Showing posts with label Disgust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disgust. 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 19, 2014

Investigative journalism FAIL!!!


Last weekend CBS's '60 Minutes' program did a special report on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II strike aircraft program.  Asking whether it was 'worth it', their conclusion was that it probably is.

Unfortunately, according to the always readable War Is Boring milblog, they goofed.

On Sunday, 60 Minutes ran a story about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter entitled, “Is the F-35 Worth It?” But watching the piece, I saw no debate whatsoever of that very important question.

And for good reason. All the interview subjects were government employees or contractors. They’d have been crazy to criticize their own program.

What I did see on Sunday was an ill-informed reporter — David Martin — touring the military side of the $400-billion F-35 program ... and throwing in just a few boilerplate questions.

These questions were softballs, considering how big of a blunder this program actually has been. The F-35 is meant to replace 2,400 existing warplanes in the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. Complex and badly compromised by the need to meet all the military branches’ diverse needs, the JSF is overpriced, unreliable and sluggish.

60 Minutes mentioned that the F-35 is behind schedule and over budget, has some bad lighting and unsatisfactory tires … and that’s about it. Those gripes barely scratch the surface of the JSF boondoggle.

. . .

... where was the long list of design and quality-control issues with the aircraft, 12 years after development began? What about discussing the many alternatives to this under-performing machine, such as F-22s and drones plus rebuilt F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s? Why not point out how many experts in the defense journalism and analysis worlds see the JSF program as detracting from America’s security rather than enhancing it?

And how could 60 Minutes have not sought the opinion of someone — anyone — who is not receiving a paycheck from the F-35 program? The widely-seen spot included no third-party aerospace or defense experts and cited not a single independent study.

There's more at the link.

War Is Boring's analysis is confirmed by Breaking Defense, which notes:

The most surprising thing about the F-35 video was the complete absence of any of the plane’s critics. While avoiding Winslow Wheeler, Pierre Sprey and some others might be a fairly easy editorial decision, what about Sen. John McCain or perhaps Phil Coyle, the Pentagon’s former top tester. McCain seems to go hot and cold on the plane, so perhaps he wasn’t interested in speaking right now. Or perhaps he wasn’t approached.  Coyle’s status as the former head tester would seem to make him an obvious choice. But there you go.

Again, more at the link.  Both reports' criticisms certainly tally with the many observations I've made about the F-35 program in these pages over the years.

'Checkbook journalism' used to refer to the practice of journalists - or their employers - buying exclusive access to stories by paying for them.  More and more, as in cases like this, it looks like the new meaning of that phrase is that companies with deep pockets and open checkbooks buy the journalists!

Shame on you, CBS.  You've let down not only yourselves, but the nation.





Peter

Feb 15, 2014

Looks like Big Brother's at it again . . .


Here's a news report about a school in Wisconsin where the authorities seem to have an inflated idea of their own importance, and the amount of control they have over the children entrusted to their educational care.





I can fully understand the concerns of the parents.  Consider:

  • What business does the school system have in asking kids such intensely personal questions?  It's none of their business!
  • Young children are very impressionable.  They can be coerced or pressured into saying things about their families that are simply untrue.
  • What guarantee is there that what the kids say in class won't be reported to Child Protective Services or some other organ of the state, that might decide to remove the kids from their parents' custody while they investigate what may be a spurious charge or complaint?  (Just do an internet search on 'CPS abuses' to see what I mean.)

Sounds like these particular incarnations of Big Brother need to be slapped down hard . . .





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 7, 2014

The disconnect between liberal/progressive academics and reality


I'm still shaking my head at the sheer, utter stupidity on display in a US News discussion about the impact of Obamacare on jobs.  Here's an excerpt.

What the truth might be, and what few politicians would dare say, is there might simply be some value in lower economic growth.

. . .

