Trump national security pick Monica Crowley plagiarized multiple sources in 2012 book
Conservative author and television personality Monica Crowley, whom Donald Trump has tapped for a top national security communications role, plagiarized large sections of her 2012 book, a CNN KFile review has found.
The review of Crowley’s June 2012 book, "What The (Bleep) Just Happened," found upwards of 50 examples of plagiarism from numerous sources, including the copying with minor changes of news articles, other columnists, think tanks, and Wikipedia. The New York Times bestseller, published by the HarperCollins imprint Broadside Books, contains no notes or bibliography.
Crowley did not return a request for comment. In an update on Tuesday, HarperCollins said it would stop selling the book. "The book, which has reached the end of its natural sales cycle, will no longer be offered for purchase until such time as the author has the opportunity to source and revise the material," according to the statement from HarperCollins.
Crowley, a syndicated radio host, columnist, and, until recently, a Fox News contributor, will serve as Trump’s senior director of strategic communications for the National Security Council.
Trump’s transition team is standing by Crowley.
"Monica’s exceptional insight and thoughtful work on how to turn this country around is exactly why she will be serving in the Administration," a statement from a transition spokesperson said. "HarperCollins—one of the largest and most respected publishers in the world—published her book which has become a national best-seller. Any attempt to discredit Monica is nothing more than a politically motivated attack that seeks to distract from the real issues facing this country."
In the book, Crowley lifted an entire section on Keynesian economics from the IAC-owned website Investopedia.
In one instance, Crowley lists a variety of so-called "pork" items she claimed were part of the 2009 stimulus package. Many of the instances were copied wholesale from a conservative list of pork barrel spending, with some items dating back to the 1990s. Most of the copied instances were listed on a website for a podiatrist dating back to 2004.
A section on organized labor appears largely copied from a 2004 article by the libertarian think tank the Mises Institute. Another portion of her book on torture is copied from a Fox News article.
Sections of her book are repeatedly lifted from articles by National Review author Andrew C. McCarthy, who is a friend of Crowley’s. Lines in her book also match word-for-word the work of other columnists, including National Review’s Rich Lowry, Michelle Malkin, conservative economist Stephen Moore, Karl Rove, and Ramesh Ponnuru of Bloomberg View.
Crowley also lifted word-for-word phrases from the Associated Press, the New York Times, Politico, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the BBC, and Yahoo News.
Crowley has been accused of plagiarism before. In 1999, Slate reported a column by Crowley in the Wall Street Journal mirrored a 1988 article in Commentary, the neoconservative magazine.
"Had we known of the parallels, we would not have published the article," a Journal editor’s note said at the time. Crowley denied the charge at the time, saying, "I did not, nor would I ever, use material from a source without citing it."
Crowley, page 166
Furthermore,
Reuters reported Soros’s
connection to Adbusters, the magazine that is
reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall
Street idea after the
Arab Spring" protests brought down
governments in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia.
Adbusters is funded by the Tides Center, which
collects and disseminates a huge number
of donations to a slew of Leftist groups.
Soros’s Open Society Foundations (formerly called
Open Society Institute) is a major
Tides Center donor, giving the group $3.5 million
between 2007 and 2009.
Reuters reported Soros’s
connection to Adbusters, the magazine that is
reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall
Street idea after the
Arab Spring" protests brought down
governments in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia.
Adbusters is funded by the Tides Center, which
collects and disseminates a huge number
of donations to a slew of Leftist groups.
Soros’s Open Society Foundations (formerly called
Open Society Institute) is a major
Tides Center donor, giving the group $3.5 million
between 2007 and 2009.
Yesterday, in an article entitled, Who’s behind
the Wall St. protests?"
Reuters reported on the billionaire’s
connection to Adbusters, the magazine that is
reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall
Street idea after
Arab Spring protests toppled
governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.
Adbusters is funded by the Tides Center, which
acts like a massive clearinghouse
of donations to a slew of liberal groups.
Critics have alleged the center acts to obscure
the ultimate sources of donations by collecting
large sums of money from a few large donors and
then funneling the money to thousands of liberal
causes. Soros’
Open Society Institute is a prominent
Tides Center donor, giving the group $3.5 million
between 2007 and 2009 alone.
the Wall St. protests?"
Reuters reported on the billionaire’s
connection to Adbusters, the magazine that is
reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall
Street idea after
Arab Spring protests toppled
governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.
Adbusters is funded by the Tides Center, which
acts like a massive clearinghouse
of donations to a slew of liberal groups.
Critics have alleged the center acts to obscure
the ultimate sources of donations by collecting
large sums of money from a few large donors and
then funneling the money to thousands of liberal
causes. Soros’
Open Society Institute is a prominent
Tides Center donor, giving the group $3.5 million
between 2007 and 2009 alone.
Furthermore,
Reuters reported
Soros’s
connection to
Adbusters, the
magazine that is
reported to have
come up with the
Occupy Wall Street
idea after the
Arab Spring"
protests brought
down
governments in
Egypt, Libya, and
Tunisia. Adbusters
is funded by the
Tides Center, which
collects and
disseminates a
huge number
of donations to a
slew of Leftist
groups. Soros’s
Open Society
Foundations
(formerly called
Open Society
Institute) is a
major
Tides Center donor,
giving the group
$3.5 million between
2007 and 2009.
Reuters reported
Soros’s
connection to
Adbusters, the
magazine that is
reported to have
come up with the
Occupy Wall Street
idea after the
Arab Spring"
protests brought
down
governments in
Egypt, Libya, and
Tunisia. Adbusters
is funded by the
Tides Center, which
collects and
disseminates a
huge number
of donations to a
slew of Leftist
groups. Soros’s
Open Society
Foundations
(formerly called
Open Society
Institute) is a
major
Tides Center donor,
giving the group
$3.5 million between
2007 and 2009.
Yesterday, in an
article entitled,
Who’s behind the
Wall St. protests?"
Reuters reported
on the billionaire’s
connection to
Adbusters, the
magazine that is
reported to have
come up with the
Occupy Wall Street
idea after
Arab Spring
protests toppled
governments in
Egypt, Libya and
Tunisia. Adbusters
is funded by the
Tides Center, which
acts like a
massive
clearinghouse
of donations to a
slew of liberal
groups. Critics
have alleged the
center acts to
obscure the ultimate
sources of donations
by collecting large
sums of money from a
few large donors and
then funneling the
money to thousands
of liberal causes.
Soros’
Open Society
Institute is a
prominent
Tides Center donor,
giving the group
$3.5 million between
2007 and 2009
alone.
article entitled,
Who’s behind the
Wall St. protests?"
Reuters reported
on the billionaire’s
connection to
Adbusters, the
magazine that is
reported to have
come up with the
Occupy Wall Street
idea after
Arab Spring
protests toppled
governments in
Egypt, Libya and
Tunisia. Adbusters
is funded by the
Tides Center, which
acts like a
massive
clearinghouse
of donations to a
slew of liberal
groups. Critics
have alleged the
center acts to
obscure the ultimate
sources of donations
by collecting large
sums of money from a
few large donors and
then funneling the
money to thousands
of liberal causes.
Soros’
Open Society
Institute is a
prominent
Tides Center donor,
giving the group
$3.5 million between
2007 and 2009
alone.
Crowley, page 232
She also said that she was only briefed
once—in September 2002—on
the advanced interrogation methods.
At the time, Pelosi was the House Minority Whip
and top Democrat on the House Intelligence
Committee. She said
that CIA briefers told her that the use of
enhanced interrogation techniques were legal" and
added that waterboarding was not being employed."
However,
CIA records show that during the September 2002
briefing, Pelosi and others were given a
description of the particular enhanced
interrogation techniques that had been employed"
on Zubaydah, who
was already being water-boarded.
CIA officials said they believed agency briefers
had indeed informed Pelosi that Zubaydah was
undergoing waterboarding, and other members of
Congress present at the 2002 briefing corroborated
the CIA’s version of events.
once—in September 2002—on
the advanced interrogation methods.
At the time, Pelosi was the House Minority Whip
and top Democrat on the House Intelligence
Committee. She said
that CIA briefers told her that the use of
enhanced interrogation techniques were legal" and
added that waterboarding was not being employed."
However,
CIA records show that during the September 2002
briefing, Pelosi and others were given a
description of the particular enhanced
interrogation techniques that had been employed"
on Zubaydah, who
was already being water-boarded.
CIA officials said they believed agency briefers
had indeed informed Pelosi that Zubaydah was
undergoing waterboarding, and other members of
Congress present at the 2002 briefing corroborated
the CIA’s version of events.
Last year, Pelosi said she was only briefed
once on the advanced interrogation methods,
in September 2002.
At the time, Pelosi was the House Minority Whip
and top Democrat on the House Intelligence
Committee. She said in May 2009
that CIA briefers told her that "the use of
enhanced interrogation techniques were legal," and
added that waterboarding "was not being employed."
CIA records show that during the September 2002
briefing, Pelosi and others were given "a
description of the particular enhanced
interrogation techniques that had been employed"
on Zubaydah. The U.S.
was already waterboarding Zubaydah by that
point.
CIA officials said they believed agency briefers
had indeed informed Pelosi that Zubaydah was
undergoing waterboarding sessions.
once on the advanced interrogation methods,
in September 2002.
At the time, Pelosi was the House Minority Whip
and top Democrat on the House Intelligence
Committee. She said in May 2009
that CIA briefers told her that "the use of
enhanced interrogation techniques were legal," and
added that waterboarding "was not being employed."
CIA records show that during the September 2002
briefing, Pelosi and others were given "a
description of the particular enhanced
interrogation techniques that had been employed"
on Zubaydah. The U.S.
was already waterboarding Zubaydah by that
point.
CIA officials said they believed agency briefers
had indeed informed Pelosi that Zubaydah was
undergoing waterboarding sessions.
She also
said that
she was only
briefed once—in
September 2002—on
the advanced
interrogation
methods.
At the time, Pelosi
was the House
Minority Whip and
top Democrat on the
House Intelligence
Committee. She said
that CIA briefers
told her that the
use of enhanced
interrogation
techniques were
legal" and added
that waterboarding
was not being
employed." However,
CIA records show
that during the
September 2002
briefing, Pelosi and
others were given a
description of the
particular enhanced
interrogation
techniques that had
been employed" on
Zubaydah, who
was already being
water-boarded.
CIA officials said
they believed agency
briefers had indeed
informed Pelosi that
Zubaydah was
undergoing
waterboarding, and
other members of
Congress present at
the 2002 briefing
corroborated the
CIA’s version of
events.
said that
she was only
briefed once—in
September 2002—on
the advanced
interrogation
methods.
At the time, Pelosi
was the House
Minority Whip and
top Democrat on the
House Intelligence
Committee. She said
that CIA briefers
told her that the
use of enhanced
interrogation
techniques were
legal" and added
that waterboarding
was not being
employed." However,
CIA records show
that during the
September 2002
briefing, Pelosi and
others were given a
description of the
particular enhanced
interrogation
techniques that had
been employed" on
Zubaydah, who
was already being
water-boarded.
CIA officials said
they believed agency
briefers had indeed
informed Pelosi that
Zubaydah was
undergoing
waterboarding, and
other members of
Congress present at
the 2002 briefing
corroborated the
CIA’s version of
events.
Last year, Pelosi
said
she was only
briefed once on
the advanced
interrogation
methods, in
September 2002.
At the time, Pelosi
was the House
Minority Whip and
top Democrat on the
House Intelligence
Committee. She said
in May 2009
that CIA briefers
told her that "the
use of enhanced
interrogation
techniques were
legal," and added
that waterboarding
"was not being
employed."
