Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn government. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn government. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Chủ Nhật, 12 tháng 5, 2013

Bullet blitz: Demand from public, government leaves ammo shelves empty

  • ammunition

    Ammunition retailers can't keep up with government and public demand. (AP Photo/Christian Escobar Mora)

Steve Warholic spends nearly his entire workday at a Nevada ammunition store scouring the Internet, and the owner puts in even more time online. Both think they need to spend more time on the web.

They’re trying to find bullets for their customers at Stockpile Defense and the store’s sister school, where 50,000 people are trained every year in firearms handling. Shelves that once held the most popular calibers, like .22 and .45, are bare. There are waiting lists as long as two months and students are requested to bring their own ammunition. Pre-orders are no longer allowed.

“We’re buying everything we can find and we still can’t bring in enough.”

- Steve Warholic, employee at Stockpile Defense

“We’re buying everything we can find and we still can’t bring in enough,” said Warholic. “It’s a constant battle.”

Demand for guns and ammunition has cleaned out stores nationwide, leading to waiting lists and early morning lines outside of gun and sporting good stores for ammunition shipments. Common calibers routinely sell out within minutes of appearing on store shelves and prices have soared as much as 70 percent. 

After the Newtown elementary school massacre, gun enthusiasts, already anxious President Obama’s re-election would translate into harsh controls on gun ownership, have packed stores, buying as many firearms and as much ammunition as they can find. Moves to expand background checks and limit firearm and magazine sales have added to the hysteria. Massive government purchases, including a plan by the Department of Homeland Security to buy more than 1 billion rounds of ammunition, have further stoked fears – and suspicions.

“People buy ammunition when they see it even if they don’t need it,” said Mike Bazinet, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Association, which represents firearms and ammunition manufacturers. “It becomes self-fulfilling over time.”

Although Warholic in Nevada has ferreted out new supplies through his online work, he can barely keep up. He has 50 million rounds of ammunition on order this year, but will consider himself lucky to get 10 million. And he’s one of the lucky ones: Competitors ask to purchase his supplies so they can restock their shelves.

“The running joke with our distributor is that we tell him, ‘You don’t need to come to work anymore. We’ll take everything on your list,’” said Warholic.

The run on ammunition has also hit law enforcement agencies, notably smaller ones that don’t have the funds or supplies of larger organizations. Some have stopped using bullets altogether for training. In Richmond, Calif., the 200-member force once trained on the range every month using live ammunition. They’ve since switched to dry fire exercises, laser guns and Airsoft pistols, which fire plastic pellets, to simulate live fire exercises -- and to save money.

“Ammunition has tripled in price over the last decade. We now have to wait a year to eight months for a shipment,” said Capt. Mark Gagan, spokesman for the Richmond Police Department. 

This year, concerns over a federal government bid to purchase large amounts of ammunition sent gun enthusiasts back to the stores. The Department of Homeland Security put out bids for up to 1.2 billion rounds of ammunition, leading many gun enthusiasts, including Sen. Tom Coburn , R-Okla., to question if the agency’s five-year purchase plan was fueling the national shortage. 

“These round totals are simply a ceiling,” said Peter Boogard, DHS spokesman, in an email. “It does not mean that DHS will buy, or require, the full amounts of either contract.” 

Over the last three fiscal years, the agency, which oversees the U.S. Secret Service, Coast Guard and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, actually bought fewer rounds of ammunition each year. The number of rounds purchased has fallen from 148.3 million in fiscal 2010 to 103.2 million rounds in 2012. The agency, which includes more than 100,000 law enforcement personnel, uses about two-thirds of the ammunition for qualifications or training purposes. 

Gun enthusiasts and elected officials also grew concerned that DHS was purchasing hollow-point bullets, which expand upon contact. Although police departments use different types of ammunition, most use hollow-point bullets because they have greater stopping power and carry less danger of passing through the target, said Darrel Stephens, executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association.

Background checks for firearms soared following the shooting at the Newtown elementary school in Connecticut, as people feared some guns would be banned. The week following the Dec. 14 massacre, the FBI reported its busiest week ever for background checks since it started recording figures in 1998. Even the day of the killings, the number of background checks was among the ten highest in the last 15 years. The figures do not reflect denials or the number of firearms purchased.

The spike in demand isn’t new. The sour economy has also played into personal safety fears that crime will rise. Surges in gun and ammunition purchases have been ongoing since President Obama, like many Democrats, a vocal advocate of gun control, was elected in 2008 and then re-elected last year. In an October 2009 Gallup poll, 55 percent of gun owners said they thought the president will attempt to ban gun sales. 

Despite the rush to buy ammunition and guns, household gun ownership among Americans has declined modestly since the 1970s. In 2012, 34 percent of Americans had a gun at home, down from 50 percent in 1973, the first year University of Chicago researchers started tracking gun ownership for the General Social Survey. A 2012 Gallup reported a more modest decline from 50 percent in 1968 to 43 percent last year.

These surveys, however, don’t track how many firearms a gun owner has. While there is no data, retailers and ammunition dealers say ammunition and firearms sales have been to gun owners, and not to those who have never owned a firearm.

With such little supply, retailers have slapped restrictions on the number of boxes of ammunition customers can purchase. In January, Walmart limited ammunition sales to three boxes per customer, per day. Dick’s Sporting Goods and Cabela’s imposed a three and ten box-restriction on purchases, respectively.