Initially, says one expert, there will be benefits in the fact that there is plenty of slack in the labor market. The combination of many unemployed Americans and many people finding jobs just to get insurance means that if a few people cut back their hours, there will be more hours for the people who want them. In and of itself, that theoretically means people will be much happier, says Ken Jacobs, chair of the Labor Center at the University of California-Berkeley, though that effect would dissipate as the job market improves.

“GDP growth isn't a good in and of itself,” he says. “The question here is what's going to create the most happiness for the greatest numbers of people. Being in a situation where people have to work full time or 40 hours a week at a job that may not be the best match for them because that is the only way to get health insurance is not the way you create the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.”

. . .

The ultimate question is a question of philosophy of government: especially at a time of economic weakness, can any more hits to growth be tolerated, or is the populace’s welfare the ultimate good?

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

The obvious, screaming, in-your-face problem with this perspective is simple.  Who decides what constitutes "happiness"?  Who decides what constitutes "the populace's welfare"?  Who determines what is (or what should be) "the ultimate good" of the populace, or a society, or a nation?  Clearly, the 'enlightened' (doubtless including Mr. Jacobs) would opine that we can leave those decisions in their hands.  Personally, I'd rather fire every one of these academics in their left-leaning ivory towers, and trust those who've actually worked for a living.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

  • For the true impact of Obamacare on the job market, free of socialist and/or progressive and/or left-wing and/or Marxist rhetoric, see here.
  • Guess what all those newly jobless or those with reduced hours of work are going to do?  They're going to demand government handouts to subsidize them.
  • Guess who's going to be asked to pay for those handouts?  The taxpayers of America - you and I.
  • Finally, care to guess the reaction of more and more of those taxpayers?



Word.





Peter

Jan 31, 2014

Facebook gets even more intrusive


Thanks to a link at Karl Denninger's place, we learn that Facebook is trying to not only invade your privacy, but exercise control over it!




That's right.  The latest version of Facebook's Android app now wants to:

  • Read your text messages;
  • Control your smartphone's other apps;
  • Control your smartphone's audio and video settings, including recording (which would enable it to take snapshots of your surroundings, for example, and upload them for analysis);
  • Send e-mail (in other words, spam) to those using your calendar and other shared facilities.

I've said before that Facebook is a clear and present danger to the privacy and online security of its users.  This latest development merely makes that more obvious than ever.  As Karl Denninger puts it, as far as Facebook is concerned, you are the product.

Anyone voluntarily allowing Facebook this sort of control over their smartphones and personal information deserves all they get, IMHO . . .





Peter

Jan 26, 2014

"Bling" bullets - don't believe the hype!!!


Yet another crop of supposedly high-tech, über-deadly bullets is appearing on the market, claiming to offer revolutionary results (usually at extraordinarily high prices).  They include:



As far as I'm concerned, Shakespeare's famous quotation about being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" describes them all perfectly.  I don't need to test them or see anyone else's tests of them.  We've been here before in oh, so many different incarnations . . .  Remember the hype about the so-called 'blended metal technology' used by RBCD Performance Plus ammunition?  That was a charade from beginning to end, and was ruthlessly (and brilliantly) exposed some time ago.  AR15.com has an excellent primer exposing most of the exotic ammo brands that have popped up, making extravagant claims, and then subsided into obscurity after being debunked.  Go read it for yourself.  I'm willing to bet that the products named above will prove no more substantial in their assertions.

The reason is very simple.  All the major ammunition firms - Federal, Hornady, Speer, Winchester and the like - and, for that matter, the best smaller firms - Barnes, Black Hills, Buffalo Bore, Corbon, etc. - spend millions of dollars every year between them on ammunition research, development and testing.  Their products are used by professionals such as law enforcement personnel, game rangers, etc., as well as private citizens who hunt, defend themselves and train with it.  They sell literally billions of rounds every year.  With that sort of market dominance, and that kind of revenue at stake, do you really think they aren't constantly looking for any technological edge they can get?  If any one of them comes up with a world-beating product, it'll have a clear run at the market while everyone else races to catch up.  Any one of the top companies in the field would give their left . . . well, you know what I mean . . . to be able to do that.  The reason they can't is that all their competitors are trying to do the same.  They're all improving their offerings incrementally, all the time, and 'keeping up with the Joneses' in the process.