CIA records show
that during the
September 2002
briefing, Pelosi and
others were given "a
description of the
particular enhanced
interrogation
techniques that had
been employed" on
Zubaydah. The U.S.
was already
waterboarding
Zubaydah by that
point.
CIA officials said
they believed agency
briefers had indeed
informed Pelosi that
Zubaydah was
undergoing
waterboarding
sessions.
said
she was only
briefed once on
the advanced
interrogation
methods, in
September 2002.
At the time, Pelosi
was the House
Minority Whip and
top Democrat on the
House Intelligence
Committee. She said
in May 2009
that CIA briefers
told her that "the
use of enhanced
interrogation
techniques were
legal," and added
that waterboarding
"was not being
employed."
CIA records show
that during the
September 2002
briefing, Pelosi and
others were given "a
description of the
particular enhanced
interrogation
techniques that had
been employed" on
Zubaydah. The U.S.
was already
waterboarding
Zubaydah by that
point.
CIA officials said
they believed agency
briefers had indeed
informed Pelosi that
Zubaydah was
undergoing
waterboarding
sessions.
Crowley, page 82
A critical part of Keynesian theory is the
multiplier effect," first
introduced by British economist and Keynes
protégé
Richard Kahn in the 1930s. It essentially argued
that when the
government injected spending into the economy,
it created
cycles of spending that increased employment and
prosperity regardless of the form of the spending.
Here’s how the multiplier is supposed to work:
a $100 million government infrastructure
project might cost
$50 million in labor.
The workers then take that $50 million and, minus
the average saving rate, spend it on various
goods and services. Those
businesses then use that
money to hire more people to make more products,
leading to another round of spending. This idea
was central to
the New Deal and the growth of the Left’s
redistributionist state. The great free market
economist and Nobel Laureate in Economics
Milton
Friedman, among others, showed that the Keynesian
multiplier was both incorrectly formulated and
fundamentally flawed, in that it ignores
how governments finance spending—through either
taxation or debt.
Raising taxes takes the same or more out of the
economy than
saving; raising money
by bonds causes the government to go into debt.
Growing debt then incentivizes
the government to raise taxes or inflate the
currency to pay it off, which in turn decreases
the value
of each dollar that the workers are earning. The
Keynesians also ignore
the fact that saving and investing have a
multiplier effect at least equal to that of
deficit spending, without the drag of debt.
multiplier effect," first
introduced by British economist and Keynes
protégé
Richard Kahn in the 1930s. It essentially argued
that when the
government injected spending into the economy,
it created
cycles of spending that increased employment and
prosperity regardless of the form of the spending.
Here’s how the multiplier is supposed to work:
a $100 million government infrastructure
project might cost
$50 million in labor.
The workers then take that $50 million and, minus
the average saving rate, spend it on various
goods and services. Those
businesses then use that
money to hire more people to make more products,
leading to another round of spending. This idea
was central to
the New Deal and the growth of the Left’s
redistributionist state. The great free market
economist and Nobel Laureate in Economics
Milton
Friedman, among others, showed that the Keynesian
multiplier was both incorrectly formulated and
fundamentally flawed, in that it ignores
how governments finance spending—through either
taxation or debt.
Raising taxes takes the same or more out of the
economy than
saving; raising money
by bonds causes the government to go into debt.
Growing debt then incentivizes
the government to raise taxes or inflate the
currency to pay it off, which in turn decreases
the value
of each dollar that the workers are earning. The
Keynesians also ignore
the fact that saving and investing have a
multiplier effect at least equal to that of
deficit spending, without the drag of debt.
The Keynesian multiplier was
introduced by
Richard Kahn in the 1930s. It showed that any
government spending brought about
cycles of spending that increased employment and
prosperity regardless of the form of the spending.
For example,
a $100 million government project, whether to
build a dam or dig and refill a giant hole, might
pay
$50 million in pure labor costs.
The workers then take that $50 million and, minus
the average saving rate, spend it at various
businesses. These businesses now have more
money to hire more people to make more products,
leading to another round of spending. This idea
was at the core of
the New Deal and the growth of the welfare
state. Taken further, if people didn't save
anything, the economy would be an unstoppable
engine running at full employment. Keynesians
wanted to counteract saving by taxing savings to
force people to spend more. The Keynesian model
arbitrarily separated private savings and
investment into two separate functions, showing
the savings as a drain on the economy and thus
making private investment look inferior to deficit
spending. Unless someone holds his or her savings
entirely in cash – and true hoarding like this
is rare - it's invested either by the individual
or by the bank holding the capital.
Friedman, among others, showed that the Keynesian
multiplier was both incorrectly formulated and
fundamentally flawed. (For more, read Free Market
Maven: Milton Friedman.) One flaw is ignoring
how governments finance spending:
taxation or debt issues.
Raising taxes takes the same or more out of the
economy as
saving; raising funds
by bonds causes the government to go in debt.
The growth of debt becomes a powerful incentive
for
the government to raise taxes or inflate the
currency to pay it off, thus lowering the
purchasing power
of each dollar that the workers are earning.
Perhaps the biggest flaw is ignoring
the fact that saving and investing have a
multiplier effect at least equal to that of
deficit spending, without the debt downside. In
the end, it comes down to whether you trust
private individuals to spend their own money
wisely or whether you think government officials
will do a better job.
introduced by
Richard Kahn in the 1930s. It showed that any
government spending brought about
cycles of spending that increased employment and
prosperity regardless of the form of the spending.
For example,
a $100 million government project, whether to
build a dam or dig and refill a giant hole, might
pay
$50 million in pure labor costs.
The workers then take that $50 million and, minus
the average saving rate, spend it at various
businesses. These businesses now have more
money to hire more people to make more products,
leading to another round of spending. This idea
was at the core of
the New Deal and the growth of the welfare
state. Taken further, if people didn't save
anything, the economy would be an unstoppable
engine running at full employment. Keynesians
wanted to counteract saving by taxing savings to
force people to spend more. The Keynesian model
arbitrarily separated private savings and
investment into two separate functions, showing
the savings as a drain on the economy and thus
making private investment look inferior to deficit
spending. Unless someone holds his or her savings
entirely in cash – and true hoarding like this
is rare - it's invested either by the individual
or by the bank holding the capital.
Friedman, among others, showed that the Keynesian
multiplier was both incorrectly formulated and
fundamentally flawed. (For more, read Free Market
Maven: Milton Friedman.) One flaw is ignoring
how governments finance spending:
taxation or debt issues.
Raising taxes takes the same or more out of the
economy as
saving; raising funds
by bonds causes the government to go in debt.
The growth of debt becomes a powerful incentive
for
the government to raise taxes or inflate the
currency to pay it off, thus lowering the
purchasing power
of each dollar that the workers are earning.
Perhaps the biggest flaw is ignoring
the fact that saving and investing have a
multiplier effect at least equal to that of
deficit spending, without the debt downside. In
the end, it comes down to whether you trust
private individuals to spend their own money
wisely or whether you think government officials
will do a better job.
A critical part of
Keynesian theory is
the
multiplier
effect," first
introduced by
British economist
and Keynes protégé
Richard Kahn in the
1930s. It
essentially argued
that when the
government
injected spending
into the economy, it
created
cycles of spending
that increased
employment and
prosperity
regardless of the
form of the
spending. Here’s
how the multiplier
is supposed to work:
a $100 million
government
infrastructure
project might cost
$50 million in
labor.
The workers then
take that $50
million and, minus
the average saving
rate, spend it on
various goods and
services. Those
businesses then
use that
money to hire more
people to make more
products, leading to
another round of
spending. This idea
was central to
the New Deal and
the growth of the
Left’s
redistributionist
state. The great
free market
economist and
Nobel Laureate in
Economics Milton
Friedman, among
others, showed that
the Keynesian
multiplier was both
incorrectly
formulated and
fundamentally
flawed, in that it
ignores
how governments
finance spending—through
either
taxation or debt.
Raising taxes takes
the same or more out
of the economy than
saving; raising
money
by bonds causes the
government to go
into debt. Growing
debt then
incentivizes
the government to
raise taxes or
inflate the currency
to pay it off,
which in turn
decreases the
value
of each dollar that
the workers are
earning. The
Keynesians also
ignore
the fact that
saving and investing
have a multiplier
effect at least
equal to that of
deficit spending,
without the drag of
debt.
Keynesian theory is
the
multiplier
effect," first
introduced by
British economist
and Keynes protégé
Richard Kahn in the
1930s. It
essentially argued
that when the
government
injected spending
into the economy, it
created
cycles of spending
that increased
employment and
prosperity
regardless of the
form of the
spending. Here’s
how the multiplier
is supposed to work:
a $100 million
government
infrastructure
project might cost
$50 million in
labor.
The workers then
take that $50
million and, minus
the average saving
rate, spend it on
various goods and
services. Those
businesses then
use that
money to hire more
people to make more
products, leading to
another round of
spending. This idea
was central to
the New Deal and
the growth of the
Left’s
redistributionist
state. The great
free market
economist and
Nobel Laureate in
Economics Milton
Friedman, among
others, showed that
the Keynesian
multiplier was both
incorrectly
formulated and
fundamentally
flawed, in that it
ignores
how governments
finance spending—through
either
taxation or debt.
Raising taxes takes
the same or more out
of the economy than
saving; raising
money
by bonds causes the
government to go
into debt. Growing
debt then
incentivizes
the government to
raise taxes or
inflate the currency
to pay it off,
which in turn
decreases the
value
of each dollar that
the workers are
earning. The
Keynesians also
ignore
the fact that
saving and investing
have a multiplier
effect at least
equal to that of
deficit spending,
without the drag of
debt.
The
Keynesian
multiplier was
introduced by
Richard Kahn in the
1930s. It showed
that any
government
spending brought
about
cycles of spending
that increased
employment and
prosperity
regardless of the
form of the
spending. For
example,
a $100 million
government project,
whether to build a
dam or dig and
refill a giant hole,
might pay
$50 million in
pure labor costs.
The workers then
take that $50
million and, minus
the average saving
rate, spend it at
various
businesses. These
businesses now have
more
money to hire more
people to make more
products, leading to
another round of
spending. This idea
was at the core of
the New Deal and
the growth of the
welfare state.
Taken further, if
people didn't save
anything, the
economy would be an
unstoppable engine
running at full
employment.
Keynesians wanted to
counteract saving by
taxing savings to
force people to
spend more. The
Keynesian model
arbitrarily
separated private
savings and
investment into two
separate functions,
showing the savings
as a drain on the
economy and thus
making private
investment look
inferior to deficit
spending. Unless
someone holds his or
her savings entirely
in cash – and true
hoarding like this
is rare - it's
invested either by
the individual or by
the bank holding the
capital.
Friedman, among
others, showed that
the Keynesian
multiplier was both
incorrectly
formulated and
fundamentally
flawed. (For more,
read Free Market
Maven: Milton
Friedman.) One flaw
is ignoring
how governments
finance spending:
taxation or debt
issues.
Raising taxes takes
the same or more out
of the economy as
saving; raising
funds
by bonds causes the
government to go in
debt. The growth
of debt becomes a
powerful incentive
for
the government to
raise taxes or
inflate the currency
to pay it off, thus
lowering the
purchasing power
of each dollar that
the workers are
earning. Perhaps
the biggest flaw is
ignoring
the fact that
saving and investing
have a multiplier
effect at least
equal to that of
deficit spending,
without the debt
downside. In the
end, it comes down
to whether you trust
private individuals
to spend their own
money wisely or
whether you think
government officials
will do a better
job.