At Dick’s Sporting Goods in Bee Cave, Texas, a line of 10 to 15 people wait in the early morning hours outside for the store to open every Wednesday and Friday despite the three-box limit. On those days, new ammunition shipments come in and though they don’t know what’s coming off the truck, gun enthusiasts still show up. Any ammunition calibers that are difficult to get, like 9-mm., .22, .45 or .223, are routinely bought within minutes, leaving shelves bare. Only shotgun shells can routinely be found.

“We’re getting in anything that we can and we still sell out,” said Payton, a salesman at Dick’s. “People panic, that’s all.”

The surge in demand for firearms and ammunition is also reflected in the bottom line of big retailers, like Cabela’s and Walmart. At Cabela’s, a national chain of sporting goods stores, first quarter profit skyrocketed 73 percent, fired by strong sales of guns and ammunition. The company’s stock hit an all-time high last week after reporting its results and blowing apart analysts’ expectations. 

“It's no surprise guns and ammunition were going to be strong in the first quarter,” said Thomas Millner, Cabela’s chief executive officer in an earnings call last Thursday. “Supply is still tight. It is still constraining ultimate demand because we simply -- in some categories, like .22-caliber ammunition, it's very, very tight.”

Ammunition manufacturers are reporting record profits and sales, with increases that number in the double and sometimes triple digits. Olin, which owns Winchester, reported last week the company’s first quarter earnings climbed 190 percent over the same period last year. Federal Premium Ammunition’s annual earnings for ammunition last year climbed 24 percent over 2011. 

“Our sales are only limited by the amount we can produce,” said Joseph Rupp, Olin chairman and chief executive officer in a conference call last Friday.

Ammunition manufacturers are struggling to make enough and have hundreds of millions of dollars in backorders. They’ve added hundreds of employees and equipment and increased overtime, and, in some cases, are running factories around the clock. Producers have posted notes on all their web sites assuring customers they are working as fast as they can. 

“We are producing as much as we can; much more than last year, which was a lot more than the year before. No one wants to shop more during this time than we do,” a note on Hornady’s site said.

Producers did not return repeated emails and calls. 

“Manufacturers are doing what they can, but it’s not enough to keep up. It’s a supply-and-demand issue,” said Nima Samadi, a senior analyst who tracks the guns and ammunition industry at IbisWorld, a market research firm in Los Angeles.

While demand is strong, manufacturers consider it temporary and aren’t planning to build new factories or make substantial changes that would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to train people and buy new facilities. The last “surge” in demand only lasted six quarters, and this one, though manufacturers changed their expectations in the last month, now expect demand to remain strong through the end of the year. Some even wonder if it will extend into the new year and beyond.

“I think the honest answer is,” said Millner, Cabela’s chief executive officer. “I don't know when it's going to loosen up.”


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 9 tháng 5, 2013

Families of Navy SEALs killed in 2011 attack say government is to blame

  • chinook US helicopter

    File: A US Army CH-47D Chinook helicopter in flight.AP

The families of Navy SEAL Team 6 members killed in a disastrous August 2011 helicopter crash in Afghanistan blamed the government for the tragedy, during an emotional press conference in Washington Thursday. 

The family members, speaking at the National Press Club, tried to reopen the book on the crash, in which 30 Americans were killed, most of them belonging to the same unit as those who carried out the raid on Usama bin Laden earlier that year. The helicopter was shot down by insurgents. 

During the event organized by a group called Freedom Watch, family members and former military personnel claimed President Obama turned the SEALs group into a Taliban target after the administration revealed they had conducted the bin Laden raid. 

Doug Hamburger, whose son Patrick was killed, called the incident an “ambush” that could have been prevented. 

“We’re very concerned that the administration had disclosed that the Navy SEALs had carried out a successful attack on bin Laden’s compound resulting in his death. And you know, never before in the history of our county (had) a sitting president released that type of information to the public, especially when he was talking about special forces. Their names and their missions had never been revealed before. And we really feel that this put our guys in an unnecessary risk,” Hamburger said.

Many military experts at the time, including some of Obama’s top military advisers, had questioned the White House’s public praise of SEAL Team 6 and said it put members in danger. 

Three months after bin Laden’s death, members of the SEAL Team 6 force -- though apparently not the same ones who carried out the bin Laden raid -- were on board the CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, along with its Army National Guard aircrew, several support personnel and seven Afghan commandos. In all, 38 people died that night after the chopper was shot down by a Taliban-owned rocket-propelled grenade –or RPG – over the Wardak Province on Aug. 6, 2011. 

Charles Strange, whose son Michael, 25, died in the attack said Obama personally promised him a thorough investigation of what happened but has failed to deliver.

Strange also blamed top military brass for sending the troops into a situation they were allegedly ill-equipped and unprepared to handle. The team was responding to an Army Ranger unit that was engaged in a firefight with the Taliban and needed backup. 

Asked for comment, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. James Gregory said: "We share in the grief of all of the families who lost their loved ones." 

While not commenting directly on the allegations, he called those who were lost "warriors" who represented "the diversity and talent of America and its military." 

An official report was released in October 2011 but family members say it did little to fill in the details and left more questions than answers.

