By The Rivers Of.... Quebec?
by Eli Lehrer,
November 26, 2012
Jake Irving looks excited. Sitting at a table in a noisy Washington, D.C., bistro, he pulls a chart out of a briefcase with a flourish. The numbers are simple: Canada’s untapped, undammed rivers have enough potential to make a serious difference in North America’s energy needs while helping the economy on both sides of the border.
According to data his Canadian Hydropower Association has collected from its members, Canada has an estimated 163,000 megawatts of untapped hydro capacity: enough to meet any expected increases in [....]
by Dr Walter E. Williams,
December 3, 2012
Is there any reason for today's Americans to care about what happens to tomorrow's Americans? After all, what have tomorrow's Americans done for today's Americans? Moreover, since tomorrow's Americans don't vote, we can dump on them with impunity. That's a vision that describes the actual behavior of today's Americans. It would be seen as selfish, callous and ruthless only if it were actually articulated. Let's look at it.
Businesses, as well as most nonprofit enterprises, by law are required to produce financial statements that include all of their present and expected future liabilities. On top of that, they are required to hold reserves against future liabilities such as employee retirement.
By contrast, the federal government gets by without having to provide [....]
Race Matters, Actually
In D.C., being black and female is a plus-as long as you’re also a Democrat.
by Victor Davis Hanson,
December 4, 2012
Lots of public officials and Washington, D.C., insiders do not want U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to be nominated as secretary of state. Most of these critics think she irrevocably lost credibility by going on five Sunday-morning television shows on September 16 to deny any connection between radical Islamic terrorists and the fatal assaults on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. We know now that when Rice voiced the administration talking points five days after the attack, she and others in the Obama administration already had access to intelligence sources that suggested that the assault was the preplanned work of al-Qaedist terrorists, not a spontaneous protest by a mob angered over an obscure two-month-old video.Why, then, did a U.N. [....]
Looking to defend an obsolete provision of the Voting Rights Act, Justice abuses it in New Hampshire.
by Hans A. von Spakovsky,
December 4, 2012
The Justice Department is acting in a highly unusual, and likely unlawful, manner in New Hampshire. Once again, it’s a Voting Rights Act case. This time, shenanigans by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in New Hampshire appear to be designed to influence the Supreme Court when the Court considers another Voting Rights Act (VRA) case—involving Alabama—next spring.In Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Shelby County claims that Section 5 of the VRA is unconstitutional. Section 5 requires nine states and parts of another seven states to get preclearance from either the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington, D.C., before implementing any proposed changes to voting districts or procedures. Shelby County argues that since the 1965 passage of Section 5, conditions have improved so dramatically that this extraordinary intrusion into state sovereignty is no longer constitutional.
The Court last considered this [....]
Fiscal Cliff Notes
by Dr Thomas Sowell,
December 4, 2012
Amid all the political and media hoopla about the "fiscal cliff" crisis, there are a few facts that are worth noting.
First of all, despite all the melodrama about raising taxes on "the rich," even if that is done it will scarcely make a dent in the government's financial problems. Raising the tax rates on everybody in the top two percent will not get enough additional tax revenue to run the government for ten days.
And what will the government do to pay for the other 355 days in the year?
All the political angst and moral melodrama about getting "the rich" to pay "their fair share" is part of a big charade. This is not about economics, it is about politics. Taxing "the rich" will produce a drop in the bucket when compared to the staggering and unprecedented deficits of the Obama administration.
No previous administration in the entire history of the nation ever finished the year with a trillion dollar deficit. The Obama administration has done so every single year. Yet political and media discussions of the financial crisis have been focussed overwhelmingly on how to get more tax revenue to pay for past and future spending.
The very catchwords and phrases used by the Obama administration betray how phony this all is. For example, "We are just asking the rich to pay a little more."
This is an insult to our intelligence. The government doesn't "ask" anybody to pay anything. It orders you to pay the taxes they impose and you can go to prison if you don't.
Then there are all the fancy substitute words for plain old spending— words like "stimulus" or "investing in the industries of the future." [....]
Fiscal Cliff Notes: Part 2
by Dr Thomas Sowell,
December 4, 2012
One of the big advantages that President Obama has, as he plays "chicken" with the Congressional Republicans along the "fiscal cliff," is that Obama is a master of the plausible lie, which will never be exposed by the mainstream media— nor, apparently, by the Republicans.
A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" cost the government so much lost tax revenue that this added to the deficit— so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for "the rich."
It sounds very plausible, and constant repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama's demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for "the rich" than for the other 98 percent.
What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama's argument is. That also makes it completely inexplicable why the Republicans have not done so.
The official statistics which show plainly how wrong Barack Obama is can be found in his own "Economic Report of the President" for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.
You may be [....]
5 Lies the Government Continues to Tell You About Social Security
Two days ago, 87 House Democrats sent a letter to John Boehner about Social Security. Apparently, they were concerned that Republicans might try to use Social Security funding as a bargaining chip throughout the fiscal cliff negotiations this month. Consequently, they wanted to let Speaker Boehner know about the concerns that they have for the well-being of the American people who are relying upon the “promise” of Social Security. In reality, the letter re-stated some age-old lies about Social Security that politicians continue to repeat over and over again. Apparently, it’s worked for many people, because they’ve come to admire the Social Security program with awe and wonder.
But for those of us who would like to be deceived no more, it’s time to highlight these shockingly outrageous lies. Not every single one was included in the letter, but you can be sure that all of the adherents to the letter would proclaim loudly and openly, without a hint of shame.
1. “Social Security is a promise.”
Few phrases are uttered with as much sanctimony and reverence as this one. In fact, the letter the Democrats sent to Boehner explicitly talked about how seniors have “earned their benefits [....]
2. “Social Security has a trust fund.”
“But wait a minute,” the politicians will say, “There’s a trust fund! That’s where the money goes!”
False. This is another blatant and disturbing lie.
Social Security taxes are immediately swallowed up to pay for whatever Congress wants to use it for. To accomplish this, the Social Security Administration gives the money that it collects in Social Security taxes to the Treasury. In exchange, the Social Security Administration receives a bunch of debt [....]
3. “Social Security is social insurance.” Social Security was allegedly sold to the public under this lie. When Roosevelt tried to garner support for his scheme, he thought that casting it in the light of “insurance” would get people to like it. This lie has [....]
4. “Social Security is not going broke.” Anyone who says this with a straight face is trying to sell you beachfront property in Oklahoma. And yet, in the letter sent by the 87 House Democrats yesterday, they said, ” Social Security operates in a fiscally responsible manner.” Such Doublespeak is only fit for the world of 1984.
Social Security is going broke. There’s no [....]
5. “Social Security is not a pyramid scheme.”
In reality, Social Security is nothing but a pyramid scheme that benefits the politicians that run it first, and the individuals who made it into the system in its early stages second. It completely screws over those of us who are just entering the labor force today and seeking to provide for our futures. On a daily basis, millions of young workers are being [....]
Part 2 to follow....