87.4% of GDP

55.2% of GDP*

*Approximated by subtracting the 10-year cumulative deficit from total debt in 2021.

Got all that? To answer the original question: if, over the next decade, the federal government spends as "irresponsibly" as President George W. Bush did, it would:

  • Cut $7.7 trillion from Obama's spending plan and cumulative deficit.
  • Bring deficits below 1% of GDP (instead of 4.8%).
  • Reduce the federal debt held by the public to about 55% of GDP by 2021, or below the level it was last year (instead of nearly 90% of GDP)

Deficits below 1% of GDP and debt below 55% of GDP, both declining, would not even make the bond market's radar screen, much less lead to watch lists and downgrades. Our national debt nightmare would be over.

My proposed new slogan: "Spend it like Bush."

Here are a few tidbits from fiscal history. First, spending under President Clinton (1993-2000) averaged 19.8% of GDP. So spending 19%-20% of GDP is not some fluke of history unique to George Bush. That was the average for the 16 years before Obama took office, 1993 through 2008, under Presidents of both parties, in times of both peace and war.

Second, the House of Representatives is the source of federal budget legislation. Republicans led the House corresponding to budgets written for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2007. Democrats led it for FY 2008-2011 budgets. Here is a plot of federal spending over those fiscal years.

Source: White House OMB (Table 1.2).

Third, federal spending never exceeded 23.5% of GDP from 1947 through 2008. Obama will have exceeded that level in each of the four years of his term. OMB estimates federal spending to be over 25% of GDP right now. Obama is simply blowing through all levels of spending that preceded him, six decades worth, without anything resembling a return to historical levels.

Fourth, the decade discussed here, 2012-2021, will start almost three years after the Great Recession ended. Obama's above spending plan takes place after his stimulus will have been spent. Both the CBO and OMB expect that decade to be one of economic growth. As Obama is wont to remind us, we are in recovery, the private sector is adding jobs, yadda, yadda. So Obama's 2012-2021 spending plan has nothing to do with getting us out of some temporary jam caused by recession. He is growing government, pure and simple. It's what he does.

Recall these 2009 quotes from President Obama:

"It's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they've presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

"What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested and they have failed."

Obama is a funny guy. He amuses me. Like a clown.

Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his web site, randallhoven.com.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Palin - A Confession (Source www.Redstate.com)

Palin.

It’s been almost three years since I, along with many others, was introduced to Governor Sarah Palin. In that time we have been saturated with coverage of her and just about everybody on the left and the right, has had the opportunity to get to know who she is and what they think of her.

At least that’s what I thought.

Admittedly, it took me some time to actually post this review of the recently released film “The Undefeated” about Sarah Palin’s meteoric rise to fame. It took time because, for numerous reasons, Sarah Palin is an emotional topic for a lot of people.

She seems to be one of those national figures that you either love with adoring affection, or hate with an uncontrollable rage. Rarely have I met someone who simply doesn’t have an opinion of her. Many pretend to, but most you can see through. At least I can. I can see through it because my opinion of her was much more specific than I ever liked to admit.

Certainly I believed that the media had been incredibly unkind to her. I believed that her stepping down as Governor was more the loss of an intense battle than simply the “giving up to go get rich” that others had labeled it. But in truth, I didn’t too much care for her, in spite of my public facade of being mostly opinion free.

I didn’t think she’d really done much in Alaska, or if she had, that it was enough to act like she was the second coming of Reagan. I thought that her contributions when being interviewed were bubble-gum and lacking of any real substance. I would never finish hearing a story about her and think, “Wow, I never thought of that before.” I just didn’t see that she had that much to offer.

There was so much media coverage of Palin, and so many people that were incredibly unfair to her, that I had been desensitized. I didn’t realize it, but I had actually developed a sort of immunity to believing anything positive about Sarah Palin. Rush Limbaugh, a personal hero of mine, sang her praises every time her name came up. In spite of that, I still felt no reason to look further into her story.

