Darrell West, vice president and director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said it has become more difficult over the years for Kennedy family members to extend their brand of liberalism outside the Northeast.
“As the country has grown more conservative,” West said, “it’s been harder for the Kennedys to win elective office.”
The purpose of the census, done once every ten years, is to make adjustments in the House of Representatives to assure accurate representation in Washington based on population of the states. This interactive map provided by the Census Bureau illustrates the population shift for the last hundred years.
Census Bureau Director Robert Groves gave the highlights.
“This 2010 census population represents a growth of 9.7 per cent over the official population count of 2000.”
“As you know the constitutional purpose of the census is the redistribution of the membership of the House of Representatives across states proportional to the population,” continued Groves. “Since 1940 the law has specified that the Census Bureau use the method of equal proportions to assign seats to the states.”
Pointing out the trend since 1940 that N.E. and Midwestern states lose seats, and South and Western states gain seats (creating a net shift of 79 seats) Groves went on to prove this decade as no exception. This decade’s population spread will see a 12-seat shift with eight states gaining representatives, 10 states losing seats. Texas benefits most with a gain of four seats.
Link: U.S. Census Bureau Announces 2010 Census Population Counts
Breaking news from the Associated Press, ‘Obama pledges economic focus during next 2 years.’ Sounds eerily similar to his presidential campaign doesn’t it? Two years later, there remains only a marginal, if any, net increase in full-time permanent jobs, and unemployment is still going up.
Providing zero analysis, not only is this story nothing more than a press release from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, but it is apparent that the Associated Press has no memory of its own either.
‘What do you mean no memory?’ you ask?
Aug. 1, 2009 – May 7, 2010: “I Will Not Rest . . .”
Dec. 4, 2009: Obama puts renewed focus on job creation
Jan. 21, 2010: Obama to focus hard on economy after Democratic loss
Dec. 22, 2010: Obama pledges economic focus during next 2 years
That President Obama is still working on the economy is evident. What is becoming more evident is that the American people mistakenly thought he was going to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, his goal to ‘remake America’ is a longer term project.
He must first dismantle our free-market economy which necessitates unemployment going higher, which necessitates unemployment compensation going longer, which creates a growing population (not counting millions of undocumented Democrats from Mexico) more dependent on the government. That, coupled with more industries coming under the control of the federal government and viola, we’ll be just as broke and socialist a nation as any one in Europe. Under Obama, the days of unemployment under 5 percent are over and gone. The new norm will be somewhere between 10-15 percent. And if he can do it in one term, all the better. To him, that would be Mission Accomplished.
How long does it take before hearing what you want to hear takes a back seat to seeing the results that you want to see?
In a lame duck session that upstaged (as in much worse) our lame duck session here in the United States, the Venezuelan lame duck session just gave Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (the hemisphere’s idiot) the power to make laws by decree for one year. As in, without the input from the legislature. This action totally undermines the newly elected legislature set to take over in three weeks. A legislature with enough power to put the brakes on some of Chavez’s socialist initiatives.
First on his agenda is to get control of the internet, having already taken over broadcast media. Saying that his government should protect citizens against online crimes. In his little communist mind, an online crime would be disagreeing with him and/or his policies. Like this blog post for example.
Chavez’s congressional allies are considering extending the “Social Responsibility Law” for broadcast media to the Internet, banning messages that “disrespect public authorities,” “incite or promote hatred” or crimes, or are aimed at creating “anxiety” in the population.
Whether or not they will admit it, the folks in Washington have a huge problem with Chavez and his band of gypsies and anti-capitalists. With his proclaimed disdain for the Unites States, supporting the world’s worst regimes and making way in Venezuela for a combination of a hostile Russia, Cuba, Iran, China, and North Korea in our own hemisphere does not portend for a peaceful (by any measure) future. Toss in an extra boost for the drug lords, al-Qaeda, and a lack of border security at home, and we are looking at a future of unrest and tumult.
Links: Venezuelan legislature grants Chavez decree powers | Chavez defends plan for Internet regulations
Some jerk(s) decided to create their own stimulus program by breaking into my ATM machine last night. They found out the hard way that the machine had no money in it.