These small, come-out-of-nowhere companies arrive with a big splash, putting out videos with dramatic footage and (usually) hard rock or heavy metal soundtracks portraying their allegedly 'world-beating' products . . . yet every one of them fades away after a while, leaving nothing behind.  Why?  Because it's nothing but hype from beginning to end.  They're trying to sell snake oil.  The fundamentals of good ammo performance are well-known - there's nothing secret or esoteric about them.  All the major manufacturers adhere to those fundamentals in order to produce good ammunition.  It's used by all major law enforcement agencies and top military outfits.  What makes you think some upstart company that's come out of nowhere can suddenly overturn all that established science, technology and engineering, and do substantially better?

If products like these were so great, you can bet your boots that police forces, Special Forces units and others who bet their lives on their bullets every day would be beating a path to their manufacturers' doors.  Indeed, many of these over-hyped products are alleged (by their makers) to be in service with such forces . . . but when it comes to actually identifying them and verifying their claims, they tend to clam up.  They plead the excuse of 'non-disclosure agreements' or 'confidentiality clauses'.  Uh-huh.  If you believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn, NYC I'd like to sell you.  Cash only, please, and in small bills.

Don't believe the hype.  Find out what the major law enforcement agencies are betting their lives on every day, and use that ammunition to defend your own life.  You won't find anything much better than that.  Believe it.

Peter

Jan 25, 2014

Big Brother is getting more intrusive than ever


Two articles this week highlighted how ridiculously intrusive Big Brother is getting.

First, readers probably are aware of the incident where a Florida man, who holds a concealed carry permit in that state but was not armed while traveling, was stopped and subjected to oppressive, possibly illegal search of his person and vehicle in Maryland.  The question was, how did the Maryland officer know about his Florida CCW permit?  Now we know.

Obviously for the driver, John Filippidis, and his family, this was alarming.   What would prompt the Maryland Transportation Authority Police (MTAP) to randomly select their vehicle?

Because the first question to Mr. Filippidis was about his gun ownership, and the police search for the gun was based on his gun ownership, the Florida CCW permit that Filippidis holds was identified as the most likely impetus for the stop, questioning and search.

. . .

Maryland State has invested heavily in Homeland Security technical capabilities, and they have structured their law enforcement community to engage in very specific activity surrounding their investment.

Maryland State has a network of technical security databases which access the databases of all other states who comply and coordinate with them.   For states who do not willfully comply, or those who are not set up to align technically, Maryland mines data from various LEO systems.

Maryland has a rather innocuous sounding name for the intelligence hub which contains this data, it’s called Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center. 

The intelligence analysis hub has access to, and contains, Florida’s CCW list (among other identification systems) and mines the state’s database systems for vehicle plate numbers of the holders.    These license plate numbers are then stored in a cross referencing database within the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center.

The database is directly connected to another Maryland technological system – Their ALPR (Automatic License Plate Reader) system is synergized with the MCAC Hub.

Every time one of the flagged license plates are detected by the ALPR an alert is generated.

Mr.  Filippidis license plate was picked up at the Fort McHenry Tunnel on I-95 as he noted within the article.    The Maryland Authority Police pursuit car was probably positioned a couple miles from the ALPR camera.

. . .

Once the pursuit car was alerted by the ALPR system the simple chase was on.  As the Tampa Tribune indicated in the article, the patrol car came abreast of Filippidi;  this was to allow the MTAP officer to visually confirm the driver ID from the high resolution photo from  Filippidis driver’s license which was automatically on the officers on board computer screen.