Karen Vaughn says she wants to know why her son Aaron and his team were not using special operations aircraft which have defenses in place to help allow helicopters to go deep behind enemy lines. The night her son Aaron died, he was in a helicopter that was built in the 1960s and last retrofitted in 1985.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 7 tháng 5, 2013

Obama doubles down in advocating active government, as GOP warns of excess

A passage in President Obama's recent commencement address at Ohio State University has highlighted the stark contrast between his view of the role of government and that of his Republican opponents, and it may portend tough political clashes for the remainder of his term.

"Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems," Obama told graduates. "Some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices."

Critics point out the fear of government tyranny was also a prime motivator of the founding fathers as they crafted the Constitution.

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive," Thomas Jefferson said.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," Ben Franklin said.

But Obama follows "a different tradition," Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute said. "He comes from the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and the so-called progressive movement that sees government as a wonderful, good thing that is supposed to take care of us."

Jefferson might be dismayed at just how "energetic" our government has become. Measured per household, the federal government is spending more than at any time in its history. Data compiled by the Heritage Foundation shows that since 1965 spending has grown by 152 percent, from $11,900 to $30,015 per household in 2012. Spending is expected to rise to $34,602 per household by 2022.

Many fear the U.S., burdened by high taxes, deficit spending and unprecedented debt, is edging toward a European style economy. "If we become more like Europe, and that's basically what president Obama was implying we should be like in his Ohio state address, we're going to have the exact same problems," Mitchell said, "a very stifling tax burden that discourages productive behavior while at the same time having an excessive public sector that lures people's into unproductive activity."

Lorelei Kelly of the New America Foundation disagrees. She thinks the president's Ohio State address was tailored to the talents of a tech savvy younger generation. She hopes their skills will one day  transform bureaucratic inefficiencies into effective, responsive governance.

"At the end of the day, everybody wants traffic signals that work, schools for their kids to go to that are safe and an economy that's connected," she said.

"Young people have a tremendous role to play in a very positive sense, because they understand their whole world view is connected," she said. "Everybody loves to beat up on the government and sound like we can do more with less, but the truth is what we need to start thinking about is how to update, modernize and reform our government."

Even so, after Saturday's ceremony, graduates at Ohio State and hundreds of other colleges around the U.S. will step into a world marked by the harsh realities of scarce jobs, aging parents and the looming costs of entitlements -- all challenges that will test their faith in government as few generations have been tested.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 3 tháng 5, 2013

Poking holes in the Fourth Amendment to let government snoop on you

Here they go again. The Obama administration has asked its allies in Congress to introduce legislation that would permit the feds to continue their march through the Fourth Amendment when it comes to obtaining private information about all of us.

The Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be left alone, was written largely in response to legislation Parliament enacted in the colonial era that permitted British soldiers to write their own search warrants and then use those warrants as a legal basis to enter private homes. 

The ostensible purpose of doing that was to search through the colonists’ papers looking for stamps, which the Stamp Act required the colonists to affix to all documents in their possession.

Wasn’t the Constitution written to keep the government off the backs of the people?

The laws that permitted the soldier-written search warrants and the Stamp Act were the British government’s fatal political mistakes, which arguably caused a major shift in colonial opinion toward secession from Britain 10 years before the bloody part of the Revolution began.

After the Founders won the Revolution, the Framers wrote the Constitution in large measure to assure that the new government in America would not and could not do to Americans what the king had done to the colonists. Hence the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that only judges issue search warrants and only after the governmental agency seeking the warrants presents evidence under oath of probable cause of crime. Regrettably, that was weakened after 9/11 with the enactment of the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act -- written in defiance of the Constitution and in ignorance of our history -- permits federal agents to write their own search warrants, just as the king and Parliament had permitted British soldiers to do. 

Those agent-written search warrants are intended to be limited to the search for evidence of terror plots and are theoretically limited to the seizure of physical records in the custody of third parties, like lawyers, doctors, hospitals, billing clerks, telephone and Internet carriers, and even the Post Office. (Did you know that federal agents can see your mail and your legal and medical records without permission from a judge?) This abominable piece of legislation sacrificed freedom for safety and enhanced neither.

Now the feds want even more personal liberty sacrificed -- this time to make it easier for them to collect digital information.

The Obama administration wants legislation enacted that will punish Internet service providers who fail to cooperate with FBI requests and court orders. 

The FBI has revealed that its agents often “lack the time” to obtain search warrants, and so they have gotten into the bad habit of asking Internet service providers to let them in without warrants.

This was notoriously done in the Bush-era, during which the feds promised immunity to telephone service providers that enabled the feds to spy on their customers. That spying was criminal and gave rise to civil causes of action for damages, as well, until Congress changed the law retroactively and granted the promised immunity after the Bush administration spying was exposed.

Some telephone providers declined the government requests then, and some Internet providers decline these requests today. Hence, the proposed legislation would punish those providers who protect the privacy of their customers by telling the FBI to go home.

The second category of punishment sought by the administration is for Internet service providers as to which the FBI has obtained a warrant. A search warrant typically authorizes the government to enter private premises and look for the specific items designated in the warrant. But it does not require the custodian of those specific items to find them for the government. This proposed legislation would change all that.

The government has subtly revealed that when it comes to digital data it often does not know what it is looking for, and its agents lack the skills to hook into the Internet providers’ systems. This raises another set of questions, likely to escape members of Congress as they examine this latest assault on the Fourth Amendment.