Keynesian
multiplier was
introduced by
Richard Kahn in the
1930s. It showed
that any
government
spending brought
about
cycles of spending
that increased
employment and
prosperity
regardless of the
form of the
spending. For
example,
a $100 million
government project,
whether to build a
dam or dig and
refill a giant hole,
might pay
$50 million in
pure labor costs.
The workers then
take that $50
million and, minus
the average saving
rate, spend it at
various
businesses. These
businesses now have
more
money to hire more
people to make more
products, leading to
another round of
spending. This idea
was at the core of
the New Deal and
the growth of the
welfare state.
Taken further, if
people didn't save
anything, the
economy would be an
unstoppable engine
running at full
employment.
Keynesians wanted to
counteract saving by
taxing savings to
force people to
spend more. The
Keynesian model
arbitrarily
separated private
savings and
investment into two
separate functions,
showing the savings
as a drain on the
economy and thus
making private
investment look
inferior to deficit
spending. Unless
someone holds his or
her savings entirely
in cash – and true
hoarding like this
is rare - it's
invested either by
the individual or by
the bank holding the
capital.
Friedman, among
others, showed that
the Keynesian
multiplier was both
incorrectly
formulated and
fundamentally
flawed. (For more,
read Free Market
Maven: Milton
Friedman.) One flaw
is ignoring
how governments
finance spending:
taxation or debt
issues.
Raising taxes takes
the same or more out
of the economy as
saving; raising
funds
by bonds causes the
government to go in
debt. The growth
of debt becomes a
powerful incentive
for
the government to
raise taxes or
inflate the currency
to pay it off, thus
lowering the
purchasing power
of each dollar that
the workers are
earning. Perhaps
the biggest flaw is
ignoring
the fact that
saving and investing
have a multiplier
effect at least
equal to that of
deficit spending,
without the debt
downside. In the
end, it comes down
to whether you trust
private individuals
to spend their own
money wisely or
whether you think
government officials
will do a better
job.
Crowley, page 100-101
Meanwhile, GM’s bondholders got screwed.
GM had
$27.2 billion in unsecured bonds owned by the
public. These were
owned by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge
funds, and retail investors who bought them
directly through their brokers. Under the
restructuring deal, they were forced to
exchange their $27.2 billion in bonds for 10
percent
of the stock of the new GM. This amounted
to less than five cents on the dollar. If you
were one of the bondholders, too bad for you. Your
wealth just got redistributed to the unions.
GM had
$27.2 billion in unsecured bonds owned by the
public. These were
owned by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge
funds, and retail investors who bought them
directly through their brokers. Under the
restructuring deal, they were forced to
exchange their $27.2 billion in bonds for 10
percent
of the stock of the new GM. This amounted
to less than five cents on the dollar. If you
were one of the bondholders, too bad for you. Your
wealth just got redistributed to the unions.
The biggest losers here are GM's bondholders.
According the Treasury-GM debt-for-equity swap
announced Monday, GM has
$27.2 billion in unsecured bonds owned by the
public. These are
owned by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds
and retail investors who bought them directly
through their brokers. Under Monday's offer,
they would
exchange their $27.2 billion in bonds for 10%
of the stock of the restructured GM. This
could amount
to less than five cents on the dollar.
According the Treasury-GM debt-for-equity swap
announced Monday, GM has
$27.2 billion in unsecured bonds owned by the
public. These are
owned by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds
and retail investors who bought them directly
through their brokers. Under Monday's offer,
they would
exchange their $27.2 billion in bonds for 10%
of the stock of the restructured GM. This
could amount
to less than five cents on the dollar.
Meanwhile,
GM’s bondholders
got screwed.
GM had
$27.2 billion in
unsecured bonds
owned by the public.
These were
owned by mutual
funds, pension
funds, hedge funds,
and retail investors
who bought them
directly through
their brokers. Under
the restructuring
deal, they were
forced to
exchange their
$27.2 billion in
bonds for 10
percent
of the stock of the
new GM. This
amounted
to less than five
cents on the dollar.
If you were one of
the bondholders, too
bad for you. Your
wealth just got
redistributed to the
unions.
GM’s bondholders
got screwed.
GM had
$27.2 billion in
unsecured bonds
owned by the public.
These were
owned by mutual
funds, pension
funds, hedge funds,
and retail investors
who bought them
directly through
their brokers. Under
the restructuring
deal, they were
forced to
exchange their
$27.2 billion in
bonds for 10
percent
of the stock of the
new GM. This
amounted
to less than five
cents on the dollar.
If you were one of
the bondholders, too
bad for you. Your
wealth just got
redistributed to the
unions.
The biggest losers
here are
GM's bondholders.
According the
Treasury-GM
debt-for-equity swap
announced Monday,
GM has
$27.2 billion in
unsecured bonds
owned by the public.
These are
owned by mutual
funds, pension
funds, hedge funds
and retail investors
who bought them
directly through
their brokers. Under
Monday's offer,
they would
exchange their
$27.2 billion in
bonds for 10%
of the stock of the
restructured GM.
This could amount
to less than five
cents on the dollar.
here are
GM's bondholders.
According the
Treasury-GM
debt-for-equity swap
announced Monday,
GM has
$27.2 billion in
unsecured bonds
owned by the public.
These are
owned by mutual
funds, pension
funds, hedge funds
and retail investors
who bought them
directly through
their brokers. Under
Monday's offer,
they would
exchange their
$27.2 billion in
bonds for 10%
of the stock of the
restructured GM.
This could amount
to less than five
cents on the dollar.
Crowley, page 162
As the late great economist Milton Friedman
pointed out,
the true burden on taxpayers
is government spending because
government borrowing demands
future interest payments out of future taxes.
pointed out,
the true burden on taxpayers
is government spending because
government borrowing demands
future interest payments out of future taxes.
As Milton Friedman taught decades ago,
the true burden on taxpayers today
is government spending;
government borrowing requires
future interest payments out of future taxes.
the true burden on taxpayers today
is government spending;
government borrowing requires
future interest payments out of future taxes.
As the late great
economist
Milton Friedman
pointed out,
the true burden on
taxpayers
is government
spending because
government
borrowing demands
future interest
payments out of
future taxes.
economist
Milton Friedman
pointed out,
the true burden on
taxpayers
is government
spending because
government
borrowing demands
future interest
payments out of
future taxes.
As
Milton Friedman
taught decades ago,
the true burden on
taxpayers today
is government
spending;
government
borrowing requires
future interest
payments out of
future taxes.
Milton Friedman
taught decades ago,
the true burden on
taxpayers today
is government
spending;
government
borrowing requires
future interest
payments out of
future taxes.
Crowley, page 82
The FDR Keynesians’ defiance of the basic rules
of economics led to such absurdities
as the New Deal decision to pay farmers to burn
their
crops and slaughter their
livestock to maintain high
food prices.
of economics led to such absurdities
as the New Deal decision to pay farmers to burn
their
crops and slaughter their
livestock to maintain high
food prices.
Over the years, this has led to some horrific
blunders, such
as the New Deal decision to pay farmers to burn
crops and slaughter
livestock to keep
food prices high: To encourage food production,
destroy it.
blunders, such
as the New Deal decision to pay farmers to burn
crops and slaughter
livestock to keep
food prices high: To encourage food production,
destroy it.
Crowley, page 87
In December 2010, a printing press problem
forced
the federal government to shut down the
production of the
new $100 bills and quarantine more than one
billion of them—more
than 10 percent of all existing cash—in
a vault in Fort Worth, Texas.
forced
the federal government to shut down the
production of the
new $100 bills and quarantine more than one
billion of them—more
than 10 percent of all existing cash—in
a vault in Fort Worth, Texas.
Because of a problem with the presses,
the federal government has shut down
production of its flashy
new $100 bills, and has quarantined more than
1
billion of them -- more
than 10 percent of all existing U.S. cash -- in
a vault in Fort Worth, Texas, reports CNBC.
the federal government has shut down
production of its flashy
new $100 bills, and has quarantined more than
1
billion of them -- more
than 10 percent of all existing U.S. cash -- in
a vault in Fort Worth, Texas, reports CNBC.
Crowley, page 88-89
Since the beginning of Johnson’s Great Society
War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9
trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on
these social welfare programs. By
comparison, the cost of all military
wars in U.S. history comes in at
$6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008
dollars).
War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9
trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on
these social welfare programs. By
comparison, the cost of all military
wars in U.S. history comes in at
$6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008
dollars).
Since the beginning of the War on Poverty,
government has spent $15.9 trillion (in
inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested
welfare. In
comparison, the cost of all other
wars in U.S. history was
$6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008
dollars).
government has spent $15.9 trillion (in
inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested
welfare. In
comparison, the cost of all other
wars in U.S. history was
$6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008
dollars).
Crowley, page 91
We were also
promised $1.50 or even up to $3.00
of economic benefit from every $1.00
the government spent. This was supposed to be
the “Keynesian multiplier” in full bloom. Never
mind
that for the government to spend $1.00, it
needs to take that dollar out of
the private economy that is
supposed to create jobs. Furthermore, the
leftists hamstrung the states by attaching all
kinds of strings to the “stimulus” money,
including what they could spend it on, what they
were prohibited from cutting, and a requirement
to keep “stimulus” projects going once the
“stimulus” money ran out, which most
cash-strapped states could not do.
promised $1.50 or even up to $3.00
of economic benefit from every $1.00
the government spent. This was supposed to be
the “Keynesian multiplier” in full bloom. Never
mind
that for the government to spend $1.00, it
needs to take that dollar out of
the private economy that is
supposed to create jobs. Furthermore, the
leftists hamstrung the states by attaching all
kinds of strings to the “stimulus” money,
including what they could spend it on, what they
were prohibited from cutting, and a requirement
to keep “stimulus” projects going once the
“stimulus” money ran out, which most
cash-strapped states could not do.
Or consider the biggest whopper: Mr. Obama's
thoroughly discredited $830 billion stimulus bill.
We were
promised $1.50 or even up to $3
of economic benefit —the mythical
"multiplier"—from every dollar
the government spent. There was never any
acknowledgment
that for the government to spend a dollar, it
has to take it from
the private economy that is then
supposed to create jobs. The multiplier theory
only works if you believe there's a fairy
passing out free dollars.
thoroughly discredited $830 billion stimulus bill.
We were
promised $1.50 or even up to $3
of economic benefit —the mythical
"multiplier"—from every dollar
the government spent. There was never any
acknowledgment
that for the government to spend a dollar, it
has to take it from
the private economy that is then
supposed to create jobs. The multiplier theory
only works if you believe there's a fairy
passing out free dollars.
Crowley, page 92
According to the Wall Street Journal, that’s
quadruple the cost of creating a job in a
nonsubsidized private farm.
quadruple the cost of creating a job in a
nonsubsidized private farm.
According to the Wall Street Journal, that’s
quadruple the cost of creating a job in a
nonsubsidized private firm.
quadruple the cost of creating a job in a
nonsubsidized private firm.
Crowley, page 120
The resulting debt-ceiling agreement was yet
another budgetary hot mess. In exchange for the
largest debt increase in history—$2.5
trillion—Congress
agreed to cut spending by a measly
$6.67 billion in 2012. Since the government
spends
$3 million per minute, it
blew through that amount of “savings” in the
first thirty-seven
hours of the new borrowing authority.
another budgetary hot mess. In exchange for the
largest debt increase in history—$2.5
trillion—Congress
agreed to cut spending by a measly
$6.67 billion in 2012. Since the government
spends
$3 million per minute, it
blew through that amount of “savings” in the
first thirty-seven
hours of the new borrowing authority.
