Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts

Feb 25, 2014

The IRS scandal: it's even worse than we feared


Last week the Heritage Foundation held a lunchtime conference to discuss the latest developments in what it calls 'Taxing the First Amendment: Using the IRS to Censor Speech?'.  I'm going to post the entire hour-plus video of the conference below, but I wanted to first highlight five very short excerpts from a post-conference interview provided to the Powerline blog by one of the speakers, Cleta Mitchell.  She's an attorney who's represented several clients facing IRS abuse over the past few years.  In these short excerpts, she highlights an agency that appears to be completely out of control, and blames both the Democratic and Republican parties for their blind refusal to apply the law to the bureaucrats concerned.  The five clips together total less than twelve minutes in length, and are well worth your viewing time.

















Here's the full 1 hour 10 minute video of the lunchtime conference presentation.  I recommend that if you take constitutional government seriously, you make the time to watch it - because if these practices aren't stopped now, we won't have even the semblance of constitutional government that we have now.





This is perhaps the clearest possible evidence that 'going Galt' is no longer an adequate option.  When the organs of government can be suborned to prevent you doing as you please according to your constitutional rights, and to exert illegal and unconstitutional pressure on you to conform, it's too late to found a Galt's Gulch.  It'd just get a tax lien placed on it.

My solution is simple - and some would doubtless describe it as simplistic.  It's in three parts, all of which would be necessary.  It goes like this:

  1. Institute a flat tax rate of 10% on all income - corporate, private, whatever - with no deductions or exemptions whatsoever.  Earn a dollar?  Pay 10c to Uncle Sam.  Simple, direct, efficient.
  2. Institute a flat consumption tax of 5% on all purchases - corporate, private, whatever - with no deductions or exemptions whatsoever.  For every dollar you spend, you pay 5c tax to the Feds.  (You may pay more for local sales taxes, of course.)
  3. You now no longer need massive, complex calculations about what any person or company owes the government.  It's a simple calculation that anyone with a few functioning brain cells can do in their heads (or use a calculator or spreadsheet if they must).  Therefore, abolish the entire IRS and the entire tax preparation industry.  You'd save the country billions in unnecessary and useless overhead at the stroke of a pen - and taxes would be lower, besides.

Not that complicated when you think about it, is it?  Unfortunately, the politicians and the bureaucrats will never agree.  They'd argue that you have to provide for 'income redistribution' or 'welfare assistance' or all the rest of that sort of crap that's never mentioned in the constitution at all.  To that, my answer is simple.  If someone is in need of welfare or other assistance, that's not an IRS issue - so why keep the agency around to address it?  Why make it a federal issue at all?  It can be dealt with by state welfare agencies.

To statists, the issue isn't about taxation efficiency at all.  It's about control.  When that control gets out of control . . . you have the present IRS catastrophe.





Peter

Feb 24, 2014

Doofus Of The Day #754


Today's award goes to climatologist (?) Michael Mann, he of 'hockey stick' fame, who's just exposed himself as a fraud for all the world to see.  Readers may remember he sued critics who insisted that he'd made up the data that formed the basis for his 'hockey stick' graph.  Looks like they were right.

Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.

Buoyed by Dr Ball's successes, journalist and free-speech defender, Mark Steyn has promptly decided to likewise countersue Michael Mann for $10 million in response to a similar SLAPP suit filed by the litigious professor from Penn. State University against not just Steyn, but also the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. Ball's countersuit against Mann seeks "exemplary and punitive damages. " Bishop Hill blog is running extracts of Steyn's counterclaim, plus link.

. . .

Steyn’s legal team, aware of the latest developments from Vancouver, have correctly adduced that Ball has effectively defeated Mann after the Penn. State pretender’s preposterous and inactive lawsuit against Ball was rendered dormant for failure to prosecute. Under law, Mann’s prevarications, all his countless fudging and evasiveness in the matter, establishes compelling evidence that his motive was not to prove Ball had defamed him, but more likely a cynical attempt to silence fair and honest public criticism on a pressing and contentious government policy issue.

The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State."  In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.

Where Do We Go From Here?

It will likely be open season on Mann. Anyone may now freely dismiss him in the harshest terms as a junk scientist who shilled for a failed global warming cabal. Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.

There's much more at the link.

This is too delicious for words.  The anthropogenic-climate-change alarmists have always insisted that 'the science is settled', and that there's no longer any room for doubt or need for further debate about the subject.  Those of us who were sceptical have always believed that they were trying to baffle us with bullshit.  This latest development tends to confirm us in our beliefs.

I'm going to thoroughly enjoy watching this High Priest of Climate Change Bullshittery try to weasel his way out of the consequences of his actions . . . because I don't think Messrs. Ball and Steyn will be inclined to allow him to do so. I hope it costs him his reputation, his fortune and his pension.  That's the least he deserves.

Peter

Feb 21, 2014

Guess where all the QE money is going?


If you haven't yet read Matthew Taibbi's latest exposé for Rolling Stone magazine, 'The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet', you really need to make time to do so.  It shows more clearly than anything else I've read just where all the excess liquidity that the Fed keeps pumping into the markets under the label 'Quantitative Easing' is ending up.  Here's an excerpt.

Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years.

. . .

A tiny provision in the bill also permitted commercial banks to delve into any activity that is "complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally."

Complementary to a financial activity. What the hell did that mean?

"From the perspective of the banks," says Saule Omarova, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, "pretty much everything is considered complementary to a financial activity."

. . .

Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals. They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from food products to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum.

. . .

... banks aren't just buying stuff, they're buying whole industrial processes. They're buying oil that's still in the ground, the tankers that move it across the sea, the refineries that turn it into fuel, and the pipelines that bring it to your home. Then, just for kicks, they're also betting on the timing and efficiency of these same industrial processes in the financial markets – buying and selling oil stocks on the stock exchange, oil futures on the futures market, swaps on the swaps market, etc.

Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation. It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays.

The situation has opened a Pandora's box of horrifying new corruption possibilities, but it's been hard for the public to notice, since regulators have struggled to put even the slightest dent in Wall Street's older, more familiar scams. In just the past few years we've seen an explosion of scandals – from the multitrillion-dollar Libor saga (major international banks gaming world interest rates), to the more recent foreign-currency-exchange fiasco (many of the same banks suspected of rigging prices in the $5.3-trillion-a-day currency markets), to lesser scandals involving manipulation of interest-rate swaps, and gold and silver prices.