The Framers were very careful when they wrote the Fourth Amendment, as it imposes the most explicit requirements on the government found anywhere in the Constitution. 

It requires that all search warrants “particularly describ(e) the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” So, if the government follows the Constitution, it cannot seek what it is unable to identify, and it cannot compel the custodian of whatever records it is seeking to do its work for it.

Until now.

If enacted, the proposed legislation will punish those Internet service providers that fail to share secrets with the feds. The Obama administration hopes the legislation, if enacted, will enable the feds to set up a system that will let them tap into Internet service providers’ data directly from FBI offices, without having to serve the warrant or visit the Internet providers’ premises.

What a temptation for abuse that will become. It will compel data sharing between the government and Internet service providers that will eviscerate what little remains of personal email privacy. 

It will profoundly violate the Fourth Amendment by turning employees of Internet service providers into de facto unpaid federal agents. And it will punish all those who decline to go along with this with crippling fines that double every day.

Wasn’t the Constitution written to keep the government off the backs of the people? Does the government work for us, or do we work for the government?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 4 tháng 4, 2013

When the government goes bankrupt -- what Stockton's plight means for America

What happens when the government goes bankrupt? This question is one that sounds like a hypothetical exercise in a law school classroom from just a few years ago, where it might have been met with some derision. But today, it is a realistic and terrifying inquiry that many who have financial relationships with governments in America will need to make, and it will be answered with the gnashing of teeth.

Earlier this week, a federal judge accepted the bankruptcy petition of Stockton, Calif., a city of about 300,000 residents northeast of San Francisco, over the objections of those who had loaned money to the city. The lenders -- called bondholders -- and their insurers saw this coming when the city stopped paying interest on their loans -- called bonds. In this connection, a bond is a loan made to a municipality, which pays the lender tax-free interest and returns the principal when it is due. Institutional lenders usually obtain insurance, which guarantees the repayment but puts the insurance carrier on the hook.

The due dates of many of these bonds have come and gone, and the bondholders and their insurers want Stockton to repay the loans. But the city lacks the money with which to make the repayments. It borrowed money from the bondholders during good financial times, when its real estate-generated tax receipts were greater than today, and when its advisers predicted no foreseeable end to the flow of cash to the city. The expected flow of that cash, the natural inclination of those in government to want to give away other people’s money, and the self-serving manipulations of those in power who rewarded their friends and themselves with rich pensions combined to cause the city to make generous pension commitments to its employees.

It is politically easier to offer generous pension payments to municipal employees in the future than it is to raise their salaries today.

It is politically easier to offer generous pension payments to municipal employees in the future than it is to raise their salaries today. The promise to pay a pension to qualifying retirees upon their entry into the retirement system, just like the promise to repay bondholders the money they loaned, is a legally enforceable contract.

So, confronted with an obligation to repay more than $200 million in loans to bondholders and more than $900 million to the California pension system for its current and former employees, and confounded by a serious reduction in real estate tax revenue, so serious that Stockton cannot afford to pay either the bondholders or the pension system, let alone both, the city that over-borrowed and over-spent and over-promised has sought the protection of a federal bankruptcy court.

Bankruptcy in America is a strange bird. It permits debtors to be relieved of their financial obligations by paying less, often far less, than they owe. It compels creditors to accept less, often far less, than they are due. It is generally an orderly and mechanical process presided over by a neutral judge without a jury. Its goal is to get the creditors something, leave the debtors with something, and let all parties go home in peace and resume their livelihoods.

But it rarely happens to the government. That’s because the government, which has no competition, creates no wealth, doesn’t produce anything of value and needn’t attract clients, has a monopoly on the use of force with which it can extract what it needs to pay for its mistakes in the form of higher taxes. These extractions, of course, are not voluntary transactions as when you buy gas for your car or food for your table. They are mafia-style transactions: Pay us more, or else.

But there must be a limit even to the Stockton taxpayers’ willingness to part with their wealth in the form of taxes, hence the filing for bankruptcy. The Stockton case presents a rare opportunity for a federal judge to interfere with the contractual obligations of a municipal government and actually modify or even nullify them.

It also presents a confluence of a culture in California of high taxes and generous -- often non-contributory -- pensions for even short-term government employees and a federal system that when it faces a shortfall simply goes to its banker -- the Federal Reserve -- and asks it to print more cash. Stockton cannot legally print cash the way the Fed can.

How does this affect the rest of us? Currently, state and local governments owe about $4 trillion in pension benefits that they do not have to current and former employees, and they know they cannot politically acquire it by raising taxes. This affects all 50 states. So the odds are that the states and the similarly situated Stocktons in America will go to the Obama administration and ask for free cash. And the president will no doubt find it for them. That “found” cash will be borrowed from the Federal Reserve and, like all of the federal government’s debts to the Fed, will never be repaid. But countless generations of American taxpayers will make enormous and endless interest payments on it.

Does that sound too apocalyptic for you? Well, consider this: The federal government is still paying interest on the $30 billion it borrowed to wage World War I nearly 100 years ago. So, to the feds, mortgaging your children’s future to save the Stocktons of the country from the consequences of their own profligate ways is a no-brainer.