As part of the deal to increase the debt
ceiling by $2.5 trillion, Congress
agreed to cut spending by
$6.67 billion next year. Well, at a clip of
$3 million per minute, we
blew through that amount of savings in the first
37
hours of the new borrowing regime!
ceiling by $2.5 trillion, Congress
agreed to cut spending by
$6.67 billion next year. Well, at a clip of
$3 million per minute, we
blew through that amount of savings in the first
37
hours of the new borrowing regime!
Crowley, page 94
Surely all of those hundreds of billions fof
dollars created countless “clean energy jobs,”
right?
The Energy Department loan guarantee program from
which Solyndra and other bankrupt or shaky
companies benefited
created ONE new permanent job for every $5.5
million spent. If a private company had been
loaned $535 million, it would have created
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of jobs.
dollars created countless “clean energy jobs,”
right?
The Energy Department loan guarantee program from
which Solyndra and other bankrupt or shaky
companies benefited
created ONE new permanent job for every $5.5
million spent. If a private company had been
loaned $535 million, it would have created
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of jobs.
To date, The Washington Post reports,
the Energy Department loan guarantee program from
which Solyndra benefitted has
created one new permanent job for every $5.5
million spent. Lend that kind of money to a
private business in an industry that doesn’t rely
on taxpayer support, and it will put hundreds
if not thousands to work.
the Energy Department loan guarantee program from
which Solyndra benefitted has
created one new permanent job for every $5.5
million spent. Lend that kind of money to a
private business in an industry that doesn’t rely
on taxpayer support, and it will put hundreds
if not thousands to work.
Crowley, page 94
According to the Government Accountability
Office,
at least 3,700 government contractors and
nonprofit organizations that got
more than $24 billion from the “stimulus”
owed $757 million in back taxes as of September
30, 2009
Office,
at least 3,700 government contractors and
nonprofit organizations that got
more than $24 billion from the “stimulus”
owed $757 million in back taxes as of September
30, 2009
The General Accounting Office report is to be
released Tuesday. It says
at least 3,700 government contractors and
nonprofit organizations that received
more than $24 billion from the stimulus effort
owed $757 million in back taxes as of September
30, 2009
released Tuesday. It says
at least 3,700 government contractors and
nonprofit organizations that received
more than $24 billion from the stimulus effort
owed $757 million in back taxes as of September
30, 2009
Crowley, page 94
An engineering firm that received $100,000 in a
“stimulus” contract
owed $6 million in taxes. The Internal Revenue
Service
called it “an extreme case of noncompliance.”
I’ll say.
A social services nonprofit that got
more than $1 million in “stimulus” funds owed
taxes of $2 million. And a security firm that
owed $9 million got more than $100,000 in funds
“stimulus” contract
owed $6 million in taxes. The Internal Revenue
Service
called it “an extreme case of noncompliance.”
I’ll say.
A social services nonprofit that got
more than $1 million in “stimulus” funds owed
taxes of $2 million. And a security firm that
owed $9 million got more than $100,000 in funds
Among the examples was an engineering firm that
received a $100,000 stimulus act contract
but
owed $6 million in taxes. The IRS
called it “an extreme case of noncompliance.”
A social services nonprofit that received
more than $1 million in stimulus funds owed taxes
of $2 million.
received a $100,000 stimulus act contract
but
owed $6 million in taxes. The IRS
called it “an extreme case of noncompliance.”
A social services nonprofit that received
more than $1 million in stimulus funds owed taxes
of $2 million.
Crowley, page 100
An estimated $80 billion in taxpayer dollars were
poured into GM and Chrysler. In the bailouts, GM
gave
the United Auto Workers (UAW)
union 17.5 percent of its common stock, $6.5
billion of preferred shares, and a $2.5 billion
note to fund a trust that will take over retiree
health care costs
poured into GM and Chrysler. In the bailouts, GM
gave
the United Auto Workers (UAW)
union 17.5 percent of its common stock, $6.5
billion of preferred shares, and a $2.5 billion
note to fund a trust that will take over retiree
health care costs
General Motors Corp. will give
the United Auto Workers
union 17.5 percent of its common stock, $6.5
billion of preferred shares and a $2.5 billion
note to fund a trust that will take over retiree
health care costs starting next year.
the United Auto Workers
union 17.5 percent of its common stock, $6.5
billion of preferred shares and a $2.5 billion
note to fund a trust that will take over retiree
health care costs starting next year.
Crowley, page 110
Today, our national debt is hurtling through time
and space toward $17
trillion, or 17,000
billions. One trillion seconds ago, much of North
America was still deeply buried in the Ice Age.
Today Sagan’s phrase—“billions and
billions”—sounds positively quaint.
and space toward $17
trillion, or 17,000
billions. One trillion seconds ago, much of North
America was still deeply buried in the Ice Age.
Today Sagan’s phrase—“billions and
billions”—sounds positively quaint.
Now, how to portray a
trillion, or 1,000
billions. One trillion seconds ago much of North
America was still covered by ice sheets
hundreds of feet thick. And the land was dotted
by only a few dozen Starbuck's.
trillion, or 1,000
billions. One trillion seconds ago much of North
America was still covered by ice sheets
hundreds of feet thick. And the land was dotted
by only a few dozen Starbuck's.
Crowley, page 117
In 2007 and 2008, when the Senate voted to hike
the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion,
respectively, Obama didn’t even
bother to vote. Of course, he voted in a flash
for TARP, which added $700 billion to the debt.
the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion,
respectively, Obama didn’t even
bother to vote. Of course, he voted in a flash
for TARP, which added $700 billion to the debt.
In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to
increase
the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion
respectively, Obama did not
bother to vote. (He did vote
for TARP, which increased the debt limit by
$700 billion.)
increase
the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion
respectively, Obama did not
bother to vote. (He did vote
for TARP, which increased the debt limit by
$700 billion.)
Crowley, page 120
The debt deal put
us on a trajectory to incur $7.8 trillion in
more debt over ten years, even given
the unrealistic
projections of economic growth and revenue.
Despite pretentious claims that we were entering
a new era of austerity,
the debt deal has charted
us on a trajectory to incur $7.8 trillion more
in debt, even considering
the unrealistic baseline
projections of economic growth and revenue.
a new era of austerity,
the debt deal has charted
us on a trajectory to incur $7.8 trillion more
in debt, even considering
the unrealistic baseline
projections of economic growth and revenue.
Crowley, page 121-122
This is how fundamentally unserious Obama was
about pursuing real debt reduction:
six months before the downgrade, he
offered a budget that increased spending and the
debt so preposterously that
after ten years, annual deficits
would have still been running over
$1 trillion.
Four months before the downgrade, he
delivered a
budget speech full of absurd gimmicks and
degrading insults to House Budget chairman Paul
Ryan’s budget plan, which had courageously offered
a meaningful proposal to reduce spending and
bring down the debt. In April 2011,
White House press secretary Jay Carney announced
that Obama wanted a clean
debt-ceiling increase with no spending
restraints at all.
about pursuing real debt reduction:
six months before the downgrade, he
offered a budget that increased spending and the
debt so preposterously that
after ten years, annual deficits
would have still been running over
$1 trillion.
Four months before the downgrade, he
delivered a
budget speech full of absurd gimmicks and
degrading insults to House Budget chairman Paul
Ryan’s budget plan, which had courageously offered
a meaningful proposal to reduce spending and
bring down the debt. In April 2011,
White House press secretary Jay Carney announced
that Obama wanted a clean
debt-ceiling increase with no spending
restraints at all.
In February,
six months before the downgrade, Obama
offered a budget that increased spending and the
debt.
After ten years, the deficit still
would have been more than
$1 trillion. In April,
four months before the downgrade, Obama
delivered a gimmicky
budget speech with no specifics. On April 11,
just seven days before S&P assigned a negative
outlook to our AAA rating,
White House press secretary Jay Carney said the
president wanted a
debt-ceiling increase with no deficit reduction
whatsoever.
six months before the downgrade, Obama
offered a budget that increased spending and the
debt.
After ten years, the deficit still
would have been more than
$1 trillion. In April,
four months before the downgrade, Obama
delivered a gimmicky
budget speech with no specifics. On April 11,
just seven days before S&P assigned a negative
outlook to our AAA rating,
White House press secretary Jay Carney said the
president wanted a
debt-ceiling increase with no deficit reduction
whatsoever.
Crowley, page 122
The president’s open hostility to a mature
debt-reduction
plan while offering no mature
plan of his own was the final straw for
Standard & Poor’s.
debt-reduction
plan while offering no mature
plan of his own was the final straw for
Standard & Poor’s.
The President’s open hostility to an adult
plan while offering no substantive
plan of his own was the straw that broke the
camel’s back. And because Mr. Obama still cannot
deal with the issue as an adult, we will keep
heading down this treacherous road.
plan while offering no substantive
plan of his own was the straw that broke the
camel’s back. And because Mr. Obama still cannot
deal with the issue as an adult, we will keep
heading down this treacherous road.
Crowley, page 122-123
The problem with the downgrade, however, wasn’t
the messenger but
the message:
it’s the spending, stupid!
Unsustainable entitlement programs have grown
over many decades and across many
presidents and Congresses
the messenger but
the message:
it’s the spending, stupid!
Unsustainable entitlement programs have grown
over many decades and across many
presidents and Congresses
We cannot waste time shooting the messenger
when
the message itself is impossible to ignore:
It’s the spending.
Unsustainable entitlement programs have been
built up over many Congresses and
Presidents.
when
the message itself is impossible to ignore:
It’s the spending.
Unsustainable entitlement programs have been
built up over many Congresses and
Presidents.
Crowley, page 130-131
At that point, they became like the woman in a
famous
story about Winston Churchill. At a dinner party
one night, a drunk Churchill asked an attractive
lady
whether she would sleep with him for a million
pounds. “Maybe,” she
said coyly. Churchill then said,
“Would you sleep with me for one pound?”
“Of course not!” the woman replied indignantly.
“What kind of woman do you think I am?”
“Madam, we’ve already established what kind of
woman you are,” said Churchill. “Now we’re just
negotiating the price.”
famous
story about Winston Churchill. At a dinner party
one night, a drunk Churchill asked an attractive
lady
whether she would sleep with him for a million
pounds. “Maybe,” she
said coyly. Churchill then said,
“Would you sleep with me for one pound?”
“Of course not!” the woman replied indignantly.
“What kind of woman do you think I am?”
“Madam, we’ve already established what kind of
woman you are,” said Churchill. “Now we’re just
negotiating the price.”
There is a great
story about Winston Churchill. At a dinner party
one night, a drunk Churchill asked an attractive
woman
whether she would sleep with him for a million
pounds. “Maybe,” the woman
said coyly.
“Would you sleep with me for one pound?”
Churchill then asked.
“Of course not,
what kind of woman do you think I am?” the woman
responded indignantly.
“Madam, we’ve already established what kind of
woman you are,” said Churchill, “now we’re just
negotiating the price.”
story about Winston Churchill. At a dinner party
one night, a drunk Churchill asked an attractive
woman
whether she would sleep with him for a million
pounds. “Maybe,” the woman
said coyly.
“Would you sleep with me for one pound?”
Churchill then asked.
“Of course not,
what kind of woman do you think I am?” the woman
responded indignantly.
“Madam, we’ve already established what kind of
woman you are,” said Churchill, “now we’re just
negotiating the price.”