But those are purely financial schemes. In these new, even scarier kinds of manipulations, banks that own whole chains of physical business interests have been caught rigging prices in those industries. For instance, in just the past two years, fines in excess of $400 million have been levied against both JPMorgan Chase and Barclays for allegedly manipulating the delivery of electricity in several states, including California. In the case of Barclays, which is contesting the fine, regulators claim prices were manipulated to help the bank win financial bets it had made on those same energy markets.

And last summer, The New York Times described how Goldman Sachs was caught systematically delaying the delivery of metals out of a network of warehouses it owned in order to jack up rents and artificially boost prices.

There's much more at the link.  Go read it.  It'll make it clear why the Fed and the banks will do anything they can - anything they have to - to keep kicking the fiscal and budgetary can down the road, rather than address the enormous systemic problems currently affecting our economy.  If they did address them, their opportunity for such windfall profits and control over so much of the world's economy would slip away.  They'll fight that tooth and nail.

When the economy finally crumbles, this sort of greedy manipulation will be a big part of the reason.  We'll just have to make sure that those responsible for it are held accountable in any way possible.  It's almost a foregone conclusion that they'll never be charged with any wrongdoing - after all, they control the national purse strings - so we'll have to find other ways to do so.  Tar and feathers are the least of the remedies that come to mind . . .

Peter

Feb 13, 2014

Good riddance!


So Ray Nagin finally got what was coming to him.  It's long overdue.  He was one of the most egotistical blowhards ever inflicted upon New Orleans by its voters, and proved utterly incompetent during the Hurricane Katrina crisis.  Like Edwin Edwards and other corrupt Louisiana officials, his dishonesty was legendary.  Everyone knew what he was up to, but no-one in the State of Louisiana criminal justice system would do anything about it.  It took Federal prosecutors to nail him down.

I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars . . . in a prison in a high-risk area for hurricanes . . . with no prospect of evacuation if one comes ashore.





Peter

Feb 10, 2014

Politicians and central bankers are lying in their teeth


Grant Williams has an outstanding newsletter this week (link is to an Adobe Acrobat document in .PDF format) dealing with the current crisis in emerging markets, the effects of the Fed's 'tapering', and the implications of current policies (both political and fiscal) for the world (and the US) economy.  His conclusions are very like those I posited recently.  Here's an excerpt.

Everywhere you look, concern is rising amongst those charged with applying the copious amounts of sticking plaster that are vital to ensuring the world financial system doesn't fall apart...

. . .

... a big problem is that, over the course of the ongoing financial crisis (yes, it is), the power wielded by central bankers has reached unprecedented levels as one extraordinary measure after another has been implemented simply in order to maintain the status quo.

. . .

... central bankers lie. The job demands it. That means that they join politicians in the category marked "cannot be trusted," and yet investors the world over are not only relying on the promises made by these individuals but also trusting them to be both transparent and honest when the job demands they be neither.

Given that they lie to us, and given that they are making two key representations to us, should we not perhaps take a moment to think about the two inputs to this particular equation?

Politicians across the globe are assuring us that (amongst other lies things):

1) The "recovery" is either here or right around the corner.
In fact, it is neither.

2) Remaining in the EU is the best option for Greece, Spain, Italy (and France).
It is not.

3) Soaking the rich is the answer to a multitude of problems.
It isn't.

4) Raising taxes will generate the necessary revenue without having a negative effect on the economy.
It won't.

5) Future promises of entitlement payments are solid.
They aren't. Defaults are inevitable.

Meanwhile, the central bankers of the world are promising us that:

1) Interest rates will remain low for a very long time.
In the end, it's not central bankers' choice to make.

2) Quantitative easing has no ill effects and can be withdrawn at will without causing any problems.
It can't be.

3) Printing money will not translate into higher inflation.
It will. It just hasn't yet.

4) They will do "whatever it takes," and that will be enough.
There is a limit to what they can do, and it will ultimately not be enough.

5) They are all in this together.
They're not. It is every man for himself now, and the Fed will screw them all.

So here we are.

Having established that, like politicians, central bankers are required to lie to us in order to be able to do their jobs, we are left facing a couple of crucial questions. First, IS tapering tightening, or not? Secondly, what does all this chaos in emerging markets in the wake of The Tighten Taper mean, and where does it take us from here?

. . .

Not only is tapering most definitely tightening (don't listen to what they say, watch the results), but we have likely seen just the beginning of the fallout from the Fed's new course.

Will they stick to it? No. They won't be able to. They MAY taper another $10 bn in March when Janet Yellen's first rate decision is announced, but I suspect that by then markets will be in such a state of disrepair that excuses will be made as to why the taper has been suspended. You can bet your bottom dollar that there will be some frantic calls put in to Ms. Yellen's office by her peers around the world between now and March 20, all of which will be begging calling for an end to The Taper.

Ultimately, QE will continue to be expanded until it implodes in a fireball the like of which has never been seen before. There's no choice, I am afraid, because the alternative would involve the telling of some very harsh truths by politicians and central bankers and the bestowing of some serious pain on an electorate that already holds them in contempt.

Think those truths are going to be volunteered?

Me neither.

The splintering of central bank policy is just the beginning.

There's much more at the link.

Folks, I said a couple of weeks ago:  "I begin to think that the economic chickens may finally be coming home to roost".  Mr. Williams' analysis dovetails very neatly with what I see in the markets today.  He who has ears to hear, let him hear . . . and let him batten down the hatches, economically speaking, while he's about it.

As Paul Singer said in his January newsletter:

As we and others have said, the Fed is overly reliant upon models that do not account for real-world elements of instruments, markets and traders in the derivatives age. Models cannot possibly take into account unpredictable interactions among huge positions and traders in new and very complicated instruments. Thus, the Fed should be careful, humble and conservative. Instead, it is just blithely plowing ahead as if it knows exactly what is going on. Intelligent captains sail uncharted waters with extra caution and high alert; only fools think that each mile they sail without sinking the vessel further demonstrates that they are wise and the naysayers were fools. This is a formula for destruction. The crash of 2008 should have been smoking-gun evidence of the folly of this approach, but every mistake leading up to the crash, especially excessive and “invisible” leverage and interest rates that were too low, has been doubled down upon in the years since.