Rush had actually gotten to the point of making it a personal game to get opinions about Palin from others because he finds the dislike remarkable. I recall that one time, he was marveling that even the conservatives that don’t want her to run for president, still talk about how great they think she is, and it seemed to confuse him. I tried to call in to tell him, “Rush, they’re saying that because they’re afraid of you! They can’t admit they don’t like Palin to you because they know you do like her and you’re the voice of the movement!”

I was absolutely right that this was the case for many people, but the only reason I knew it, was because I was one of them. Hell, if I’d actually gotten through and had the opportunity to say this to him, and he’d asked me my opinion, I’m sure I would’ve acted like she was the cat’s pajamas, just to save face.

Ultimately, I thought she was the type of political force that was going to be around, needed to be treaded on carefully, but would never have anything substantial to offer to the cause of conservatism other than rallying troops which I still believed was a valuable service.

I thought she hadn’t gotten a fair shake in the media, but I felt confident that I could see through the bias and that I understood who she was, what she had done and what my opinion would probably be about her going forward.

I was entirely incorrect.

I consider the director of “The Undefeated”, Stephen Bannon, to be a friend of mine. He’s advised me in my own fledgling productions. I’ve interviewed him a handful of times on my podcast and we always talk for over an hour effortlessly. When I heard he was making this film, I immediately wanted to interview him, but I assumed that everything I knew about Palin would simply be confirmed by watching this.

We popped the film into our DVD player, and sat back to watch. One thing I had no doubts about was that Stephen Bannon would make a visually impressive, compelling film that would stir emotion. I was pleased to see that he used his trademark method of letting the people directly tied to the events tell the story (I often find narration cumbersome) adding their own particular emotions and perspectives to the narrative. These were all things that I expected and Bannon did not disappoint.

The film moves at a breakneck pace while still laying out a level of detail that brings you so close to the events, you feel like you personally experienced them.

Even had the substance not convinced me that I had Mrs. Palin pegged wrong, the film itself would most certainly have scored high for me as my all important test was passed: Did I look at my watch? No I did not.

In short, the execution of this film is excellent.

But what had me and my wife blown away by the time it was over, was the avalanche of information and perspectives that had been hidden from us over the years. As I would like for you to listen to my interview with Steve, I will not get into the substance of what caused the change. I want you to hear it for yourself.

I pride myself on my ability to know when something is baloney, almost instinctively. On Sarah Palin, I was so incredibly hoodwinked that the one word that my wife and I agreed described how we felt after watching it, was shame. Yes of course invigoration, satisfaction and all the other things you experience when watching a good film, but about how we had handled our vetting of Mrs. Palin, shame was the word that best described it.

Shame for not bothering to look up her record. Shame for not reading her story. Shame for turning the channel when she came on the tv. Shame for not listening to people that we had a great deal of respect for like Andrew Breitbart, Tammy Bruce, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

As Breitbart points out in the film, the greatest shame is that while this woman was savaged to degrees you may not even realize yet, some of us sat back and let it happen. For me to buy into the media template and not defend someone who’s only offense was being a conservative, is the absolute antithesis of what I stand for, and something that I shall never allow to happen again.

I urge you to see this film when it hits theaters tomorrow. And I urge you to put aside your preconceptions about who this woman is. You don’t have to think she should be the next president to believe that the way she has been presented, even by conservatives, has been completely wrong.

Please listen to my interview with Mr. Bannon:

type=application/x-shockwave-flash>

Download audio here

Then go see the film:

P.S. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that there will be a private viewing of the film with Stephen Bannon in attendance, at the RedState gathering in Charleston, SC August 12th through the August 14th.  Be there.

It's Called CONgress For A Reason (this is a MUST see from Karl Denninger)

Posted 2011-07-13 20:21
by
Karl Denninger
in
Other Voices
Ignore this thread
It's Called CONgress For A Reason
 

Outrageous and disgusting.

Friday, July 8, 2011

Minority Feelings and Violent Facts (American Thinker) This is coming here!