Crowley, page 139
Rationing has already kicked in as well,
including: new Food and Drug Administration
recommendations limiting the use of the
expensive late-stage breast cancer drug Avastin;
new government recommendations through the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force that women get Pap
tests every three years instead of every year and
healthy men forgo routine prostate exams; the
reduction in Medicare
payments to hospitals where
too many patients are readmitted after treatment
for heart attacks, heart failure, or pneumonia;
and states sharply limiting hospital stays under
Medicaid
including: new Food and Drug Administration
recommendations limiting the use of the
expensive late-stage breast cancer drug Avastin;
new government recommendations through the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force that women get Pap
tests every three years instead of every year and
healthy men forgo routine prostate exams; the
reduction in Medicare
payments to hospitals where
too many patients are readmitted after treatment
for heart attacks, heart failure, or pneumonia;
and states sharply limiting hospital stays under
Medicaid
Under the new health law, Medicare will
reduce
payments to hospitals if
too many patients are readmitted after treatment
for heart attacks, heart failure or pneumonia. In
addition, Medicare will cut payments to hospitals
if they do not replace paper files with electronic
health records, and it will further reduce
payments to hospitals with high rates of
preventable errors, injuries and infections.
reduce
payments to hospitals if
too many patients are readmitted after treatment
for heart attacks, heart failure or pneumonia. In
addition, Medicare will cut payments to hospitals
if they do not replace paper files with electronic
health records, and it will further reduce
payments to hospitals with high rates of
preventable errors, injuries and infections.
Crowley, page 142
They claim that the Health and Human Services
secretary is authorized to issue temporary
waivers to companies or insurers, freeing them
from rules mandating
minimum standards of health coverage. Other
waivers, which Team Obama euphemistically
calls “adjustments,” let states ask the HHS
secretary to free up
requirements that insurers
spend a certain percentage of premiums on medical
care. And
a third waiver,
available in 2017,
will allow states to effect
their own health reforms, but only if they are
consistent with Obama-Care’s regulations and
objectives. Within moments of the bill’s
passage, unions and companies began lining up to
take advantage of the waiver “outs.”
secretary is authorized to issue temporary
waivers to companies or insurers, freeing them
from rules mandating
minimum standards of health coverage. Other
waivers, which Team Obama euphemistically
calls “adjustments,” let states ask the HHS
secretary to free up
requirements that insurers
spend a certain percentage of premiums on medical
care. And
a third waiver,
available in 2017,
will allow states to effect
their own health reforms, but only if they are
consistent with Obama-Care’s regulations and
objectives. Within moments of the bill’s
passage, unions and companies began lining up to
take advantage of the waiver “outs.”
The law authorizes the HHS secretary to issue
waivers to companies or insurers freeing them
from rules requiring
minimum standards of health coverage. Other
waivers, which the administration
calls "adjustments," allow states to ask the
administration to loosen
requirements that insurance companies
spend a certain percentage of premiums on medical
care.
A third waiver will be
available in 2017 that
will allow states to implement
their own health reforms, but only if they
achieve the same basic goals as the original law —
like covering as many people and making the
insurance as generous and affordable as it would
be under the law.
waivers to companies or insurers freeing them
from rules requiring
minimum standards of health coverage. Other
waivers, which the administration
calls "adjustments," allow states to ask the
administration to loosen
requirements that insurance companies
spend a certain percentage of premiums on medical
care.
A third waiver will be
available in 2017 that
will allow states to implement
their own health reforms, but only if they
achieve the same basic goals as the original law —
like covering as many people and making the
insurance as generous and affordable as it would
be under the law.
Crowley, page 144
Without the exemptions, these unions
would have been forced to drop low-cost coverage
for seasonal, part-time, and low-wage workers due
to skyrocketing premiums. The only way they were
able to keep
their health care is by pleading with the
White House
to spare them from ObamaCare.
would have been forced to drop low-cost coverage
for seasonal, part-time, and low-wage workers due
to skyrocketing premiums. The only way they were
able to keep
their health care is by pleading with the
White House
to spare them from ObamaCare.
Without the HHS-approved exemptions, these
health providers
would have been forced to drop low-cost coverage
for seasonal, part-time and low-wage workers due
to skyrocketing premiums. The only way they are
keeping
their health care is by successfully begging
the feds
to spare them from Obamacare.
health providers
would have been forced to drop low-cost coverage
for seasonal, part-time and low-wage workers due
to skyrocketing premiums. The only way they are
keeping
their health care is by successfully begging
the feds
to spare them from Obamacare.
Crowley, page 150
That year, voters were less concerned
about taxes than they had been in previous
elections because they had enjoyed a
fifteen-year-long respite from tax hikes. From
Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase to Obama’s
2009 tax hike on cigarettes, Americans had not
experienced a major
federal tax increase. President George W. Bush’s
two waves of cuts in marginal rates in 2001 and
2003 reduced taxes for everyone and
also cut 13 million people on the lower end
of the income scale from paying any federal
income tax. If you’re paying less or no federal
income taxes, you’re not particularly
worried about them.
about taxes than they had been in previous
elections because they had enjoyed a
fifteen-year-long respite from tax hikes. From
Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase to Obama’s
2009 tax hike on cigarettes, Americans had not
experienced a major
federal tax increase. President George W. Bush’s
two waves of cuts in marginal rates in 2001 and
2003 reduced taxes for everyone and
also cut 13 million people on the lower end
of the income scale from paying any federal
income tax. If you’re paying less or no federal
income taxes, you’re not particularly
worried about them.
This is an important development. In 2008,
voters were less worried
about taxes than they had been in previous
elections. Why? Because the 15 years between
President
Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike and Barack Obama's
increase in cigarette taxes in February was the
longest stretch in U.S. history without a
federal tax increase. President George W. Bush's
tax cuts
also cut 13 million people on the lower-end
of the income scale from the
income tax rolls -- people who don't pay taxes
aren't
worried about the tax burden.
voters were less worried
about taxes than they had been in previous
elections. Why? Because the 15 years between
President
Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike and Barack Obama's
increase in cigarette taxes in February was the
longest stretch in U.S. history without a
federal tax increase. President George W. Bush's
tax cuts
also cut 13 million people on the lower-end
of the income scale from the
income tax rolls -- people who don't pay taxes
aren't
worried about the tax burden.
Crowley, page 161
There may be some individual millionaires who
pay taxes at lower rates
than middle-income folks. According to the IRS,
in 2009 there were
1,470 households that
filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million
but
paid no federal income tax.
But that’s less than 1 percent of the
237,000 returns showing incomes over
$1 million.
pay taxes at lower rates
than middle-income folks. According to the IRS,
in 2009 there were
1,470 households that
filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million
but
paid no federal income tax.
But that’s less than 1 percent of the
237,000 returns showing incomes over
$1 million.
There may be individual millionaires who pay
taxes at rates lower
than middle-income workers.
In 2009,
1,470 households
filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million
yet
paid no federal income tax, according to the
Internal Revenue Service.
But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly
237,000 returns with incomes above
$1 million.
taxes at rates lower
than middle-income workers.
In 2009,
1,470 households
filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million
yet
paid no federal income tax, according to the
Internal Revenue Service.
But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly
237,000 returns with incomes above
$1 million.
Crowley, page 173
Long-term unemployment has been
by far the highest since the Great Depression.
Job growth during the first three years of the
economic
recovery after a severe recession has been
the slowest since the end of World War I
The employment picture doesn't look any better.
The fraction of the population working is the
lowest since 1983.
Long-term unemployment is
by far the highest since the Great Depression.
Job growth during the first two years of
recovery after a severe recession is
the slowest in postwar history.
The fraction of the population working is the
lowest since 1983.
Long-term unemployment is
by far the highest since the Great Depression.
Job growth during the first two years of
recovery after a severe recession is
the slowest in postwar history.
Crowley, page 175
In fact, all government-provided benefits,
including
Social Security, unemployment insurance, food
stamps, and other social welfare programs, rose
to record highs
during the Obama years.
including
Social Security, unemployment insurance, food
stamps, and other social welfare programs, rose
to record highs
during the Obama years.
At the same time, government-provided benefits
— from
Social Security, unemployment insurance, food
stamps and other programs — rose to a record
high
during the first three months of 2010.
— from
Social Security, unemployment insurance, food
stamps and other programs — rose to a record
high
during the first three months of 2010.
Crowley, page 175
At the same time, wages from private businesses
shrank to their smallest share of personal income
in U.S. history.
shrank to their smallest share of personal income
in U.S. history.
Paychecks from private business
shrank to their smallest share of personal income
in U.S. history during the first quarter of this
year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data
finds.
shrank to their smallest share of personal income
in U.S. history during the first quarter of this
year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data
finds.
Crowley, page 175
A record-low 40 percent of the nation’s
personal income came from private wages and
salaries for much of Obama’s term.
personal income came from private wages and
salaries for much of Obama’s term.
A record-low 41.9% of the nation's personal
income came from private wages and salaries in
the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the
recession began in December 2007
income came from private wages and salaries in
the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the
recession began in December 2007
Crowley, page 175
This represented a major shift in the source of
personal income away
from private wages and
to government programs.
personal income away
from private wages and
to government programs.
The result is a major shift in the source of
personal income
from private wages
to government programs.
personal income
from private wages
to government programs.
Crowley, page 175-176
The problem, of course, is the
unsustainability of this rapid dependence on the
government.
The federal government relies
on private wages to generate income taxes to pay
for its ever-growing and ever more expensive
programs. Government-generated income is taxed at
much lower levels
or not at all; for example, food stamps and
Medicaid are not taxable income
unsustainability of this rapid dependence on the
government.
The federal government relies
on private wages to generate income taxes to pay
for its ever-growing and ever more expensive
programs. Government-generated income is taxed at
much lower levels
or not at all; for example, food stamps and
Medicaid are not taxable income
The trend is not sustainable, says University
of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason:
The federal government depends
on private wages to generate income taxes to pay
for its ever-more-expensive
programs. Government-generated income is taxed at
lower rates
or not at all, he says. "This is really
important," Grimes says.
of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason:
The federal government depends
on private wages to generate income taxes to pay
for its ever-more-expensive
programs. Government-generated income is taxed at
lower rates
or not at all, he says. "This is really
important," Grimes says.
Crowley, page 184
In March 2010, he announced some half-measures
that
would allow drilling along the Atlantic
coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the
north coast of Alaska, but he continued to
prohibit exploration in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Bristol Bay.
that
would allow drilling along the Atlantic
coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the
north coast of Alaska, but he continued to
prohibit exploration in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Bristol Bay.
The plan, which Mr. Obama said would balance the
need to produce more domestic energy while
protecting natural resources,
would allow drilling along the Atlantic
coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the
north coast of Alaska
need to produce more domestic energy while
protecting natural resources,
would allow drilling along the Atlantic
coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the
north coast of Alaska
Crowley, page 184
He also indicated that he’d allow large tracts
in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic
Ocean north of Alaska—nearly
130 million acres—to
be eligible for exploration and drilling after
extensive studies, which meant they’d be ready
for exploration on the twelfth of Never.
in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic
Ocean north of Alaska—nearly
130 million acres—to
be eligible for exploration and drilling after
extensive studies, which meant they’d be ready
for exploration on the twelfth of Never.
But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort
Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly
130 million acres — would
be eligible for exploration and drilling after
extensive studies.
Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly
130 million acres — would
be eligible for exploration and drilling after
extensive studies.
Crowley, page 190
It required additional contributions by state
and local government workers to their health care
plans and pensions, amounting to about an 8
percent
decrease in take-home pay.
and local government workers to their health care
plans and pensions, amounting to about an 8
percent
decrease in take-home pay.