We're about to reap the bitter fruit of that doubling down.

Peter

Feb 3, 2014

Do we really want Detroit everywhere?


I note with extreme displeasure that the United Auto Workers trade union is trying with might and main to unionize the workforce at Volkswagen's plant in Chattanooga, TN.  The process is not without controversy.

I have no objection to trades unions that exist for the legitimate support and protection of their members.  I've been a member of a union myself, and it was of great assistance to me during a very difficult episode at work.  However, the UAW is one of the most corrupt, self-seeking and egregiously grasping unions in the history of such organizations.  You don't have to take my word for it - just do an Internet search on the subject 'UAW corruption' and read the resulting linked resources for yourself.

Many individuals and organizations share the blame for Detroit's current economic woes and infrastructural collapse . . . but the UAW is right up there with all the rest of them, and probably bears more responsibility than most for that mess.  I confidently predict that any city allowing the UAW to unionize its industrial plants has already set its joint and several feet on the same slippery slope.  I can only hope that the organization's current efforts fail, for the sake of the city of Chattanooga and my home state of Tennessee.





Peter

Jan 21, 2014

Political Ideology versus objectivity


A classic example of political ideology versus objective analysis is playing out over a book about California.  'Taxifornia' is described as follows on its Amazon.com page:

In Taxifornia, James V. Lacy identifies and examines the true causes of California’s decline.

Californians are victims of the heaviest taxation in all of America, and those high taxes are now steadily destroying the state’s economy.  Tax-and-spend liberals who are in control have created a state that taxes and regulates more than any other state in the country, and have engineered a rotting economy with among the highest unemployment of any state in the nation.  Its high taxes hurt all Californians by making the state too expensive for business to turn profitable.  Business flight has become endemic.  California’s over-regulation of businesses depresses employment in the state.  A widely accepted tenet among liberal politicians, political science academics, and the media in California is that no development at all is a good thing.

It is a state that educates the worst but pays the best to its teachers, a place that is widely considered by most CEOs to be one of the worst locations in the nation to run a business, where local governments are going bankrupt, and where an out-of-control public employee pay and pension system threatens to gobble up and divert almost all available taxpayer resources to a point where cities and counties simply cannot afford to pay for police, fire, or road maintenance anymore.

California has an outdated environmental policy and an energy policy that makes the state almost totally dependent on one source of power:  imported natural gas.  It is a place where the public employee union worker who controls traffic in the Bay Area Rapid Transit District maintenance yard in poverty-stricken and near bankrupt Oakland is paid more annually than the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

There's more at the link.

The first thing I noticed is that the author blames California's woes on 'tax-and-spend liberals'.  This is true prima facie, but it's not the entire truth.  Both major political parties in California have advanced a tax-and-spend agenda.  Sure, the present party in power there (Democratic) must carry the can for present policies;  but don't forget that the previous governor (a Republican) was equally guilty of spendthrift behavior, and Republican elected representatives have voted for similar policies on numerous occasions.  Even if in recent years they appear to have repented of such behavior, I've no doubt that if they ever find themselves in power again, the temptation to spend other people's money to shore up their political fortunes will prove as irresistible to them as it has to the Democrats.

The second thing I noticed is the comments from readers (either real or purported) of the book.  Of the ten reviews posted at the time of writing, six are five-star;  four are one-star.  There are no two-, three- or four-star reviews at all.  A clearer indication of partisan perspective couldn't be desired.  Those damning the book with one-star reviews clearly approve of the current California government and administration.  They're not assessing the book on its merits at all - only on the basis of their preconceived value judgments.  Those praising it don't appear (on the basis of their comments) to be as dogmatically prejudiced, but there's doubtless an element of that at work too.

I've no doubt that the author's thesis about California being a 'failed state' in many ways is accurate.  We've discussed the subject in these pages on more than one occasion.  However, I wish he weren't so quick to blame liberalism alone.  Let's not forget that the real boom in US government deficit spending began during the presidency of (Republican) Ronald Reagan, and subsequent administrations, both federal and state, have taken their cue from him:




California's merely the best illustration (for now) of what happens when the philosophies and politics of 'big government', the 'welfare state' and statism become dominant.  It's a warning sign, and a prediction of how this entire country will look unless we change course now.  Liberalism is merely one symptom of those larger problems, which are not exclusive to left-wing or progressive views.  Just witness the actions of the Republican-controlled Congress in passing the latest omnibus spending bill, with its still-outrageous spending levels, to see what I mean.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have the answer to our present situation.  Both parties are in it for what they can get out of it - not for us, and not to look after our interests.  The sooner more Americans wake up and realize that fact, and do something about it, the better.

Peter

Jan 17, 2014

Has the FBI terminally discredited itself?


Investor's Business Daily thinks it has.

The FBI says it won't prosecute anyone at the IRS for its admitted targeting of the president's political foes. This just as the agency claims the law is no longer its main mission. So it's a political goon squad now.

. . .

The reality is, the acts reeked of political targeting, the most illegal of acts, a corrupt use of government power, and a worthy target of checks and balances provided by the FBI in the name of law and order.

But for some reason, the FBI has neither interviewed the Tea Party activists targeted for intrusive scrutiny, nor has it noticed anything amiss in light of the White House's rabid attacks on Tea Party activists ... And it hasn't picked up the clue from the Center for Responsive Politics showing that IRS employees donated to Obama's campaign by more than 2 to 1 over Tea Party-tied Republicans — let alone that the prosecutor chosen by the president to look into this case is a fat-cat donor to Obama.

If New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie can be criticized for a traffic jam, then the White House's attacks on political opponents are in a league with what goes on in Venezuela. That the FBI won't get involved in this and is willing to wreck its reputation for apolitical probity suggests this investigation is leading to a place the bureau would rather not go — namely, the White House.

There's more at the link.