Should Americans yet unborn pay for all of this? Is this what you elected the government to do? What will it take to keep the government within the confines of the Constitution?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 28 tháng 3, 2013

When it comes to marriage, government should divorce itself

  • Supreme Court Gay Mar_Cala(2).jpg

    Kim Roberts, left, and her partner Lisa Mayes of Benicia, Calif. participate in a marriage equality rally on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at the Solano County Government Center in Fairfield before the Supreme Court hears arguments concerning the Defense of Marriage Act after it heard arguments contesting the constitutionality of the California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday. (AP Photo/The Reporter, Joel Rosenbaum)MANDATORY CREDIT

With the Supreme Court now hearing cases centering on the legality of a federal ban on gay marriage and California’s ban on gay marriage, the real way our nation should address marriage rights is to get government out of the marriage business, altogether.

It never made sense to have state or federal government intrude into personal affairs by giving it the power to sanction and legitimize the loving commitment of one individual to another. That is a matter for the adults involved, who should share their intentions and vows in a ceremony with family, friends and any religious institutions they choose (or not), then sign any financial documents they see as being appropriate and, perhaps, exchange rings.  End of story.

If two adults are mature enough to get married, they should be mature enough to envision and codify how they will deal with their finances, should that marriage end.

The government’s only interest should be in enforcing child support and fair child custody and visitation for each parent, in the event of a dissolution of the (government-free) marital bond.  Making certain that children do not descend into poverty, and spouses are not left without parental rights, would then be the only proper function of the state related to marriage—both triggered only when marriages end.  This would be no different than the state’s current role in enforcing child support, custody and visitation in non-married couples.

The legal sanctioning of, or refusal to sanction, any loving union between adults is inherently laden with cultural values.  And if it is determined that love and commitment should be the sole driving force behind state and federal marriage laws, then it is utterly and completely illogical to deny five people who love one another the right to marry as a group.  Heterosexual government-sanctioned marriage leads logically to homosexual government-sanctioned marriage, which leads logically to polygamy.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is suggesting that government should play favorites and show prejudice.

If two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government’s stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government’s stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry.  No one can credibly argue that three people cannot be in love, and the three-parent structure would offer the children of this marriage a mother and two fathers—role models of both genders, with 50 percent more earning capacity than a two-parent family and many advantages, in terms of built-in child care.

Government should not play favorites or show prejudice. And the proper next step for government to take is a major step out of our personal lives. This can be done by neither showing a preference for or against marriages, nor deciding who should marry whom. Instead, that should be left to people and their loved ones and their religious institutions, if any.

All state, federal and corporate (as in, health insurance) preferences shown married couples, as opposed to those who are not married, are inherently prejudicial.  There ought to be no distinction between the rules for filing taxes, whether one is married, or not.  Every individual should file taxes under the same set of rules.  There ought to be no government rubber stamp via government-sanctioned marriage of whether someone has the right to act on behalf of another individual who is too ill to make decisions. That should all be codified in a prenuptial agreement or other legal documents.  There ought to be no automatic inheritance of assets by spouses, which should be codified in a will.

The gay marriage debate is a sideshow in the bigger debate we must have:  Why was government so intrusive as to be involved in marriage, in the first place, and shouldn’t government divorce itself from the concept of sanctioning marriage, altogether? 

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

Obama signs bill to avoid government shutdown

President Obama has signed a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running through the end of September.

The measure leaves in place $85 billion in automatic budget cuts known as the sequester. But it takes steps to ease the impact of the cuts to food inspection and college assistance for active duty military personnel.

The House and Senate passed the spending bill last week. Without it, the government on Wednesday would have run out of money to keep operating.

The measure funds the day-to-day operating budgets of every Cabinet agency through Sept. 30, the end of the 2013 fiscal year. It also provides another $87 billion for overseas military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and maintains a pay freeze for federal workers.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 25 tháng 3, 2013

Government spent nearly $3.7M on ex-presidents in 2012

  • GeorgeBushBillClinton.jpg

    George W. Bush and Bill Clinton left the White House years ago but still are collecting sizable pensions from the federal government.Reuters

Being the leader of the free world is an expensive proposition. And the costs don't stop once you leave the White House.

The government spent nearly $3.7 million on former presidents in 2012, according to an analysis just released by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. That covers a pension, compensation and benefits for office staff, and the government also picks up the tab for other costs like travel, office space and postage.

The costliest former president? George W. Bush, who clocked in last year at just over $1.3 million.

The $3.7 million taxpayers shelled out in 2012 is about $200,000 less than in 2011, and the sum in 2010 was even higher. It's a drop in the bucket compared with the trillions the federal government spends each year.

Still, with ex-presidents able to command eye-popping sums for books, speaking engagements and the like in their post-White House years, the report raises questions about whether the U.S. should provide such generous subsidies at a time when spending cuts and the deficit are forcing lawmakers and federal agencies to seek ways to cut back.

Under the Former Presidents Act, previous inhabitants of the Oval Office are given an annual pension equivalent to a Cabinet secretary's salary -- about $200,000 last year -- plus $96,000 a year for a small office staff.

Departing presidents also get extra help in the first years after they leave office, one reason that Bush's costs were higher than other living ex-presidents. The most recent ex-president to leave the White House, Bush was granted almost $400,000 for 8,000 square feet of office space in Dallas, plus $85,000 in telephone costs. Another $60,000 went to travel costs.

President Bill Clinton came in second at just under $1 million, followed by George H.W. Bush at nearly $850,000. Clinton spent the most government money on office space: $442,000 for his 8,300 square foot digs in New York's Harlem neighborhood.