The bill requires additional contributions by
state and local government workers to their health
care plans and pensions, amounting to roughly an
8%
decrease in the average government worker's take
home pay.
state and local government workers to their health
care plans and pensions, amounting to roughly an
8%
decrease in the average government worker's take
home pay.
Crowley, page 197
In late 2002, in a study published by the
National Legal and Policy Center and the John M.
Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy,
economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of
Ohio University calculated that labor unions have
cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion
over the past fifty
years alone.
National Legal and Policy Center and the John M.
Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy,
economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of
Ohio University calculated that labor unions have
cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion
over the past fifty
years alone.
In a study published jointly in late 2002 by
the National Legal and Policy Center and the John
M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and
Policy, economists Richard Vedder and Lowell
Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor
unions have cost the American economy a whopping
$50 trillion over the past 50
years alone.
the National Legal and Policy Center and the John
M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and
Policy, economists Richard Vedder and Lowell
Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor
unions have cost the American economy a whopping
$50 trillion over the past 50
years alone.
Crowley, page 197
The study did find that unionized labor earned
wages 15 percent higher than those of nonunion
workers,
but it also found that wages in general suffered
dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30
to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in
the absence of labor unionism.
wages 15 percent higher than those of nonunion
workers,
but it also found that wages in general suffered
dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30
to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in
the absence of labor unionism.
Not surprisingly, the study did find that
unionized labor earned wages 15 percent higher
than those of their nonunion counterparts,
but it also found that wages in general suffered
dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30
to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in
the absence of labor unionism.
unionized labor earned wages 15 percent higher
than those of their nonunion counterparts,
but it also found that wages in general suffered
dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30
to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in
the absence of labor unionism.
Crowley, page 228
Following the capture of top al-Qaeda operative
Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in March 2002,
the CIA and the U.S. military developed
interrogation techniques that
were directly adapted from the training
techniques used to prepare our
special forces personnel to resist interrogation,
such as wall standing,
sleep deprivation, facial or “insult” slaps, the
playing of loud music,
and, until 2003, waterboarding, a form of
simulated drowning.
Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in March 2002,
the CIA and the U.S. military developed
interrogation techniques that
were directly adapted from the training
techniques used to prepare our
special forces personnel to resist interrogation,
such as wall standing,
sleep deprivation, facial or “insult” slaps, the
playing of loud music,
and, until 2003, waterboarding, a form of
simulated drowning.
The Senate Armed Services Committee report
concludes that harsh interrogation techniques used
by
the CIA and the U.S. military
were directly adapted from the training
techniques used to prepare
special forces personnel to resist interrogation
by enemies that torture and abuse prisoners. The
techniques included forced nudity, painful stress
positions,
sleep deprivation,
and until 2003, waterboarding, a form of
simulated drowning.
concludes that harsh interrogation techniques used
by
the CIA and the U.S. military
were directly adapted from the training
techniques used to prepare
special forces personnel to resist interrogation
by enemies that torture and abuse prisoners. The
techniques included forced nudity, painful stress
positions,
sleep deprivation,
and until 2003, waterboarding, a form of
simulated drowning.
Crowley, page 229
The government finally released the CIA memos,
and the memos clearly showed that the EITs had
generated the majority of information we got
about al-Qaeda and
played a role in nearly every capture of
al-Qaeda operatives
since 2002.
and the memos clearly showed that the EITs had
generated the majority of information we got
about al-Qaeda and
played a role in nearly every capture of
al-Qaeda operatives
since 2002.
These detainees also, according to the
documents,
played a role in nearly every capture of
al Qaeda members and associates
since 2002.
documents,
played a role in nearly every capture of
al Qaeda members and associates
since 2002.
Crowley, page 230
In December 2007 CIA director Michael Hayden
stated that “of about 100 prisoners held to date
in the CIA program, the enhanced techniques were
used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just
three.”
stated that “of about 100 prisoners held to date
in the CIA program, the enhanced techniques were
used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just
three.”
In December 2007 CIA director Michael Hayden
stated that "of about 100 prisoners held to date
in the CIA program, the enhanced techniques were
used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just
three.".
stated that "of about 100 prisoners held to date
in the CIA program, the enhanced techniques were
used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just
three.".
Crowley, page 233
Jose Rodriguez, the head of the CIA’s
counterterrorism center from 2002 to 2005, said
Abu Faraj al-Libbi, al-Qaeda’s number three
leader, started talking
just one week after being
subjected to the EITs.
Al-Libbi was not waterboarded but KSM was, and
the CIA was able to corroborate their information
to come up with
the nickname of bin Laden’s most trusted courier,
which
“eventually led to the location of [bin Laden’s]
compound,” said Rodriguez
counterterrorism center from 2002 to 2005, said
Abu Faraj al-Libbi, al-Qaeda’s number three
leader, started talking
just one week after being
subjected to the EITs.
Al-Libbi was not waterboarded but KSM was, and
the CIA was able to corroborate their information
to come up with
the nickname of bin Laden’s most trusted courier,
which
“eventually led to the location of [bin Laden’s]
compound,” said Rodriguez
Jose Rodriguez, who headed the CIA’s
counterterrorism center from 2002 to 2005, said
Abu Faraj al-Libbi, al Qaeda’s No. 3 man, began
to reveal secrets
just one week after he was
subjected to harsh treatment.
Al-Libbi was not waterboarded but 9/11
mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed was, and
together they gave the CIA
the nickname of bin Laden’s most trusted courier,
officials said after Sunday’s raid. “Information
provided by KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libbi about bin
Laden’s courier was the lead information that
eventually led to the location of [bin Laden’s]
compound,” Rodriguez told Time magazine.
counterterrorism center from 2002 to 2005, said
Abu Faraj al-Libbi, al Qaeda’s No. 3 man, began
to reveal secrets
just one week after he was
subjected to harsh treatment.
Al-Libbi was not waterboarded but 9/11
mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed was, and
together they gave the CIA
the nickname of bin Laden’s most trusted courier,
officials said after Sunday’s raid. “Information
provided by KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libbi about bin
Laden’s courier was the lead information that
eventually led to the location of [bin Laden’s]
compound,” Rodriguez told Time magazine.
Crowley, page 245
An outrageous case in point: in very early 2012,
the Hindu reported that Team Obama had
turned to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim
Brotherhood’s leading legal authority,
to mediate secret negotiations between the United
States and the Taliban
the Hindu reported that Team Obama had
turned to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim
Brotherhood’s leading legal authority,
to mediate secret negotiations between the United
States and the Taliban
The Hindu reports that the Obama
administration has
turned to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim
Brotherhood’s leading jurist,
to mediate secret negotiations between the United
States and the Taliban.
administration has
turned to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim
Brotherhood’s leading jurist,
to mediate secret negotiations between the United
States and the Taliban.
Crowley, page 245
Qaradawi is the most influential Sunni Islamist
in the world.
In 2003, he issued a fatwa calling for the
killing of U.S.
troops in Iraq.
in the world.
In 2003, he issued a fatwa calling for the
killing of U.S.
troops in Iraq.
For those who may be unfamiliar with him, he is
the most influential Sunni Islamist in the world,
thanks to such ventures as his al-Jazeera TV
program (Sharia and Life) and website
(IslamOnline.net).
In 2003, he issued a fatwa calling for the
killing of American
troops in Iraq.
the most influential Sunni Islamist in the world,
thanks to such ventures as his al-Jazeera TV
program (Sharia and Life) and website
(IslamOnline.net).
In 2003, he issued a fatwa calling for the
killing of American
troops in Iraq.
Crowley, page 245
He calls for a world dominated by Islam and
a global caliphate governed by sharia.
a global caliphate governed by sharia.
Qaradawi urges that Islam must dominate the
world, under
a global caliphate governed by sharia.
world, under
a global caliphate governed by sharia.
Crowley, page 245
Obama allegedly wanted this sworn
enemy of the United States and Israel
to help him get
a deal that would
install our Taliban enemies as part of a
sharia state
in Afghanistan.
enemy of the United States and Israel
to help him get
a deal that would
install our Taliban enemies as part of a
sharia state
in Afghanistan.
President Obama apparently seeks to end the war
by asking Qaradawi, a jihad-stoking
enemy of the United States,
to help him strike
a deal that will
install our Taliban enemies as part of the
sharia state we have been building
in Afghanistan
by asking Qaradawi, a jihad-stoking
enemy of the United States,
to help him strike
a deal that will
install our Taliban enemies as part of the
sharia state we have been building
in Afghanistan
Crowley, page 256
The Brotherhood, or Ikhwan, was founded in Egypt
in 1928 and is now
the world’s most important and dangerous
Islamist organization. It is openly
committed to the infiltration and ultimate
destruction of the United States, the West, and
Israel.
in 1928 and is now
the world’s most important and dangerous
Islamist organization. It is openly
committed to the infiltration and ultimate
destruction of the United States, the West, and
Israel.
The Brotherhood is
the world’s most important
Islamist organization. It is openly, unabashedly
committed to the
destruction of the United States and the West.
the world’s most important
Islamist organization. It is openly, unabashedly
committed to the
destruction of the United States and the West.
Crowley, page 256
Several months before Clapper’s comments, the
Muslim
Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Mohammed al-Badi,
called for waging jihad against
the United States: “Arab and Muslim regimes
are betraying their people by failing to confront
the Muslims’ real enemies, not only Israel but
also the United States. Waging jihad against
both of these infidels is a commandment of
Allah that cannot be disregarded.”
Muslim
Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Mohammed al-Badi,
called for waging jihad against
the United States: “Arab and Muslim regimes
are betraying their people by failing to confront
the Muslims’ real enemies, not only Israel but
also the United States. Waging jihad against
both of these infidels is a commandment of
Allah that cannot be disregarded.”
Only a few months before Clapper’s testimony,
the
Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badi,
called for “jihad and sacrifice” in confronting
the United States and Israel. He proclaimed
that America is “experiencing the beginning of
its end and is heading toward its demise.
the
Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badi,
called for “jihad and sacrifice” in confronting
the United States and Israel. He proclaimed
that America is “experiencing the beginning of
its end and is heading toward its demise.
Crowley, page 256-257
So much for not targeting the United States.
Al-Badi, like the Iranian mullahs, went on to say
that America was in irreversible decline and
therefore ripe for jihad. In fact,
the Brotherhood has always supported the use of
violence when
it would advance Islamism; it only
tactically renounced violence against the
Egyptian government
because it knew Mubarak
would have come down on them like a brick house
and because they were advancing the Islamist
agenda
through the system anyway.
Al-Badi, like the Iranian mullahs, went on to say
that America was in irreversible decline and
therefore ripe for jihad. In fact,
the Brotherhood has always supported the use of
violence when
it would advance Islamism; it only
tactically renounced violence against the
Egyptian government
because it knew Mubarak
would have come down on them like a brick house
and because they were advancing the Islamist
agenda
through the system anyway.
As I have repeatedly pointed out — and as Barry
Rubin argues in this excellent analysis of the
new Obama policy —
the Brotherhood has always favored violence
where
it would advance the Islamist cause; it
tactically renounced violence against the
Egyptian regime
because it
would have prompted ruinous retaliation from
Mubarak
and because the Brotherhood was making progress
through the political process and influence over
Egyptian institutions.
Rubin argues in this excellent analysis of the
new Obama policy —
the Brotherhood has always favored violence
where
it would advance the Islamist cause; it
tactically renounced violence against the
Egyptian regime
because it
would have prompted ruinous retaliation from
Mubarak
and because the Brotherhood was making progress
through the political process and influence over
Egyptian institutions.