They totaled the ATM machine finding that out. That, and they made a big hole in the wall and destroyed all three of my neighbor’s doors.
So from the prospective of some in Washington, we have some economic stimulus going on. An increase in capital investment (an ATM machine) and jobs for the construction trade (3 new doors and a wall repair). Kind of reminiscent of Cash For Clunkers.
All that with no government intervention and without increasing the national debt.
ABC Channel 3 TV was on the scene. 🙂
The sequel to this post from four months ago was played out today, when President Obama signed into law a bill called the ‘Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.’ It is curious why the AP writer of this story did not offer up the name of the bill he signed and instead felt it necessary to justify it in her headline.’
In this audio capture of ABC News radio today. ABC’s spin on it is ‘It’s not costing anything.’ Well, not really ABC. What he said was it was fully paid for. I suppose that’s what they mean by a ‘free lunch.’ And dinner.
President Obama said ‘It won’t add a dime to the deficit. Some of the funding comes from rolling back a temporary increase in food stamp benefits. . .’
Audio clip from ABC News: Michelle’s feed the kids program
So where does the rest of it come from? The food stamp program.
So the self-proclaimed champions of the poor, the less fortunate, the working people, who continually whine about Republicans legislating on ‘the backs of’ the working people are actually taking food ‘from the mouths of’ the hungry.
One might ask, why can’t the president find a way to ‘pay for’ extending unemployment compensation?
What would you think should be the top priority in Washington today?
It’s a lame-duck session. Time is running out. Unemployment is high, the economy is dangerously weak, and, with five (now less than three) weeks to go, no one knows what tax they’ll be paying on everything from income to dividends to death when the current rates expire Jan. 1. And what is the president demanding that Congress pass as “a top priority”? To what did he devote his latest weekly radio address? Ratification of his New START treaty.
It just gives the world a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that the United States and Russia want to scale back their nuclear arsenals. But like Charles Krauthammer says, in post-Soviet days, ‘the Russians are no longer an existential threat. A nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow is inconceivable.’ It is the rogue nations of the world like Iran and North Korea that need our attention. What, we voluntarily disarm while the world’s rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret? START ignores the real nuclear danger.
Says Krauthammer, ‘Obama’s idea that the great powers must reduce their weapons to set a moral example for the rest of the world to disarm is simply childish. Does anyone seriously believe that the mullahs in Iran or the thugs in Pyongyang will in any way be deflected from their pursuit of nukes by a reduction in the U.S. arsenal?’
OK, besides Obama’s premise being all wrong, there is a real and substantive problem with the treaty, and it is a deal breaker for Russia if it is taken out. It concerns our defensive weapons technology. Usually, ‘arms control’ deals with offensive weapons. START however, includes defensive capabilities. Aside from warheads, and defensive technology, delivery systems are also included in the mix.
The utter irrelevance of New START to nuclear safety was dramatically underscored by the revelation of that North Korean uranium-enrichment plant, built with such sophistication that it left the former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory “stunned.” It could become the ultimate proliferation factory. Pyongyang is already a serial proliferator. It has nothing else to sell. Iran, Syria, and al-Qaeda have the money to buy.
Iran’s Islamic Republic lives to bring down the Great Satan. North Korea, nuclear-armed and in a succession crisis, has just shelled South Korean territory for the first time since the Korean armistice. Obama peddling New START is the guy looking for his wallet under the lamppost because that’s where the light is good — even though he lost the wallet on the other side of town.
UPDATE: 12/13/2010, 4:00 PM, and for today’s headline. . . ‘North Korea threatens South with nuclear war’ Any questions?
Link: The Irrelevance of START | North Korea threatens South with nuclear war
The U.S. government ran its 26th straight monthly budget deficit in November, while arguing over a tax package that adds $55 Billion of unfunded pork upon Americans trying to recover from a recession.
The budget deficit for November was not the anticipated $126.5 Billion. It was $150.4 Billion. We’re going from worse to worser while the pinheads in Washington continue to look the other way.
Link: U.S. Posts $150.4 Billion November Budget Deficit – WSJ.com.
President Clinton takes over the tax bill presser because the kids had something more important to do. Given the fact that Obama is wanting to keep the rates where the Bush administration left them instead of reverting back to where the Clinton administration left them, seems to me that President Obama should have asked Bush to be there instead.