I think that perhaps the most damaging achievement of the Obama administration has been to discredit so many agencies of the federal government by suborning them for partisan political ends.  Apart from the FBI's unconscionable conduct, consider:


Personally, I think that all these scandals add up to what the constitution refers to as 'high crimes and misdemeanors' . . . but I doubt whether anyone will do anything about that.  Our politicians just don't care - or, if they do, they care that it was the other party that got away with it.  They won't make too many waves, because they can hardly wait for the opportunity to get away with the same things themselves in due course.





Peter

Jan 13, 2014

More about questionable charities


On December 15th, in one of my regular 'Around The Blogs' segments, I linked to Nicki's post about the Wounded Warrior Project being at best a suspect charity.  I've been following up on that, and have found more information that leaves me deeply disturbed.

First, Veterans Today claims:  'Wounded Warriors Project A Legal Scam'.

If you were thinking about donating to the Wounded Warrior Project, think twice. It would behoove you to get in your car and drive cross-country to deliver the funds to the charity you hope to help. More money would end up in their hands than entrusting it to the WWP for disbursement.

. . .

Sad to say, the Wounded Warrior Project is bled dry by a top heavy, greedy executive structure and the remaining funds are disbursed to multi-tier distribution organizations with similar management structures. By the time the money actually goes to direct benefits for veterans, there is probably less than 10% that reaches them. Below are results of an investigation by a retired USMC Colonel.

. . .

Total 2011 revenues were $154.9 MM with total fundraising expenses of $20.5MM and total administrative expenses, including outsourced services, of $95.5MM. Note that the total administrative expense includes fund raising. Therefore, as a percentage of total revenue, administrative expenses amount to 61.63%, including fundraising expenses of 13.2%. This equates to 38.36% of revenues available to benefit wounded warriors.

As far as I can determine, WWP outsources all major functions, including fundraising, legal, donation processing, donation distribution, etc.

Compensation for the top ten WWP employees runs from $150K to $333K per officer annually.

As far as I can determine, WWP does little, if any, direct support of wounded warriors and wounded warrior programs. Rather, WWP makes grants and contributions to other 501.c.3 organizations which operate wounded warrior programs and/or serve veterans directly ... While many of these organizations provide valuable services to wounded warriors, many more are suspect. As an example, I question an expenditure of $300K for a parade ... I also question the use of funds for lobbying activities.

There's more at the link.

The Veterans Today piece links to another article headlined 'How Low Is Low?'

Several years ago I set out to find out the truth about the collusion or funding quirks that were mentioned. It was obvious that every one of the Big Six (DAV, PVA, VFW. AMLeg, MOPH and VVA) were getting free room and board at VAROs and VAMCs throughout America.

. . .

I also always knew that the government reimbursed all the VSOs for each Power of Attorney they turned in. Many a service officer denied this but I finally squeezed it out of the Office of Veteran Affairs here in Washington. We are one of the few states with no independent State Veterans Representative outfit so they see no reason to hide it. You have to use one of the big six or search for one of the 44 other off-brand VSOs such as the Air Force Sergeants Association or the Red Cross. The lady informed me in no uncertain terms that yes, contrary to what was said, it was an unheralded fact that Veterans Service Organizations pulled in a pretty good income off this.

When combined with the dues and donations they generate, the numbers become staggering. This is where it gets disgusting.

The article goes on to reveal that in 2011, the top 9 office holders of Disabled American Veterans were paid a combined total of $2,403,236, with the top three officers making a combined total of over $1 million.  The top 9 office holders of the Veterans of Foreign Wars made a combined total of $1,656,426, and those of the American Legion, $1,242,828.

Some will argue that charities must pay market-related salaries to attract and retain talented managers and administrators.  I'm not so sure.  I note that some charities performing stellar work pay their managers very little (e.g. The Salvation Army), and sometimes nothing at all (e.g. the Missionaries of Charity, the order founded and made famous by Blessed Teresa of Calcutta).  They demand personal commitment to their cause from their leaders, and it seems to work for them.  On the other hand, if market-related income is necessary, I'd rather see charities pay a relatively low basic salary or wage, and tie additional income to their leaders' effectiveness in furthering their mission.  This should be measured in terms of operational efficiency and effectiveness, particularly in reducing the proportion of funds raised spent on administration and overhead, and maximising the proportion spent on the charity's actual mission.  If leaders manage to do that, let them be paid a bonus (if necessary, a substantial one) based on how much they've been able to apply to the charity's stated purpose.  If they haven't been very good at this, their much smaller bonus (or the absence thereof) should reflect that failure.

It appears to me that a large proportion of veteran service organizations have fallen victim to Jerry Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy".  Those running many of them appear to be doing so as a self-perpetuating, personally enriching exercise more than as a service to veterans.  Of course, this is hardly limited to veterans charities.  Last year we examined the monumental abuse perpetrated by many charities across the spectrum;  and only a few days ago we saw yet another example of such abuse.

Again, that problem isn't restricted to veteran service organizations.  Here's a report of how Goodwill Industries appears to have fallen victim to it as well.





All I can say is, check out charities very carefully indeed before deciding to trust them with your money.  My earlier recommendations stand.  In addition, if a charity is spending less than 75% of its income on helping those whose cause it espouses, I automatically put it in the 'suspect' pile, and refuse to donate to it.  (US readers can check the numbers for most charities at Charity Navigator.)

Peter

Jan 10, 2014

A devastating critique of the National Security Agency


A few days ago, former NSA officials associated with the organization Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) produced a scathing review of the NSA and its misdeeds before and since 9/11.  They addressed it to President Obama, in the hope that it might make its way through the official 'filters' and reach his desk in time for consideration before reforms are made to the US intelligence system.  Here are a few extracts.

It comes to us as no surprise that there is strong resistance on the part of the Establishment when it comes to giving us a hearing – a shunning of the very people who know what happened and how to take steps to prevent it from happening again.

. . .

Now, once again the voices of seasoned intelligence professionals are being muted, in favor of a closed group of officials with huge incentive to cover up their failure to keep America safe and their playing fast and loose with the Fourth Amendment.

. . .