Crowley, page 264
Instead of deposing Saddam by force, he said,
we
should “fight” for democratic reforms in nations
such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt (right on
track!), tougher
international nuclear safeguards (welcome to the
nuclear club, Iran!),
and energy independence (yes to Solyndra and
other green jobs boondoggles but no to the
private-sector Keystone XL pipeline!).
we
should “fight” for democratic reforms in nations
such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt (right on
track!), tougher
international nuclear safeguards (welcome to the
nuclear club, Iran!),
and energy independence (yes to Solyndra and
other green jobs boondoggles but no to the
private-sector Keystone XL pipeline!).
Obama, in his 2002 speech, said that instead of
deposing Saddam through force, America
should “fight” for democratic reforms in
countries
such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, stronger
international nuclear safeguards,
and energy independence.
deposing Saddam through force, America
should “fight” for democratic reforms in
countries
such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, stronger
international nuclear safeguards,
and energy independence.
Crowley, page 265
President George W. Bush’s team brokered a deal
with Gadhafi in which he
abandoned his advanced weapons programs,
including his nascent nuclear program,
and began providing
the Bush and Obama administrations with critical
intelligence about the Islamists and terrorists
operating within Libya and in the region. Libya
is overrun
with Islamists who seek to destroy
America and the West;
on a per capita basis, more Libyans joined
the jihad against the United States in Iraq
than Islamists
from any other nation. Ultimately, the State
Department
took Libya off the U.S.
list of state sponsors of terror because
Gadhafi
had become “an increasingly valuable partner
against terrorism.”
with Gadhafi in which he
abandoned his advanced weapons programs,
including his nascent nuclear program,
and began providing
the Bush and Obama administrations with critical
intelligence about the Islamists and terrorists
operating within Libya and in the region. Libya
is overrun
with Islamists who seek to destroy
America and the West;
on a per capita basis, more Libyans joined
the jihad against the United States in Iraq
than Islamists
from any other nation. Ultimately, the State
Department
took Libya off the U.S.
list of state sponsors of terror because
Gadhafi
had become “an increasingly valuable partner
against terrorism.”
But a deal is a deal — as the Left is quick to
remind us whenever the U.S. makes international
agreements that end up disserving American
interests. In this instance, we were told the
deal had been a good one. Qaddafi
abandoned his advanced weapons programs
and began providing what
the Bush and Obama administrations regarded as
vital
intelligence — vital, no doubt, because Libya
is rife
with Islamists who despise
America and the West. Indeed,
on a per capita basis, more Libyans traveled to
Iraq to join in
the jihad against American troops than
nationals
from any other country. Our government even
took Libya off the
list of state sponsors of terrorism because,
as the State Department put it in 2008, Libya
had become “an increasingly valuable partner
against terrorism.”
remind us whenever the U.S. makes international
agreements that end up disserving American
interests. In this instance, we were told the
deal had been a good one. Qaddafi
abandoned his advanced weapons programs
and began providing what
the Bush and Obama administrations regarded as
vital
intelligence — vital, no doubt, because Libya
is rife
with Islamists who despise
America and the West. Indeed,
on a per capita basis, more Libyans traveled to
Iraq to join in
the jihad against American troops than
nationals
from any other country. Our government even
took Libya off the
list of state sponsors of terrorism because,
as the State Department put it in 2008, Libya
had become “an increasingly valuable partner
against terrorism.”
Crowley, page 265
Gadhafi warmly engaged Bush secretary of state
Condoleezza Rice and even displayed a crush on
her. Gadhafi had called Obama his “Muslim
brother.” Both
administrations had
embraced him, his regime, and his willingness
to help root out Islamist enemies of America.
Condoleezza Rice and even displayed a crush on
her. Gadhafi had called Obama his “Muslim
brother.” Both
administrations had
embraced him, his regime, and his willingness
to help root out Islamist enemies of America.
Qaddafi spoke glowingly of Bush Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice and of President Obama,
the Bush and Obama
administrations
embraced him and supported his regime.
State Condoleezza Rice and of President Obama,
the Bush and Obama
administrations
embraced him and supported his regime.
Crowley, page 266
In other words, preemption. In 2006, Bush’s
doctrine of preemption stated:
“We do not rule out the use of force before
attacks occur.... We cannot afford to stand idly
by.... This is the principle and logic of
pre-emption.” In 2010, Obama reworded it:
“While the use of force is sometimes necessary,
we will exhaust other options before war whenever
we can …
when force is necessary we will continue to do so
in a way that reflects our values and strengthens
our legitimacy.” That last tortured phrase
meant that Obama would do what Bush did and seek
the blessing of the UN, NATO, the Arab League,
or whatever other international institution
before acting. And like Bush, Obama reserved
the right to act alone
if necessary. So: same policy, more gobbledygook
to make it look like Obama was more “enlightened”
than Bush.
doctrine of preemption stated:
“We do not rule out the use of force before
attacks occur.... We cannot afford to stand idly
by.... This is the principle and logic of
pre-emption.” In 2010, Obama reworded it:
“While the use of force is sometimes necessary,
we will exhaust other options before war whenever
we can …
when force is necessary we will continue to do so
in a way that reflects our values and strengthens
our legitimacy.” That last tortured phrase
meant that Obama would do what Bush did and seek
the blessing of the UN, NATO, the Arab League,
or whatever other international institution
before acting. And like Bush, Obama reserved
the right to act alone
if necessary. So: same policy, more gobbledygook
to make it look like Obama was more “enlightened”
than Bush.
In 2006, George Bush's doctrine said: "
We do not rule out the use of force before
attacks occur... We cannot afford to stand idly
by... This is the principle and logic of
pre-emption." In 2010, President Obama, in a
specific paragraph called "Use of Force" says:
"While the use of force is sometimes necessary,
we will exhaust other options before war whenever
we can...
when force is necessary we will continue to do so
in a way that reflects our values and strengthens
our legitimacy..." Unilateralism This last,
rather tortuous phrase, means that the US
will seek international legitimacy (through the
UN or Nato, it says)
before acting. However, as any American
president would, Mr Obama maintains an option to
go it alone: "The US must reserve
the right to act unilaterally
if necessary."
We do not rule out the use of force before
attacks occur... We cannot afford to stand idly
by... This is the principle and logic of
pre-emption." In 2010, President Obama, in a
specific paragraph called "Use of Force" says:
"While the use of force is sometimes necessary,
we will exhaust other options before war whenever
we can...
when force is necessary we will continue to do so
in a way that reflects our values and strengthens
our legitimacy..." Unilateralism This last,
rather tortuous phrase, means that the US
will seek international legitimacy (through the
UN or Nato, it says)
before acting. However, as any American
president would, Mr Obama maintains an option to
go it alone: "The US must reserve
the right to act unilaterally
if necessary."
Crowley, page 267
Obama leaned only on the Arab League’s okay
and a United Nations
Security Council resolution that called for a
no-fly zone to protect civilians. It did not
call
for war against Libya
or regime change, and yet Obama saw to it
that both were carried out. Despite assuring that
there would be “no
boots on the ground,” Obama sent in
covert intelligence operatives to help the
“rebels,” who, with our help, took up arms against
Gadhafi.
and a United Nations
Security Council resolution that called for a
no-fly zone to protect civilians. It did not
call
for war against Libya
or regime change, and yet Obama saw to it
that both were carried out. Despite assuring that
there would be “no
boots on the ground,” Obama sent in
covert intelligence operatives to help the
“rebels,” who, with our help, took up arms against
Gadhafi.
Yet, President Obama invaded without
congressional authorization — just consultations
with the Arab League and a
Security Council resolution that called for a
no-fly zone to protect civilians, not
for war against Qaddafi
or regime change. Even as Obama paid
lip-service to this charade, promising Americans
there would be no U.S.
“boots on the ground,” he dispatched
covert intelligence operatives to guide the
Islamists
congressional authorization — just consultations
with the Arab League and a
Security Council resolution that called for a
no-fly zone to protect civilians, not
for war against Qaddafi
or regime change. Even as Obama paid
lip-service to this charade, promising Americans
there would be no U.S.
“boots on the ground,” he dispatched
covert intelligence operatives to guide the
Islamists
Crowley, page 268
Obama turned to a fellow kook, State Department
counsel Harold Koh, who conveniently argued
that invading Libya, dropping bombs all over
it, and trying to take out
its leader didn’t amount to
“hostilities,” so Obama the Nobel Peace Prize
winner was free to pound Libya and try to kill
Gadhafi for as long as he wanted
counsel Harold Koh, who conveniently argued
that invading Libya, dropping bombs all over
it, and trying to take out
its leader didn’t amount to
“hostilities,” so Obama the Nobel Peace Prize
winner was free to pound Libya and try to kill
Gadhafi for as long as he wanted
Koh rationalized
that invading Libya, dropping bombs on
it, and trying to kill
its leader didn’t quite rise to the level of
“hostilities” — suddenly, a very elusive
concept.
that invading Libya, dropping bombs on
it, and trying to kill
its leader didn’t quite rise to the level of
“hostilities” — suddenly, a very elusive
concept.
Crowley, page 282-283
Defense analysts warn that if the deeper
cuts are allowed to occur,
the Marine Corps will shrink
to its smallest force in fifty
years, the Army will be reduced
to pre-9/11 levels,
the Air Force will have two-thirds fewer fighters
and bombers than in 1990, and the Navy may
lose one or
two aircraft-carrier battle groups and have
its overall fleet down to pre–World War One
levels
cuts are allowed to occur,
the Marine Corps will shrink
to its smallest force in fifty
years, the Army will be reduced
to pre-9/11 levels,
the Air Force will have two-thirds fewer fighters
and bombers than in 1990, and the Navy may
lose one or
two aircraft-carrier battle groups and have
its overall fleet down to pre–World War One
levels
For instance, analysts say that axing the
defense budget will shrink
the Marine Corps
to its smallest force in some 50
years; the Army will dwindle
to pre-9/11 numbers, and
the Air Force will have two-thirds fewer fighters
and bombers than in 1990. The Navy will lose
one to
two aircraft-carrier battle groups, reducing our
flattop numbers to as little as nine. The brass
may have to shrink the fleet to some 220-240
ships — smaller than at any time since just before
the First World War.
defense budget will shrink
the Marine Corps
to its smallest force in some 50
years; the Army will dwindle
to pre-9/11 numbers, and
the Air Force will have two-thirds fewer fighters
and bombers than in 1990. The Navy will lose
one to
two aircraft-carrier battle groups, reducing our
flattop numbers to as little as nine. The brass
may have to shrink the fleet to some 220-240
ships — smaller than at any time since just before
the First World War.
Crowley, page 286
Tracker dogs followed the tracks of the killer
back into Mexico, fifteen miles to the south.
back into Mexico, fifteen miles to the south.
Tracker dogs have now followed the tracks of
the killer back into Mexico, some 15 miles
south.
the killer back into Mexico, some 15 miles
south.
Crowley, page 304
A few months later, Obama sent out Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta to yell at the Israelis
to “get to the damn table” and negotiate with
the
Palestinians. Panetta also scolded
Israeli officials about their supposed eagerness
to launch a full-fledged war against Iran’s
nukes. Obama then wheeled out Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton to blast
Israel over what she called
“anti-democratic” legislation proposed
by Israel’s religious right regarding the media,
charities, and the courts
Secretary Leon Panetta to yell at the Israelis
to “get to the damn table” and negotiate with
the
Palestinians. Panetta also scolded
Israeli officials about their supposed eagerness
to launch a full-fledged war against Iran’s
nukes. Obama then wheeled out Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton to blast
Israel over what she called
“anti-democratic” legislation proposed
by Israel’s religious right regarding the media,
charities, and the courts
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta urged Israel
to “get to the damn table” and negotiate with
Palestinians. He also chided
Israeli officials about their supposed eagerness
to launch a full-fledged war against Iran’s
nukes.Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton blasted
Israel over pending
“anti-democratic” legislation. She was referring
to recent controversial Knesset initiatives
by Israel’s religious right regarding the media,
charities and the courts, which have raised much
concern among Israeli “democracy hawks.”
to “get to the damn table” and negotiate with
Palestinians. He also chided
Israeli officials about their supposed eagerness
to launch a full-fledged war against Iran’s
nukes.Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton blasted
Israel over pending
“anti-democratic” legislation. She was referring
to recent controversial Knesset initiatives
by Israel’s religious right regarding the media,
charities and the courts, which have raised much
concern among Israeli “democracy hawks.”