July 8, 2011

 

By John T. Bennett

What is the most important thing about mobs of black teens attacking and seriously injuring innocent pedestrians and businesses?  The feelings of teenagers who share the race of the attackers, according to Chicago's local CBS affiliate.

That's right: Mobs of teenagers have unleashed terror in the streets of Chicago and other cities in "flash mobs," and the best thing CBS in Chicago has to say about that is that black teenagers are worried about racial profiling.

George Orwell would shudder after reading this headline: "Some Worry Mob Attacks Are Encouraging Racial Profiling."  In the story, a journalist interviews young black teens hanging out at North Avenue Beach, the scene of one of the mob attacks.  We learn that some in this group "feel targeted as potential troublemakers because of recent attack mobs in the city."  No one is alleging that profiling has occurred as a result of the flash mobs, just that it might, and that possibility bothers some teenagers.  That's the subject matter of an entire news story in our post-racial America.

The subjective opinions of black teens matter as much as those of all other teens.  But do those feelings matter enough to warrant a news story?  Compare the triviality of that story with the full scope of flash mob attacks in Chicago:

In early June, witnesses reported that "gangbangers" were pushing people off their bikes at a Chicago beach.  One witness told NBC local that "[t]hey were being rude and abusive and throwing trash around and defecating" and beating people.  Also, in just one weekend in early June, twelve attacks involving large groups of "young men" were reported.  These attacks in the normally placid North Side gained attention.  The chosen victims: a 68-year-old white doctor, a 34-year-old white insurance salesman, a Thai man, a Filipino nursing student, and a 42-year-old Japanese doctor.  All were either beaten, robbed, or both.  Those arrested: three young black men, a fact we only know because of mugshots since it is the official policy of the Chicago Tribune to censor the race of criminal mobs in its journalism, if not its commentary section. 

These attacks might just seem like fun and games, but now some of the attackers are armed.  In two incidents the first weekend in June, 8 to 15 teens boarded a bus without paying and "began hitting people," according to the Chicago Tribune.  Three of those teens are charged with armed robbery, one with unlawful use of a weapon.  A week later, a boy with no race was attacked by "a group of seven male teens," all "black," according to news reports, and one with a handgun.

There were also flash mob robberies in January 2011 when mobs of teens raided and robbed at least three stores.  In February, Loyola University Chicago warned students and staff about "flash mob offenders" stealing from retail stores near campus.  In April 2011, a group of 70 "youths" invaded a McDonald's and "created a disturbance" according to a news report.  So there is a troubling trend towards mob violence perpetrated by black teens.  Despite all of this, of all the topics CBS Chicago could have chosen, they chose to ruminate about the feelings of young black teens.

The problem with the CBS story is that there will be no corresponding story about victims' feelings.  There certainly will be no similar story about the subjective opinions of non-blacks regarding predominantly black mobs.  It's not just that there is a double standard; it's that there is a suffocating level of deception involved in these news stories.

How did we reach the point where the only group whose feelings need to be consulted are minorities?  Liberalism.  Part of liberalism is the notion that minorities need special help, attention, and heightened sensitivity.  Along with that, liberalism promotes white guilt and the peculiar desire to "help people" at any cost.  The result is that the media gives credence and coverage to mere feelings when real people are being attacked.  Of course, the worse the violence gets, the more sensitive we'll have to be.  The flash mobs and mob attacks will require the utmost sensitivity from us, as they are only going to increase.  They've already occurred in Atlanta, Kansas City, Boston, Nashville, Charlotte, St. Paul, Minnesota, Washington, D.C., Las Vegas, Columbia, South Carolina, and even in Iowa on what was called "beat whitey night."

We face the nightmarish reality of low-level ethnic conflict.  If these violent mob attacks worsen, they will be a precursor to severe racial tension.  These flash mobs already constitute the worst acts of racist violence in recent American history.  Now, how do we go from that reality to a story about black teens' feelings?  The answer is that society has twisted priorities about race and social responsibility.  Given the white guilt saturation that young people receive in our educational system, it's easy to see why the media would give such frivolous treatment to flash mobs.  One of the great successes of modern liberalism is that it has constrained our public debate about racial issues.  A sheep-like media, craven politicians, and thoughtless academics have all failed in their duty to grapple with this social problem.  With enough layers of guilt piled upon us, we can't even see the problem staring us in the face.  The media is creating an atmosphere of passive ignorance towards racial violence, and that ignorance places all of us at risk.