“Hiding the worst: In December 2001, Senator Saxby Chambliss, chair of a House Subcommittee on Homeland Security announced a preliminary investigation into 9/11. At a SIGINT Leadership Team meeting in February 2002, SIGINT chief Maureen Baginski directed me to lead a NSA Statement-for-the-Record effort for a closed-door hearing scheduled by Sen. Chambliss for early March to discuss what NSA knew about the 9/11 hijackers and their plotting before 9/11.

“As indicated above, the highly embarrassing answer was that NSA knew a great deal, but had not shared what it knew outside of NSA.

“After a couple of weeks Baginski rejected my draft team Statement for the Record report and removed me from the task. When I asked her why, she said there was a ‘data integrity problem’ (not further explained) with my draft Statement for the Record. I had come upon additional damaging revelations. For example, NSA had the content of telephone calls between AA-77 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar in San Diego, CA, and the known al-Qaeda safe house switchboard in Yemen well before 9/11, and had not disseminated that information beyond NSA.

“In short, when confronted with the prospect of fessing up, NSA chose instead to obstruct the 9/11 congressional investigation, play dumb, and keep the truth buried, including the fact that it knew about all inbound and outbound calls to the safe house switchboard in Yemen. NSA’s senior leaders took me off the task because they realized – belatedly, for some reason – that I would not take part in covering up the truth about how much NSA knew but did not share.

“When the 9/11 Commission hearings began, Director Hayden chortled at executive staff meetings over the fact that the FBI and CIA were feeling the heat for not having prevented 9/11. This was particularly difficult for me to sit through, for I was aware that NSA had been able to cover up its own culpability by keeping investigators, committees, and commissions away from the truth.”

. . .

It should now be clear, for those who can handle the truth, that the problems at NSA run deep – in terms of effectiveness, integrity and respect for the Constitution. By withholding information and exploiting secrecy, NSA’s leaders past and present have pulled off an unparalleled coup in concealing the sad reality that NSA could have prevented 9/11 and didn’t. And Schadenfreude chortling by leaders at the top regarding the demonstrated bureaucratic advantages and success of such dishonesty has a tendency to be heard down through the ranks, corrupting even dedicated workers.

There's more at the link.

I urge you to read the full document.  It's profoundly important.  I'm aware that VIPS is a controversial organization, regarded by some as being more of a political pressure group than what its title would suggest:  but that's besides the point right now.  If the allegations contained in this open letter to the President are correct, the entire nation - including our entire legislative branch - has been hornswoggled by the bureaucrats of the NSA.  That needs to be investigated, the truth uncovered, and action taken to ensure that the guilty are punished and their misdeeds undone.

A few weeks ago I said of the NSA:

The fox wants to not only guard the henhouse, but draw up its plans and supervise its construction as well, in order to make stealing the chickens that much easier ... It's the hallmark of an agency that considers its mission more important than the constitution and laws of the United States.  I can think of only one adequate remedy - complete and total dismantling of the agency.  Its important work must be continued, but under new leadership in a radically overhauled structure.  All those who've not merely acquiesced in, but engineered this utter disregard for the privacy of citizens and their constitutional rights must be dismissed from government service of any kind, and never again permitted to exercise authority over others in any administrative or executive capacity.  They've fouled their own nest so irretrievably with their catastrophic indifference to law and rights that they're no longer a national asset, but a liability - an albatross around America's neck.

I've seen nothing since then to make me change my mind - indeed, quite the contrary.  Consider these articles, which are well worth reading:





Neither article is unduly alarmist, IMHO.  Their assessments are sober and realistic.

Right now, on the basis of its reported behavior, arrogance, and wanton disregard for the constitution and laws of the United States, I'd go so far as to say that the NSA is as much of a danger to our national security as is Al Qaeda - in a different way, to be sure, but no less threatening.





Peter

Jan 7, 2014

"The Year of the Washington Power Grab"


That's how the Wall Street Journal describes 2013.  Here's an excerpt.

This past year will be remembered for many things, but let 2013 be hailed mainly for this: It was the year that the genius of George Orwell's "Animal Farm" became clear in America. Efforts to centralize control in the name of "fairness" have led to a society that is ever more at the mercy of a federal power—one that decides who does and does not succeed. The winners are favored special interests, political cronies and wealthy lobbyists. The losers are everyone else.

Consider: Maryland authorities last week launched an investigation into the shootings of two bald eagles in Montgomery County. It isn't clear if the federally protected birds were shot on purpose, or if some poor soul mistook them for vultures. No matter. The Maryland Natural Resources Police (there is such a thing) has gone full vice squad—publicizing a hotline number, dangling a reward, and reminding folks that the federal penalty is a fine of $5,000 per eagle and up to a year in prison.

This behavior contrasts with a very different headline, from a month ago. "U.S. to Allow Eagle Deaths—to Aid Wind Power," read a Dec. 6 Associated Press story about a new federal rule that allows wind companies favored by the Obama administration to avoid the law. These select companies can kill bald and golden eagles, free of prosecution, for 30 years.

There's more at the link (it may be behind a subscription paywall, in which case, try here).

Last month saw the courts slapping down another attempt at executive branch cronyism.

The ... NLRB in 2012 attempted to unilaterally rewrite a provision in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act known as "protected concerted activity."

. . .

... the Fifth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that the NLRB had no legal authority for its decision. ... Translation from legalese: The labor board broke the law to justify a political power grab in the service of the plaintiffs bar.

Again, more at the link (or, if behind a paywall, try here).

I suspect that the Obama administration will continue to use all the organs of executive government to favor its allies and penalize those who oppose it, or those it regards as threats to its agenda.  As Thomas Jefferson famously warned, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".  That's more than usually the case in these troubled times, when those against whom we must be vigilant are our elected leaders and their appointed bureaucrats and administrators!

Peter

Dec 18, 2013

The NSA scandal hits America's bottom line


As many had predicted, the NSA snooping scandal, revealed by Edward Snowden, is now having a dramatic impact on US technology companies.



Furthermore, US and European interests, official and commercial, have long portrayed Chinese IT and communications technology companies such as Huawei as a security risk, alleging that its hardware and software could potentially contain 'back doors' allowing them to be used by Chinese hackers to endanger the security of Western communications networks and the companies that use them.  Britain has gone so far as to have its GCHQ communications intelligence establishment tear down Huawei hardware and analyze its software at source code level to check for such dangers - with the company's co-operation, let it be said.  However, it's been claimed that the NSA arranged for US companies to insert similar 'back doors' into their hardware and software, potentially allowing the agency to spy on companies and networks in countries and companies using it.