Crowley, page 338
Later gaining the bipartisan support of
Democratic senator Ron Wyden, Ryan built reform
around the concept
of a “premium support” system where seniors, with
federal financial help, could choose from a menu
of private plans, each offering
Medicare-equivalent
benefits and with providers competing for their
business. In a premium-support model, Medicare
would make payments to the plan chosen by the
patient, subsidizing its costs while giving the
beneficiary more freedom to make decisions over
his own health.
Democratic senator Ron Wyden, Ryan built reform
around the concept
of a “premium support” system where seniors, with
federal financial help, could choose from a menu
of private plans, each offering
Medicare-equivalent
benefits and with providers competing for their
business. In a premium-support model, Medicare
would make payments to the plan chosen by the
patient, subsidizing its costs while giving the
beneficiary more freedom to make decisions over
his own health.
It’s based
around the idea
of a “premium support” system where seniors, with
federal financial help, could choose from a menu
of private plans, each offering Medicare
equivalent
benefits, and with providers competing for their
business.
around the idea
of a “premium support” system where seniors, with
federal financial help, could choose from a menu
of private plans, each offering Medicare
equivalent
benefits, and with providers competing for their
business.
Crowley, page 340
Ryan’s plan in particular would change the way
the tax code treats health insurance.
Employer-based coverage isn’t
taxed on par with wages, so the
government encourages companies to offer coverage
rather than provide higher wages and let employees
buy their own insurance. When the value of
the coverage goes up, so does
the tax break to the company, resulting in
inflationary incentives. Real reform would take
the tax break and turn it into a tax credit
for
those who get their
coverage from their employers as well as those
who purchase
it themselves. If you
wanted to buy insurance
that costs more than the credit, you’d
pay the difference. The logical result would be
that people would buy less expensive coverage and
would be more likely to pay for regular
medical
expenses out-of-pocket, thus driving
prices down. Individuals would have more control
over their coverage,
rather than having to rely on an employer, and
because people wouldn’t have to switch
insurance as often, the preexisting-conditions
issue would eventually diminish.
the tax code treats health insurance.
Employer-based coverage isn’t
taxed on par with wages, so the
government encourages companies to offer coverage
rather than provide higher wages and let employees
buy their own insurance. When the value of
the coverage goes up, so does
the tax break to the company, resulting in
inflationary incentives. Real reform would take
the tax break and turn it into a tax credit
for
those who get their
coverage from their employers as well as those
who purchase
it themselves. If you
wanted to buy insurance
that costs more than the credit, you’d
pay the difference. The logical result would be
that people would buy less expensive coverage and
would be more likely to pay for regular
medical
expenses out-of-pocket, thus driving
prices down. Individuals would have more control
over their coverage,
rather than having to rely on an employer, and
because people wouldn’t have to switch
insurance as often, the preexisting-conditions
issue would eventually diminish.
He believes that we should change the way the
tax code treats health insurance.
Employer-provided coverage is not
taxed on par with wages, and thus the federal
government encourages companies to offer coverage
rather than provide higher wages and let employees
buy coverage. The more expensive
the coverage, the more
the tax break is worth. The fundamental flaw
of Obamacare, as Ryan sees it, is that it leaves
the
inflationary incentives of current policy in
place. Under Ryan’s proposal,
the tax break would become a credit available
equally to
those who get
coverage from their employers and those who
buy
it themselves. Anyone who
wanted to buy coverage
that costs more than the credit would have to
pay the difference themselves. The expectation
is
that people would buy less expensive coverage and
more often pay for routine
expenses out-of-pocket. The new cost pressures
thus created would, together with competition,
drive
prices down. Individuals would have more control
because they would be more likely to own their
insurance policies
rather than rely on their employers. Over time,
the problem of people who can’t get insurance
because of pre-existing conditions would diminish,
because people would have to change insurance
less often. “This is the 21st century,” Ryan
tells me. “People do not have the same jobs for
their entire careers. The tax benefit should be
attached to the worker, not to the job.”
tax code treats health insurance.
Employer-provided coverage is not
taxed on par with wages, and thus the federal
government encourages companies to offer coverage
rather than provide higher wages and let employees
buy coverage. The more expensive
the coverage, the more
the tax break is worth. The fundamental flaw
of Obamacare, as Ryan sees it, is that it leaves
the
inflationary incentives of current policy in
place. Under Ryan’s proposal,
the tax break would become a credit available
equally to
those who get
coverage from their employers and those who
buy
it themselves. Anyone who
wanted to buy coverage
that costs more than the credit would have to
pay the difference themselves. The expectation
is
that people would buy less expensive coverage and
more often pay for routine
expenses out-of-pocket. The new cost pressures
thus created would, together with competition,
drive
prices down. Individuals would have more control
because they would be more likely to own their
insurance policies
rather than rely on their employers. Over time,
the problem of people who can’t get insurance
because of pre-existing conditions would diminish,
because people would have to change insurance
less often. “This is the 21st century,” Ryan
tells me. “People do not have the same jobs for
their entire careers. The tax benefit should be
attached to the worker, not to the job.”
Crowley vs. the podiatrist, page 91-92
The kooks also were wholly unembarrassed that
their ginormous “stimulus” contained ludicrous
porktastic spending items such as:
$200,000 for gang tattoo removal in Los Angeles
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe
$6 million to upgrade the two-block-long Senate subway
$350,000 to renovate the House Beauty Salon
$250,000 to study TV lighting in the Senate meeting rooms
$3.1 million to convert a ferryboat into a crab restaurant in Baltimore
$50 to convince Barbara Mikulski to jump off the ferryboat
$6.4 million for a Bavarian ski resort in Kellogg, Idaho
$11 million for a private pleasure boat harbor in Cleveland
$500 billion to paint Bill Clinton’s face on the side of the pleasure boat
$320,000 to purchase President McKinley’s mother-in-law’s house
$500,000 to build a replica of the Great Pyramid of Egypt in Indiana
$33 million to pump sand onto the private beaches of Miami hotels.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love
$85,000 to find out why people hate this list
$1 million to study why people don’t ride bikes to work
$2 million to study why people don’t ride unicycles to work
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, New Jersey, as a historic monument
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce
Mmmmm ...bacon! Pass that Worcestershire!
their ginormous “stimulus” contained ludicrous
porktastic spending items such as:
$200,000 for gang tattoo removal in Los Angeles
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe
$6 million to upgrade the two-block-long Senate subway
$350,000 to renovate the House Beauty Salon
$250,000 to study TV lighting in the Senate meeting rooms
$3.1 million to convert a ferryboat into a crab restaurant in Baltimore
$50 to convince Barbara Mikulski to jump off the ferryboat
$6.4 million for a Bavarian ski resort in Kellogg, Idaho
$11 million for a private pleasure boat harbor in Cleveland
$500 billion to paint Bill Clinton’s face on the side of the pleasure boat
$320,000 to purchase President McKinley’s mother-in-law’s house
$500,000 to build a replica of the Great Pyramid of Egypt in Indiana
$33 million to pump sand onto the private beaches of Miami hotels.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love
$85,000 to find out why people hate this list
$1 million to study why people don’t ride bikes to work
$2 million to study why people don’t ride unicycles to work
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, New Jersey, as a historic monument
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce
Mmmmm ...bacon! Pass that Worcestershire!
Here are some recent examples of pork barrel spending by the Congress of the United States. These examples will be divided into 3 groups: the absurd, federal spending for private concerns, and pork for Congress itself.
THE ABSURD:
$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.
Federal spending for PRIVATE concerns:
$3.1 million to convert a ferry boat into a crab restaurant in Baltimore.
$6.4 million for a Bavarian ski resort in Kellogg, Idaho.
$13 million to repair a privately owned dam in South Carolina.
$4.3 million for a privately owned museum in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
$11 million for a private pleasure boat harbor in Cleveland.
$6 million to repair tracks owned by the Soo Railroad Line.
$320,000 to purchase President McKinley's mother-in-law's house.
Funds to rehabilitate the South Carolina mansion of Charles Pickney, a Framer of the Constitution, even though the house was built after he died.
$2.7 million for a catfish farm in Arkansas.
$3 million for private parking garages in Chicago.
$500,000 to build a replica of the Great Pyramid of Egypt in Indiana.
$850,000 for a bicycle path in Macomb County, Michigan.
$10 million for an access ramp in a privately owned stadium in Milwaukee.
$1.8 million for an engineering study to convert Biscayne Boulevard in Miami into an "Exotic Garden."
$13 million for an industrial theme park in Pennsylvania.
$500,000 for a museum to honor former Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
$33 million to pump sand onto the private beaches of Miami hotels.
Pork for Congress itself:
$6 million to upgrade the two-block long Senate subway.
$350,000 to renovate the House Beauty Salon.
$250,000 to study TV lighting in the Senate meeting rooms.
$130,000 for a Congressional video-conferencing project.
CATEGORY SUB-TOTALS:
1. Absurd
$45,980,000
2. Private
$109,470,000
THE ABSURD:
$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.
Federal spending for PRIVATE concerns:
$3.1 million to convert a ferry boat into a crab restaurant in Baltimore.
$6.4 million for a Bavarian ski resort in Kellogg, Idaho.
$13 million to repair a privately owned dam in South Carolina.
$4.3 million for a privately owned museum in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
$11 million for a private pleasure boat harbor in Cleveland.
$6 million to repair tracks owned by the Soo Railroad Line.
$320,000 to purchase President McKinley's mother-in-law's house.
Funds to rehabilitate the South Carolina mansion of Charles Pickney, a Framer of the Constitution, even though the house was built after he died.
$2.7 million for a catfish farm in Arkansas.
$3 million for private parking garages in Chicago.
$500,000 to build a replica of the Great Pyramid of Egypt in Indiana.
$850,000 for a bicycle path in Macomb County, Michigan.
$10 million for an access ramp in a privately owned stadium in Milwaukee.
$1.8 million for an engineering study to convert Biscayne Boulevard in Miami into an "Exotic Garden."
$13 million for an industrial theme park in Pennsylvania.
$500,000 for a museum to honor former Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
$33 million to pump sand onto the private beaches of Miami hotels.
Pork for Congress itself:
$6 million to upgrade the two-block long Senate subway.
$350,000 to renovate the House Beauty Salon.
$250,000 to study TV lighting in the Senate meeting rooms.
$130,000 for a Congressional video-conferencing project.
CATEGORY SUB-TOTALS:
1. Absurd
$45,980,000
2. Private
$109,470,000
Published January 7, 2017
More from KFile
-
Trump in 2010: WikiLeaks 'disgraceful,' there 'should be like death penalty or something' - Trump national security pick Monica Crowley repeatedly pushed conspiracy theory about Clinton aide
- Trump deputy national security pick scrubs her website, Twitter, and Facebook from the Internet
- Trump's pick for national security adviser praised far-right Breitbart editor as one of the bravest people he's met