Clinton's predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, received about $840,000 in federal funds last year. Costs for Jimmy Carter, the only other living former president, came in at about $500,000.

Widows of former presidents are entitled to a pension of $20,000, but Nancy Reagan, the wife of former President Ronald Reagan, waived her pension last year. The former first lady did accept $14,000 in postage.

The cost totals for ex-president don't include what the Secret Service spends protecting them, their spouses and children. Those costs are part of a separate budget that isn't made public.

Funding for ex-presidents under the Former Presidents Act dates back to 1958, when Congress created the program largely in response to President Harry Truman's post-White House financial woes, the Congressional Research Service said. The goal was to maintain the dignity of the presidency and help with ongoing costs associated with being a former president, such as responding to correspondence and scheduling requests.

These days, a former president's income can be substantial from speaking and writing, and ex-presidents also have robust presidential centers and foundations that accept donations and facilitate many of their post-presidential activities.

Noting that none of the living ex-presidents are poor, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced a bill last year that would limit costs to a $200,000 pension, plus another $200,000 that ex-presidents could use at their discretion. And for every dollar that an ex-president earns in excess of $400,000, their annual allowance would be reduced by the same amount. The bill died in committee.


View the original article here

What to Cut: As Congress treats crises with new programs, government grows

Almost every president of the last 40 years has called for shrinking or streamlining the federal  bureaucracy. Think of President Reagan saying at his first inauguration, "Government is not the solution, government is the problem," or President Clinton vowing in 1996, "The era of big government is over."

Even more recently, President Obama said in January 2012, "I'm calling on Congress to streamline and reform the executive branch."

Many have tried. None has succeeded.

"The government is far larger than it ever has been. The debt is growing at record rates," Thomas Schatz, president of  Citizens Against Government Waste, said.

Adjusted for inflation, federal spending has gone up from an average of $882 billion every year in the 1980s to $1.48 trillion a year in the '90s to $2.44 trillion a year in the first decade of the 21st century. It's estimated that the government will have spent as much in the first four years of the new decade as it did in all of the 1990s.

Two crises -- the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the so-called "great recession" -- further propelled the growth of government in certain areas but without the commensurate cuts in other areas that earlier generations imposed in times of crisis.

"In the past when there were various crisis like World War II or the Korean War, non-defense spending was dramatically cut by 20 to 30 percent," Schatz said. "That didn't happen after 9/11, and it certainly didn't happen after the financial crisis."

Nothing typifies the expansion of government like the growing wealth of the Washington, D.C., area. The region has few natural resources and little manufacturing base to produce wealth, yet seven of the nation's 10 richest counties surround Washington. The average government worker's compensation now stands at over $126,000 a year. And the fact that Washington's traffic congestion now ranks as the nation's worst stands as more evidence of the region's growth.

As the rest of the country suffered through the recession with layoffs and foreclosures, Washington's work force and its home prices remained mostly stable.

"The congressional system is to spend money and not save money. The incentive for many members of Congress to solve a problem is to create a program," Schatz said.

And with the creation of almost any government program comes a food chain of contractors, lobbyists, lawyers and special interests  -- all feeding from a government trough that Congress seldom lets run dry.

"You have to balance the family budget, you have to make sure the business is solvent. Government doesn't really look at it that way," said Evan Bayh, a former Democratic senator from Indiana.

So even expenditures that some call grossly wasteful -- say, $385,000 for a Yale University study on the plasticity of duck penises during mating, or $60,000 for a "Star Trek" spoof for a 2010 IRS training session -- may not raise red flags until after the money is spent.

"They don't want to know where the waste is, because if they actually know where the waste is they're going have to do something about it," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 21 tháng 3, 2013

When the government demands silence -- the ugliness of the Patriot Act

  • Capitol Dome_Leff.jpg

    July 28, 2011: Shown here is the Capitol dome on Capitol Hill in Washington.AP

In 1798, when John Adams was president of the United States, the feds enacted four pieces of legislation called the Alien and Sedition Acts. One of these laws made it a federal crime to publish any false, scandalous or malicious writing -- even if true -- about the president or the federal government, notwithstanding the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment.

The feds used these laws to torment their adversaries in the press and even successfully prosecuted a congressman who heavily criticized the president. Then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson vowed that if he became president, these abominable laws would expire. He did, and they did, but this became a lesson for future generations: The guarantees of personal freedom in the Constitution are only as valuable and reliable as is the fidelity to the Constitution of those to whom we have entrusted it for safekeeping.

We have entrusted the Constitution to all three branches of the federal government for safekeeping. But typically, they fail to do so. Presidents have repeatedly assaulted the freedom of speech many times throughout our history, and Congresses have looked the other way. Abraham Lincoln arrested Northerners who challenged the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson arrested Americans who challenged World War I. FDR arrested Americans he thought might not support World War II. LBJ and Richard Nixon used the FBI to harass hundreds whose anti-Vietnam protests frustrated them.

In the post-9/11 era the chief instrument of repression of personal freedom has been the government’s signature anti-terror legislation: the Patriot Act.

In our own post 9/11 era, the chief instrument of repression of personal freedom has been the government’s signature anti-terror legislation: the Patriot Act. It was born in secrecy, as members of the House of Representatives were given 15 minutes to read its 300 pages before voting on it in October 2001, and it operates in silence, as those who suffer under it cannot speak about it.