This situation appears to be backfiring on all US high-technology companies - and it's far from over.  For example, what if China insists on the same tear-down process for Cisco, IBM and HP hardware and software before it allows it to be sold into its market?  I see no rational reason why sauce for the Western goose should not be sauce for the Oriental gander.  That would expose the West's latest technological developments to the eager eyes of its biggest and fastest-growing competitors . . . not a very comforting thought.

As Newsmax points out:

A congressional committee’s effective blacklisting of Huawei Technologies Co.’s products from the U.S. telecommunications market over allegations they can enable Chinese spying may come back to bite Silicon Valley.

Reports that the National Security Agency persuaded some U.S. technology companies to build so-called backdoors into security products, networks and devices to allow easier surveillance are similar to how the House Intelligence Committee described the threat posed by China through Huawei.

Just as the Shenzhen, China-based Huawei lost business after the report urged U.S. companies not to use its equipment, the NSA disclosures may reduce U.S. technology sales overseas by as much as $180 billion, or 25 percent of information technology services, by 2016, according to Forrester Research Inc., a research group in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“The National Security Agency will kill the U.S. technology industry singlehandedly,” Rob Enderle, a technology analyst in San Jose, California, said in an interview.

There's more at the link.  Bold underlined text is my emphasis.

I'm sure the NSA will protest that it never intended any of these consequences . . . but that didn't stop them from happening.  Will anyone at the agency be held accountable for them?  Or will those responsible evade, avoid and skate out from under any punishment?  My money's on the latter.

One hopes the recent recommendations for reform of the NSA will bear fruit.  Unfortunately, I don't think they go far enough.  By now you've got a culture embedded in the NSA that regards any opposition to its self-defined mission as enemy action.  I no longer regard the agency as trustworthy in any shape or form.  I think the only solution is to break up the NSA once and for all, dispersing its functions among different agencies.  I'd also like to ensure that none of those who had any hand in its gigantic, unconstitutional, unethical and immoral snooping activities are ever again given any position of authority in politics, public administration, or the executive branch as a whole.





Peter

Dec 15, 2013

Are they serious???


I was dumbfounded to learn that English Members of Parliament are to undergo "compulsory 'honesty training' to learn the difference between right and wrong".

The training, a series of practical seminars, will address scenarios such as accepting gifts and lobbying.

It is hoped the courses will help to combat the public's mistrust of the country's leaders following scandals such as MPs' expenses and peers accepting money to lobby for outside interests.

. . .

Modelling the courses on those taken by bankers, lawyers, and accountants, the standards watchdog will instil the fundamental principle that MPs should behave with ‘integrity, selflessness and honesty’.

A poll earlier this year showed that politicians are the least trustworthy professionals in Britain, behind estate agents, bankers and journalists.

There's more at the link.

I don't believe for a moment that British parliamentarians don't know the difference between right and wrong.  I think the problem is rather that they just don't care about it.  When they're caught out doing something they shouldn't, their apologies and excuses seem to have less to do with "I'm truly sorry" and more to do with "I'm sorry I got caught", IMHO.  (They're rather like US Congressional representatives in that, wouldn't you say?)

I think this whole thing is nothing but a smokescreen, trying to persuade the British people that their politicians are quite nice people, really, who've just got caught up in things they didn't understand.  If anyone in England - or elsewhere - believes that, there's this bridge in Brooklyn, NYC that I'd like to sell them.  Cash only, please, and in small bills . . .





Peter

Dec 11, 2013

Was apartheid South Africa really that bad?


Following my articles about the death of Nelson Mandela, I've had several e-mails claiming that apartheid South Africa really wasn't that bad.  Particular emphasis is placed on the fact that the economy was allegedly 'thriving', and the crime rate was allegedly far less than it became after the advent of majority rule.  In so many words, it's being said that apartheid was better than the  democracy that now exists there.

This is completely false, based on either thinly disguised racism or on a very selective approach to the facts of the matter.

First, the economy was pretty darn lousy for everyone except the White community - and even for them, it was getting worse during the 1980's under the impact of economic sanctionsApartheid basically condemned all race groups except Whites to a paltry share of the economic pie, including restrictions on education, job reservation, and a host of other aspects of everyday life solely on the basis of one's race.  The White community basically kept almost everything worth having, in economic terms, for itself until the 1980's, when things began to improve for the other races;  but the change was almost infinitesimally slow, and still has not progressed to true economic equality.  Inferior Black education has a lot to do with this.

Secondly, crime was always very bad - it just wasn't recorded.  The South African Police were probably the single most racist element of the security forces, far more so than the Defence Force.  They perpetrated many crimes themselves (as the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission made clear - see, for example, Vlakplaas, the death of Neil Aggett, or the murder of the Pebco Three, to name only three of literally thousands of possible examples).  They arranged many more such incidents through groups allied to the apartheid government (e.g. Operation Marion), and failed to record or report many crimes in the Black community, claiming that most 'black-on-black violence' wasn't really crime at all - it was politically motivated.  This was, of course, completely false, but that didn't worry a police force that routinely tortured and murdered suspects without bothering to put them through the formality of a trial.  Detention without trial was a standard procedure, with few legal rights and/or protections for detainees (even those that existed were often ignored).  It's certain that tens of thousands of Black people in particular were detained without trial for days, weeks or months in the 'evil years' from 1976 until the early 1990's - my personal estimate is that the figure was in the hundreds of thousands.

You want an example of that?  Here's a scene from the end of the movie Cry Freedom.  Just read the names of the detainees (detained without trial) who died or were killed in police custody.  Look up their names, and read their stories.  If even one in ten died the way their deaths were officially reported, I'll eat my hat!  It's blatantly obvious what happened to them - at least, it's obvious to anyone who has two brain cells to rub together.  Note that the list ends in 1987, when the apartheid government stopped releasing the names of those who 'died' in detention, and no longer gave 'reasons' or 'explanations' for what happened to them.