Mr. Filippidis was identified by the database, his license plate cross referenced to his Florida CCW permit, an alert transmitted to the patrolling Maryland officer, and the rest is outlined in the article.

There's more at the link.

Note that Mr. Filippidis was stopped without any probable cause whatsoever.  The fact that he holds a Florida CCW permit does not mean that he may or may not be carrying a gun at any particular time.  It's illegal in terms of the Fourth Amendment for an officer to assume that someone's acting illegally in the absence of any evidence to suggest that he is - but that's what the Maryland officer did.

Maryland has subsequently apologized for the incident, but to my mind that's not enough.  I can only suggest that legal, law-abiding firearms owners should consider Maryland 'enemy territory' from now on.  We can't assume our constitutional rights will be observed there - in fact, this incident demonstrates that they're more likely than not to be violated.  I've enjoyed previous visits to that state:  but from now on, Maryland can do without my tourist dollars, and I won't be buying from Maryland-based businesses if I have any choice in the matter.

The second article discusses the TSA's behavior monitoring program at US airports.

The Transportation Security Administration has about 3,000 officers trained to detect behavioral clues of "mal-intent." They eye travelers at checkpoints and throughout the airport for signs of above-normal stress, fear and deception, and sometimes engage in casual conversation to measure reactions. After the fatal shooting of a TSA officer in Los Angeles in November, the Behavior Detection Officers, or BDOs, have increased roaming in public areas of airports.

The Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress, concluded in a recent report there is no credible evidence that TSA's behavior-detection program, which costs about $200 million a year, is effective.

. . .

TSA Administrator John Pistole, a former FBI official, likens the BDOs in 176 U.S. airports to cops on a beat ... "A lot of it is common sense," Mr. Pistole said in an interview last month in Houston. Effectiveness can be seen in arrests, he said. "We've found hundreds of people who had false IDs, who had drugs or cash or warrants or were in this country illegally. They demonstrated suspicious behavior and any one of them could have been a terrorist."

. . .

The program, which started at airports in 2007, has been criticized for snaring people who pose no threat to aviation. Most arrests are for fake IDs and drug possession.

TSA has also faced complaints of racial profiling, or simply being too subjective with its referrals. Anecdotal evidence in the GAO report seemed to back this up. The GAO said 21 of the 25 BDOs it interviewed said some behavioral indicators are subjective. Five of the 25 said they believed some profiling was occurring.

Again, more at the link.

The obvious problem with Mr. Pistole's perspective is very simple.  The TSA is not a law enforcement agency.  Therefore, if its agents are not law enforcement officers, why are they behaving like them?  Why are they using police tactics and techniques which are not legitimate to their proper role and function?

That goes double for the arrests of which Mr. Pistole is so proud.  The TSA's statutory function is transportation security.  Why, therefore, is it referring people to law enforcement agencies for arrest over matters that are not threats to transportation security?

I'm beginning to think that, since our legislators have failed so miserably to rein in the apparatus of the Security State, the only recourse open to us as citizens will be to ostracize all those involved in its operation and administration.  We'll have to shun those who perpetrate such abuses, and all who support them.  Shut them out of everyday discourse.  Refuse to have any contact with them, except that which can't be helped, such as when traveling.  Treat them with the icy disdain they deserve - not to mention contempt, scorn and derision.

These bureaucratic goons aren't keeping us safe at all.  They're merely playing bit parts in security theater - and very badly, at that.  We should treat them as precisely that - bad actors, unworthy of respect.





Peter

Jan 22, 2014

Obamacare - the hidden details


Warren Meyer has done an excellent job of breaking down the raw data on Obamacare enrollments, to reveal that it's costing us - the taxpayers of America - a whole lot more than its proponents want us to know.

As you can see, of the nearly 3.7 million people who have selected a private plan or been put in Medicaid or CHIP, fully 88% are on the government dole (subsidized or full Medicare).