If there was this level of racial tension and violence in a situation where the races were reversed, there would be a nationwide clamor for healing, compensation, and awareness. Instead, we're treated to sappy stories about teenagers' feelings. "Some Worry Mob Attacks Are Encouraging Racial Profiling," says the news. One waits for the article entitled "Some Worry Mob Attacks Are Encouraging Anti-white Violence."

John Bennett (MA, University of Chicago, MAPSS '07) is a veteran, writer, and law student at Emory University living in Atlanta, GA.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/07/orwellian_media_response_to_flash_mob_racial_violence.html at July 08, 2011 - 07:37:11 AM CDT

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Do we really have a revenue problem? (from HotAir–US)

 

Share

posted at 9:25 am on July 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
regular view

Over the last couple of days, we’ve had a good debate at Hot Air over the nature of our fiscal crisis between Jazz Shaw, and J. E. Dyer, and me.  At least we all recognize that we have a fiscal crisis; some members of Congress and “intellectual authorities” (with interesting if unreported conflicts of interest) still act as though nothing at all is wrong.  My friend Jazz wrote yesterday that we have a revenue problem as well as a spending problem in answer to my post rebutting David Brooks’ column, so let’s take a look at federal revenue to see whether Jazz’ contention holds up.

The Heritage Foundation provides this chart of federal revenue over the last 50 years in inflation-adjusted 2010 dollars, and the data is pretty clear that we have a recession problem, not a revenue problem:

Take a look at the trends here, again remembering that the data is all in 2010 dollars.  In fifty years, we have tripled overall federal revenue, and prior to the current recession/stagnation we had quadrupled it.  The current trough from the 2007 peak resulted from the fall in economic activity, not from tax cuts or any other intervention.  It’s similar to what happened in the prior trough, when the 2000-1 recession and the 9/11 attacks cut economic activity through 2003.

For that matter, look what happened to federal revenue after the much-maligned Bush tax cuts took full effect in 2003.  Economic activity expanded rapidly — and so did federal revenues.  In fact, the economy during that period boomed, and receipts from both personal and corporate taxes peaked as a result.  The Bush tax rates, as they are properly called today, did not create a revenue vacuum; they helped produce an expansion that enhanced rather than lost revenue.

Now, let’s put the data in this chart with one showing the rate of spending in inflation-adjusted 2010 dollars:

While revenues have tripled during this period, federal spending has more than quintupled.  The economic expansion of the 1990s (including the dot-com bubble) temporarily raised revenue above the spending trendline, but the slope on spending increased in the early 2000s, and practically launched spaceward in 2007 when Democrats took control of Congress.  Had spending increased at a rate of inflation from 2001 forward, we would probably not been in deficit at all.  Had it stayed at the rate of inflation from 2006 forward, we’d probably be looking at historically average deficits in terms of GDP.  But the chart shows very, very clearly that we have a recession problem combined with both a short- and long-term problem with expanding federal budgets — and the latter is the reason why we have a fiscal crisis, not some presumed revenue starvation.

It’s true that most of that spending problem comes from entitlements.  That’s why Republicans have focused their efforts on that sector of the federal budget, and not on hiking taxes.  The GOP wants to attack the recession problem by rolling back the regulatory adventurism of the Obama administration, especially in ObamaCare and at the EPA, in order to stimulate the economy and recover the revenue that we’re losing in the recession/stagflation period.  Raising taxes will have the opposite effect, and as we have seen any number of times, will not produce the revenues estimated by tax-hike advocates using static tax analysis.

Let’s confront the real problem in our fiscal crisis, and not make the recession crisis any worse than it already is.