The Patriot Act permits FBI agents to write their own search warrants and gives those warrants the patriotic and harmless-sounding name of national security letters (NSLs). This authorization is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that that security can only be violated by a search warrant issued by a neutral judge and based upon probable cause of crime.

The probable cause requirement compels the feds to acquire evidence of criminal behavior about the person whose records they seek, so as to prevent politically motivated invasions of privacy and fishing expeditions like those that were common in the colonial era. Judges are free, of course, to sign the requested warrant, to modify it and sign it, or to reject it if it lacks the underlying probable cause.

The very concept of a search warrant authorized by law enforcement and not by the courts is directly and profoundly antithetical to the Constitution -- no matter what the warrant is called. Yet, that’s what Congress and President Bush made lawful when they gave us the Patriot Act.

When FBI agents serve the warrants they’ve written for themselves -- the NSLs as they call them -- they tell the recipient of the warrant that he or she will commit a felony if he or she tells anyone -- a lawyer, a judge, a spouse, a priest in confessional -- of the receipt of the warrant. The NSLs are typically not served on the person whose records the FBI wants; rather, they are served on the custodians of those records, such as computer servers, the Post Office, hospitals, banks, delivery services, telephone providers, etc.

Because of the Patriot Act’s mandated silence, the person whose records the FBI seeks often never knows his or her records have been seized. Since October 2001, FBI agents and other federal agents have served more than 350,000 search warrants with which they have authorized themselves to conduct a search. Each time they have done so, they have warned the recipient of the warrant to remain silent or be prosecuted for telling the truth about the government.

Occasionally, recipients have not remained silent. They have understood their natural and constitutionally protected right to the freedom of speech and their moral and fiduciary duty to their customer or client, and they have moved in federal court either to suppress the warrant or for the right to tell the customer or client whose records are being sought that the FBI has come calling. Isn’t that odd in America -- asking a judge for permission to tell the truth about the government?

What’s even more odd is that the same section of the Patriot Act that criminalizes speaking freely about the receipt of an agent-written search warrant also authorizes the FBI to give the recipient of the warrant permission to speak about it. How un-American is that -- asking the FBI for permission to tell the truth about the government?

Last week in San Francisco, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston held that the section of the Patriot Act that prohibits telling anyone about the receipt of an FBI agent-written search warrant and the section that requires asking and receiving the permission of the FBI before talking about the receipt of one profoundly and directly infringe upon the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. And the government knows that.

We all know that the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage open, wide, robust debate about and transparency from the government. Our right to exercise the freedom of speech comes from our humanity, not from the government. The Constitution recognizes that we can only lose that right by consent or after a jury trial that results in conviction and incarceration.

But we can also lose it by the tyranny of the majority, as Congress and the president in 1798 and 2001 have demonstrated.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 11 tháng 3, 2013

To win, GOP must hammer on limited government message

Rand Paul’s filibuster last week to smoke out the Obama administration’s position about using drones on U.S. soil was a principled act. — He was defending Americans’ right to due process of law in face of the sovereign monopoly on the use of force. Yet, the episode demonstrated why Republicans face difficulties establishing their party as a defender of personal liberty and wining national elections.

The Obama administration could offer no justification, other than expediency, for why Americans on U.S. soil, who may be illegally conspiring with terrorists but posing no eminent threat, should not be arrested and tried in a court of law instead of being killed by executive order through a robotic device.  

Yet, Republican Senators McCain and Lindsey Graham, without offering any better reason,chided Senator Paul and denied Republicans the opportunity to establish the GOP as the assured defender of every American’s right to security of person and protection from arbitrary government violence—something President Obama and Attorney Holder seem hesitant to embrace or understand.

To win elections, Republicans must embrace limited government, beyond how much the government taxes and spends, to situations they find discomforting.

On immigration, contraception, gay rights and other social issues, President Obama’s positions are also premised on expediency—maintaining a Democratic coalition of minorities, women and gays—with little respect for the rule of law or constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Yet, over and over again, Republicans come up short and fragmented in their responses.

Some plan must be devised to deal with the 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. Deporting all or most of them would cripple the U.S. economy after countenancing their presence and practical contributions to our society for so many years. And failing to offer some pathway to legitimacy and forcing them permanently into the shadows and denying them legal protections violates the basic human rights the United States has espoused and defended at home and abroad for generations.

Senator Marco Rubio and other Republicans are correct to condition enactment of such a naturalization process to finally securing U.S. borders. President Obama’s opposition to guaranteed border security in exchange for a pathway to citizenship is nothing less than political expediency in his quest for Hispanic votes—this at the expense of restoring rule of law to U.S. immigration policy, protecting American workers from unfair competition from illegal immigrants working in exploitive conditions, and ensuring the problem of millions of illegal immigrants does not reemerge 10 or 20 years from now.

When conservative Republicans oppose any naturalization process, because desperate people illegally snuck across the border while most Americans looked the other way and profited from their presence, or merely embrace naturalization out of political necessity, they permit liberal pundits to tag the GOP as the “White Guys Club.”

The ObamaCare requirement that church-related organizations offer employees health insurance and provide contraceptive drugs and devices—even though those are widely and inexpensively available—is not about a woman’s right to choose. Rather, it is about the federal government negating religious freedom by forcing one person to pay for another person’s birth control choices.