The interesting new data is on the plan selection breakdown between subsidized and un-subsidized.   This leads to an interesting finding that is a bit non-obvious from the report itself because the data is spread all over the report.  But lets look at conversion of applicants to plan selection based on whether folks are subsidized or subsidized.

For the 2,383,131 applicants who find they are no going to be subsidized, only 436,603 have selected a plan, for a 18% conversion rate

For the 2,756,667 applicants who find they will get supported by the taxpayer, 1,646,237 selected a plan, far a 60% conversion rate.

In essence, applicants are more than 3 times more likely to sign up if they are getting taxpayer money.  The exchanges are not selling health care, they are selling subsidies.  People sign up, check to see if they have money coming, and go away if they don't and stay if they do.

There's more at the link, including a diagram showing the progress of visitors to the Obamacare Web site as they move through the application process.  Bold underlined text above is my emphasis.

I understand it was intended for many more young and financially self-sufficient people to enroll in Obamacare, thereby subsidizing those who couldn't afford the premiums.  Gee, that's working well, isn't it?

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

Bureaucrats! GRRRR!


Utah Senator Mike Lee posted this picture on Facebook today, with the following caption:



Behold my display of the 2013 Federal Register. It contains over 80,000 pages of new rules, regulations, and notices all written and passed by unelected bureaucrats. The small stack of papers on top of the display are the laws passed by elected members of Congress and signed into law by the president.

Uh-huh.  Regulations enacted by often faceless and nameless bureaucrats, accountable in practice to nobody, binding on all of us.  Is it any wonder this country sinks deeper into the mire under such burdens with every passing day?





Peter

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 7, 2014

Beware the child charity scam


I note that the Telegraph in Australia has once again highlighted the ongoing scam whereby certain charities invite you to 'adopt' a child in a Third World country for a certain sum of money per month.  You're promised regular letters from 'your' child, reports on his or her progress, that sort of thing.  Unfortunately, many such charities are lying to you.

World Vision sends us a drawing from the boy every Christmas. Sadly, there is never any sign of improvement. In fact, lately he seems to be regressing.




He’s now 17 years old. The above image is his most recent illustration.

There's more at the link.  The article also links to another report from 2008, where a correspondent met the child he'd been sponsoring, only to find that most of the progress reported by the charity had not occurred at all.

Friends, if you want to donate to people and needs in the Third World, that's admirable, and as one who's lived there for many years, I thank you for your generosity.  However, please be very, very careful where you send your money.  The number of scam and rip-off charities out there is incalculable.

Two that I recommend unreservedly and without hesitation (because I've seen their work in the field, and worked with and alongside their people for many years) are Médecins Sans Frontières (a.k.a. Doctors Without Borders) and The Salvation Army.  With both organizations, you can be sure your money will be well used, and won't be wasted on excessive administrative overhead or inflated salaries for senior officials (the latter being one reason why I won't support the Red Cross at all).  Some object to the faith-based approach of The Salvation Army.  I don't think that takes anything away from their very good work, but YMMV - in which case, MSF (a secular, non-partisan organization) is an excellent alternative.

Peter

Dec 30, 2013

'Your money in pictures'


That's the Heritage Foundation's title for its top five financial charts/diagrams of 2013.  They're very informative, illustrating key facts about our economy and budget in concise, easy-to-understand formats;  and they're also very authoritative, using official figures and sources rather than guesswork or politically biased conjecture.

As one example, here's their chart headed 'Obamacare's Barrage of Tax Hikes'.  Looking to the future, it seems we ain't seen nothin' yet . . .




Bet you didn't know health care was going to cost all of us that much, over and above our individual premiums, did you?

There are more graphics at the link.  Recommended reading.

Peter

Dec 20, 2013

More on the Brazilian fighter contest


I said a couple of days ago that Brazil's selection of a Swedish fighter, instead of a US-made plane, was directly attributable to the NSA snooping scandal, and I expanded on that yesterday.  Now Reuters confirms the direct link between that scandal and Brazil's choice.