Many, many of those who were detained without trial simply 'disappeared'.  They were often recorded as having been 'released from custody' - but no-one ever saw them again.  When and where were they 'released'?  Why did they never contact their families again?  The revelations about Vlakplaas are a grim clue, because Vlakplaas wasn't the only establishment of its kind (see, for example, the farm known as Post Chalmers or Fort Chalmers, used for the murder of the Pebco Three and other activists).  I personally found unidentifiable whole and partial skeletons in the bush near SA police and military establishments during the 'evil years'.  There were bullet holes in some of the bones.  Who were they?  When and how did they die?  Your guess is as good as mine . . . but I can make a pretty good guess, I think.

I've written about some of the things I experienced in those years.  Relevant blog articles include:






Fellow blogger Titflasher (who seems to have been in many of the same areas as myself during the bad years) has recently summarized her own experience of security forces oppression in three very good articles, under the overall title of 'Mandela and why people who have never lived under complete and utter oppression just don’t get it'.  You'll find them at the following links:






I highly recommend reading all three, and following the links she provides.

Finally, to people who try to make excuses for apartheid and the conduct of the then-South African government, I can only say:

  • If you were treated like a slave, a sub-human and a pariah in your own country;
  • If you were stripped of your citizenship and civil rights in the country of your birth because of the color of your skin;
  • If your education depended upon your skin color for its quality (or lack thereof);
  • If your choice of what to do with your life, or where to live, or who to love or marry, was restricted by your race;
  • If you were denied free travel inside your own country, forced to carry an internal passport and subject to instant arrest if you forgot it at home or lost it;
  • If you were forced to accept menial labor as the only work open to you, paid a starvation wage, and denied the right to bring your family to live with you near your place of work;
  • If you were savagely beaten and imprisoned if you dared to protest such restrictions and indignities, or even shot out of hand rather than arrested;

would you calmly accept those things?  Or would you take up arms to overthrow the system that placed such restrictions upon you?

I know what my answer would have been, in my younger years.  It would have been the same as Nelson Mandela's in the 1960's.  It still amazes me that he could have changed so much as to become an ambassador for peace after his release.

Peter

Dec 6, 2013

The Department of Homeland Security lies in court


I was extremely angry to read of the shenanigans of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a court case in San Francisco.  TechDirt reports:

... there's a trial going on here in San Francisco about the legality of the complete lack of any sort of due process concerning the US's "no fly" list.

. . .

... a Stanford University Ph.D. student named Rahinah Ibrahim was prevented from boarding a flight at San Francisco International Airport in 2005, and was handcuffed and detained by the police. Ultimately, she was allowed to fly to Malaysia, her home country, but she has been unable to return to the United States because the State Department revoked her student visa.

. . .

Apparently, one of the people set to testify in the case, Ibrahim's oldest daughter, Raihan Mustafa Kamal (an American citizen, born in the US), was blocked from boarding her flight to the US to appear at the trial, and told that she was on the no fly list as well. Kamal, a lawyer, was an eye witness to her mother being blocked from boarding her flight. The US knew that Kamal was set to testify and from all indications, in a move that appears extremely petty, appears to have purposely blocked her from flying to the US. Kamal was directly told by the airline that DHS had ordered them not to let Kamal to board. The airline even gave her a phone number for a Customs and Border Patrol office in Miami, telling her to call that concerning her not being able to board.

There's more at the link.  Infuriating, but recommended reading.  Fortunately, the judge appears to be standing up to DHS's bully-boy tactics and insisting that their obstructionism cease.

So, how can we arrange for all those DHS agents and bureaucrats who conspired to obstruct justice in this matter to be put behind bars?





Peter

Dec 4, 2013

The real implications of Detroit's bankruptcy


Detroit has been given Federal court approval to go ahead with its bankruptcy proceedings.  This is the end of the beginning, but there's a long way to go.  City unions and retirees immediately took steps to appeal the judge's decision, even though their chances of success appear limited.

What strikes me is the willful blindness exhibited by many of those opposed to the bankruptcy proceedings.  It's willful because they've consistently and persistently refused to face the facts of the situation, instead parroting on about "rights" or "the Michigan constitution"  or "democracy", or blaming anyone and everyone except the municipal government and trades unions of Detroit, instead of confronting the single most important question of all:  where's the money to come from?  Their answer to that is always, "From someone else!"  Just look at these examples of protest signs outside the court yesterday.




There were many like that, and they all said the same thing - someone else is responsible!  Someone else (the banks, or the state of Michigan, or the Federal government) owes us!  They must pay!

That's a load of bovine manure.

Detroit's problems can be ascribed to many causes, but there's one overriding, foundational problem that's been at the root of most of them.  That's the incestuous, you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours relationship between the Democratic Party political machine that's run Detroit since the 1960's, the public sector trades unions that have supported it in return for massive kickbacks to their members, and the corrupt politicians, lawyers and union leaders who've lined their own pockets in the process.  It's those players who are now leading the protests and trying to find some way - any way - to keep the gravy train on the rails and operating.  Their goose that laid the golden egg is being killed, and they're desperate.  It's not just conservative news sources or independent commentators who recognize this:  even far-left-wing progressive socialists openly acknowledge the extent to which the unions and the Democratic Party machine are in bed together in Detroit.  It's that blatant.

(Please note that I'm not suggesting such relationships between power and money are confined to the Democratic Party.  Far from it.  They're commonplace throughout the US political system, from local [i.e. municipal] through regional [i.e. county] and state to national government, across both major political parties and - to a certain extent - the minor ones too.  You'll find examples of it almost everywhere you look.  At federal level, just look at political contributions to PAC's that representatives can use to cover all sorts of 'costs'.  On the local level, how many small towns have a local chapter of Rotary, or Lions, or Kiwanis, or Freemasons, or some other fraternity or sorority?  Most of them do, and their membership usually includes leading local businessmen, local politicians and officials, and occasionally local labor leaders.  Deals are done with a nod, a wink and a handshake, preceded by much 'fraternal discussion' about 'issues that need to be addressed'.  It's amazing [not!] how often contracts are exchanged between members of such organizations, while outsiders are 'frozen out' of the bidding process.  In my [admittedly limited] personal experience, small-town Republicans appear to prefer such associations to more overt political machines in making deals to their benefit;  but they're no less assiduous in doing so than their Democratic Party opponents.)