There’s a contradiction here that is unavoidable. Democrats have been berating Bush and his tax policy as being just ‘tax cuts for the rich.’ That there wasn’t any relief for the middle class. That’s what they said. Now, however, Obama is saying that the current rate represents tax relief for the middle class. And this makes any logical sense to who?
For those same years they berated Bush, they said that it was Clinton’s higher tax rates that led to all that prosperity, and Bush’s tax cuts that led to the recession. If you follow their logic, Bill Clinton and Obama should be saying they need to raise the taxes on everybody because, after all, it worked before. But they’re not saying that. They don’t have the honesty either to say that they were mistaken, misguided, or just plain wrong.
Then comes this question (at the end of the video), framed as though the recession is sluggish because people can’t get business loans for capital. I don’t know who asked that last question. It sounded like Ed Shultz. But talk about a non-issue, or a straw man issue. Idiots like that questioner fail to realize one simple fact. No one wants to go into debt to start a business or invest in same for the same reason that those who have the money are not. It has nothing to do with not being able to get a loan.
The administration has to first create a business friendly climate. Have a consistent tax policy. The FairTax would be nice. Eliminate the FUD factor. They can do that by not continuously berating capitalism, calling corporations greedy, and calling for raising their taxes and using the tax hammer to chase down private capital both here and overseas. Business owners don’t yet know how badly Obamacare will impact their operation. One thing is clear, it is not going to be helpful. And the effects are going to far outweigh the wisdom of starting a business with such an unknown out there.
Another thing is clear, the United States is not facing its unsustainable debt, inflation, and hyperinflation, because taxes are not high enough. They got there because Washington has been spending way more than they have.
If you want to face the truth, it is the government who is greedy. They just can’t seem to get enough of what does not belong to them, your hard-earned money. They’re so greedy that they want to reach into your grave and take over half of what you had left over, after taxes, when you’re six feet under. That, on its face, is immoral. This administration, with the cooperation of both political parties over time, has just got to stop looking to the few remaining people who are productive and working to bail out their sorry ass for spending money they don’t have and for keeping entitlement programs that are not sustainable.
If Washington wants to avoid the chaos we’ve seen in Greece, France, and Great Britain, they need to get out in front of it here and now. Stop demonizing ‘the rich’ and start calling on ALL Americans to have their come-to-Jesus moment and, like our founding fathers had to do, and did it proudly, start making the needed sacrifices now, before it is too late.
Related Links: Obama Ditches Tax Cut Presser, Bill Clinton Takes Control | The State Of The Welfare State
UPDATE: 12/13/2010, Strengthening The Recovery
I find myself in agreement with the wacko Left on killing this bill now. Although for different reasons. Problem with the House version was that the unemployment extensions were not paid for when they could easily have been. That, and they want to tax the dead again. And then there’s the myth that keeping the tax rates the same are going to be a stimulus and create millions of jobs, is pure fantasy. Well, if Obama actually believes that it will, then it is pure fantasy. But I don’t think he believes that it will. Which makes it a lie. No different than the lie that Obamacare was not going to increase the debt, and was going to lower premiums, increase care and coverage, can keep your doctor. All that.
The benefits from ‘the Bush tax cuts’ have come and gone. It took a couple of years for those tax cuts to pay off. They’ve run their course and we’ve spent our way into a recession, and then some. We haven’t gotten trillions into debt by not taxing enough. I’m pretty sure it’s because we’ve spent and borrowed too much.
Now that Harry Reid has the bill, he has made it worse by adding another $55 billion of pork to it. Notice a trend here? If you’re having trouble passing a bill (like with Obamacare), just keep adding pork to it to bribe the votes you need. Where’s that change that Obama campaigned on? From here it looks like more of the same, on steroids.
The best we could do now is to let this bill fall on its face and let the next congress pass one with no pork in it. Making the current rates permanent, if not lower, will help to stop the FUD factor which now is more of a hinderance to growth and investment than the current tax rate itself. Raising taxes anywhere, and especially on those who we expect the growth to come from, will absolutely guarantee that the economy won’t be turning around anytime soon.