Rousseff had spent the first two years of her presidency edging closer to Washington, fending off pressure from leftist elements of her Workers' Party and scheduling a rare state visit to the White House for last October.

Snowden's documents, many of which were published by Brazil-based U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald, revealed that Washington had spied on Rousseff's personal communications, those of state-run oil company Petrobras - which Rousseff once chaired - and countless Brazilian citizens.

Rousseff could not understand why Washington would spy on an ally with no history of international terrorism, aides said. She reacted by canceling her White House trip, despite attempts by U.S. President Barack Obama to ease her concerns, including a one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of a G20 meeting in Russia.

This week, she made a decision she believed would hit the United States where it hurt most - its pocketbook.

Defense analysts struggled to recall a major contract decided on such grounds.

"The irony is that we expected politics to play a big role, but always on the selling side, not on the downside," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. "Then things went horribly wrong with this NSA story."

. . .

... a person who had been pushing for Boeing angrily questioned whether the intelligence obtained from Rousseff's communications justified possibly losing the deal. "Was that worth $4 billion?" the person asked rhetorically, speaking on condition of anonymity.

There's more at the link.

Congratulations, NSA.  Quite apart from your blatant wrongdoing, you've just cost the US economy $4.5 billion on this contract alone - not to mention the billions already lost in sales of US computer hardware and software.  If this goes on, you'll be directly and immediately responsible for losses in excess of a hundred billion dollars over the next year or two.  I hope you think it was worthwhile . . . and I hope Boeing sues you to recover what it can of the income it lost on this deal.





Peter

Dec 17, 2013

Quote of the day


In the light of my article about government spending yesterday, and all those I've done about the Fed and the economy in recent months, investor Marc Faber summed things up nicely this morning for CNBC.

"The Federal Reserve—all of them—could be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, and then pouring gasoline on top of it, and then light a cigar with matches, throw the match into the gasoline, and then not notice that there is any danger ... That is the state of mind of the professors at the Fed, who never worked a single [day] in business."

Word.





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 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

Doofus Of The Day #743


Today's award goes to the National Security Agency (NSA) for this lame-brained bit of doofidity.

Thanksgiving can be a touchy time for families with divergent politics. If not Obamacare, it's a good bet that somebody, somewhere was facing off with an aunt or uncle about the NSA.

Defenders of the spy agency might have found this set of talking points helpful. Distributed internally by the NSA the week before Thanksgiving ... the two-pager — a literal set of bullet points — armed employees with verbal ammunition that they were encouraged to share "with family and close friends."

As with previous sets of talking points prepared for top intelligence officials, this latest document isn't afraid to invoke 9/11. It also cites a common statistic about the effectiveness of NSA surveillance, claiming that it contributed to the disruption of 54 terrorist plots since 2001. Critics challenge this figure, saying that less than a handful of those cases can be realistically connected to the snooping.

There's more at the link.

So the NSA expected its employees, instead of giving thanks, to propagandize their families about an overreaching, out-of-control bureaucracy that's ridden roughshod over the provisions of the US constitution and all ethical and moral norms derived from it.

Uh-huh.

Thanksgiving is often referred to in the USA as 'Turkey Day'.  It's therefore perhaps appropriate that it should be misused in this way by what's become a 'Turkey Agency', according to the alternative meaning of the word 'Turkey' . . .  Remember, the NSA has consistently and persistently lied to the US Congress, its oversight authority;  so how can we know that they're not lying to us?  Answer - we can't.  As far as I'm concerned, if the NSA claims or states anything as fact, distrust it, and where possible verify it against multiple (more trustworthy) sources before accepting it.  If the NSA says that Monday is the day after Sunday, no matter how sure you may be that the agency is right, cross-check that against a calendar;  and if the calendar agrees with the NSA, cross-check the calendar!

Peter