Throughout the USA, on every level of government, such incestuous relationships have developed between business, politics and organized labor.  It's a 'culture of corruption' that blatantly and cynically exploits the structures and systems of government to the advantage of those 'insiders' who can manipulate them.  Elections are more often than not a contest between the 'insiders' and the current 'outsiders' who want to change places with them.  The great H. L. Mencken made a series of justly famous observations over the years that sum up this reality.  Here are some of them.

  • Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods.
  • All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man.
  • A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.
  • Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
  • The art of government is the exclusive possession of quacks and frauds. It has been so since the earliest days, and it will probably remain so until the end of time.
  • Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right . . . The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds.
  • The chief difference between free capitalism and State socialism seems to be this: that under the former a man pursues his own advantage openly, frankly and honestly, whereas under the latter he does so hypocritically and under false pretenses.
  • Each party steals so many articles of faith from the other, and the candidates spend so much time making each other's speeches, that by the time election day is past there is nothing much to do save turn the sitting rascals out and let a new gang in.

The older I get, the more I think that Mr. Mencken was one of the wisest observers of the political scene I've ever encountered.

At any rate, the bankruptcy of Detroit is a classic example of the end result of an alliance of politicians, organized labor leaders and other 'insiders' looting a city for their benefit over an extended period.  Look at the number of the city's politicians, administrators and 'insiders' convicted of crimes over the past thirty to forty years and you'll see only the tip of the iceberg.  Far more went on that's never been discovered - or, if revealed, was never punished.

To this day, politicians across the nation continue to behave in the same way.  They promise heaven and earth to voters if only the latter will re-elect them to office . . . then they make the entity they represent (town, city, county, state, whatever) responsible for paying for their promises.  That's how we've built up so many trillions of dollars in entitlement program deficits over the coming decades.  They're all promises made by politicians and passed into law, without the money being there to pay for them.  There are literally millions of people who've built their hopes and plans for the future around those promises being real.  They're doomed to, not just disappointment, but real financial hardship when they don't materialize - but that's inevitable, because the money simply isn't there.  The politicians who made those promises and passed those laws knew the money wouldn't be there, but they didn't care.  All that mattered to them was getting votes now, and paying for them with promises that wouldn't fall due until they were safely retired and long gone.

What few people think about is that these incestuous relationships between business, unions and politics go all the way from the bottom to the top.  If one level hits trouble, it will look to the next level up for a bailout.  Local politicians will be threatened by defaults at municipal level, so they'll look to county or state government for money, with the implicit threat that if they don't get it, they won't turn out their voters to support the party machine at those levels in forthcoming elections.  In their turn, state politicians will turn to Washington for a bailout, using the same threat to bring federal politicians and administrators into line.  That's why there have already been calls for Washington to bail out Detroit, funneling billions of dollars of federal taxpayer money into the city.  (Follow those three links for more information.)

However, the unspoken message behind such calls is that they're merely a means to allow the pillaging of local coffers by politicians and special interests to continue.  All that will happen is that, instead of draining those coffers of local money, they'll drain them of Federal money - and then demand more of the same.  As Steven Malanga has pointed out:

Politicians and unions have been emboldened in resisting reform because they expect that the federal government won’t let big cities or their major pension systems fail.

. . .

Bailout advocates argue that some American cities have such massive retirement debts that they could never repay them without Washington’s help ... But what these nearly insolvent governments really need are voters angry enough—and worried enough—to bring an end to the special interests’ tight grip on the public purse.

There's more at the link.

Look at the list of major government defaults and bankruptcies in the USA.  To name only a few of them, there's New York City in 1975Cleveland in 1978Orange County, California, in 1994Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 2011Jefferson County, Alabama, in 2011;  and three California cities in 2012, with more expected to follow.  One analyst predicts that up to 100 US cities are at risk of following suit in the short to medium term.  If you look at the cities most at risk, you find certain common denominators.  Almost all had made extravagant promises to public employee unions, but had failed to fund those promises, allowing deficits to build up until they've become unsustainable.  Almost all exhibit the sort of mutually beneficial partnership between municipal government, local business and public unions that we've seen in Detroit.

I confidently predict that before too long, you'll see a major initiative launched for a trillion-dollar bailout of all financially challenged municipalities.  It'll be couched in terms of 'not letting pensioners suffer', or 'ensuring the well-being of innocent citizens caught up in problems not of their making', or something like that - but in reality it'll be political machines trying to ensure that they can go on feathering their own nests at others' expense.  We dare not allow such a bailout to become law.  If we do, it'll become the first of many, because politicians' appetite to feed at the public trough is insatiable.  That's the real message of Detroit's bankruptcy, and of the heartfelt pleas from the Left that it's anti-democratic, or bankrupts democracy, or must be paid for from other sources.  It's not about humanity;  it's not about social concern;  it's about institutionalized political, social and economic corruption.  That's it, pure and simple.

We'll let H. L. Mencken have the last word, because it sums up Detroit's - and America's - situation perfectly.

The main thing that every political campaign in the United States demonstrates is that the politicians of all parties, despite their superficial enmities, are really members of one great brotherhood. Their principal, and indeed their sole, object is to collar public office, with all the privileges and profits that go therewith. They achieve this collaring by buying votes with other people's money. No professional politician is ever actually in favor of public economy. It is his implacable enemy, and he knows it. All professional politicians are dedicated wholeheartedly to waste and corruption. They are the enemies of every decent man.

Peter

Dec 3, 2013

It's enough to make you weep . . .


Courtesy of a link at Mish's place, here's a video that will either make your blood boil, or make you cry . . . perhaps both.





As Zero Hedge pointed out a year ago (click the chart for a larger view):

... perhaps the scariest chart in the entire presentation is the following summarizing the unsustainable welfare burden on current taxpayers:

  • For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance
  • For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.



Our taxes at work, folks - and by the way, don't blame the Obama administration alone for this.  It's been a long time coming, under the alternating leadership of both major political parties.  They both own this.  Click that link to see how it's developed since World War II.

Peter