Yet, the opposition of many Republicans to any government support for contraception, even for poor women, is an equal affront to religious personal choices, and permits liberals in the media to characterize their posture as a “Republican War on Women.”

On gay rights, Republicans should simply heed former New York Mayor Giuliani’s admonition to stay out of people’s bedrooms. Moderate voters—who determine the outcome of elections—have quite widely varying views about homosexuality, but generally they believe that the government has no right to interfere with personal sexual choices that do not impact on others.

To win elections, Republicans must embrace limited government, beyond how much the government taxes and spends, to situations they find discomforting—the choices most Americans have already made about the rights of illegal immigrants, poor women, gays, and whoever else may violate their private sensibilities.

Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter @PMorici1.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 1 tháng 3, 2013

Americans endure bigger income cut than government can handle

Americans are a lot better at belt-tightening than the people they send to Washington.

As Americans’ income fell by 3.6 percent in January, President Obama and Congressional leaders were warning of the dire consequences of sequester, the budgetary booby trap that forces cuts of as little as a third of that from the mammoth federal spending plan. Working stiffs sucked it up and absorbed the biggest monthly drop in income in 20 years, while the elected officials insisted that the federal budget had no fat to trim.

Financial planning experts say if Americans can take such a big bite out of their paychecks, Washington should be able to weather a similar cut, percentage-wise.

“If you compare [the sequester cuts] to sacrifices a regular family has had to make, you’re talking about the money you find in your couch cushions.”

- Larry Winget, best-selling author

“If you compare [the sequester cuts] to sacrifices a regular family has had to make, you’re talking about the money you find in your couch cushions,” said Larry Winget, the best-selling author of “You’re Broke Because You Want to Be.”

“When regular folks need to cut the household budget, they get rid of their toys, their cable TV, eating out,” Winget continued. “If they can make those kind of cuts, the federal government ought to be able to.”

The sequester cuts were put in place more than a year ago as a means of forcing lawmakers to come up with a better cost-saving solution. President Obama famously said during a debate with Mitt Romney that they would “never happen.” But as the deadline drew near and it became clear that no deal was in the offing to head off the cuts, sober warnings emerged from the nation’s capitol. Some 800,000 Pentagon workers would be furloughed. Thousands of illegal aliens would have to be freed. Teachers and firefighters would be laid off.

"These cuts are wrong," President Obama said this week, calling sequester a "dumb way" to make cuts which amount to 2.4 percent or 1.3 percent of the $3.5 trillion federal budget, depending on which calculation is being used.

The sequester cuts, which hit defense hardest but also take a bite out of discretionary spending including foreign aid and the budget of most federal agencies, add up to $85 billion when pro-rated over a full year. But since the government operates on a fiscal year, actual spending will only fall by $44 billion this year, according to the Congressional Budget.

Financial expert and television personality Ben Stein said Washington’s dysfunction is best illustrated by the fact lawmakers had a year and a half to find a more gentle way to make the cuts, but couldn’t agree. Now the spending cuts are being imposed with a sledge hammer instead of a scalpel, he said.

“The problem is not the cuts, the problem is the meat-cleaver way it was done,” Stein told FoxNews.com. “We expect a LOT more care from our legislators and our president.”

Heritage Foundation President-elect Jim DeMint, the former South Carolina senator and fiscal hawk, wrote Friday that the White House is making it “seem like sequestration means the end of the world. “ But given that the federal budget nearly doubled to $3.5 trillion from $2 trillion between 2002 and 2012, and will swell to $6 trillion over the next decade, DeMint said the cuts don’t go nearly far enough.

“The sequester barely taps the brakes on this runaway spending,” DeMint wrote.

But the spending cuts Americans are facing at home are truly painful. The Commerce Department’s announcement on Friday verified what working Americans noticed in January, starting with the expiration of the payroll tax holiday, which equated to a 2.2 percent pay cut for most employees. A chronically struggling economy further eroded incomes even as heating bills, gas prices and food costs continued to rise. The falling income figures are expected to affect spending data through the first half of the year as households adjust to smaller paychecks.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the federal government should follow the lead of Americans, who are taking thinner wallets in stride.

“It’ absurd to think that the government cannot get by with a little more than a 2 percent reduction in spending when every working American had to figure out how to make do with 2 percent less in their paychecks just last month," McConnell said.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 20 tháng 2, 2013

To government, every penny is sacred

President Obama has new priorities. That means new spending.

In his State of the Union, he said, “The American people don’t expect government to solve every problem.” But then he went on to list how, under his guidance, government will solve a thousand problems, including some (like climate change and a loss of manufacturing jobs) that are probably not even problems.

The president bragged about creating “our first manufacturing innovation institute” in Ohio and says that he will create 15 more. Politicians claim actions like this are needed to solve the “decline of manufacturing” in America. John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Pat Buchanan also fret about this. But what they call “decline” is myth. There is no decline in manufacturing.

The Federal Reserve says that U.S. manufacturing output is up from 2000, and up almost 50 percent from 1990. Yes, manufacturing employment is down because automation and government’s labor rules led companies to automate and produce more with fewer employees, but that’s OK.

Manufacturing jobs are no better than other jobs. Few parents today prefer their children work in factories rather than offices.

When the need for people in one type of industry decreases -- say, making wagon wheels -- they are freed up to work in other areas. What America needs is a flexible economy that provides new jobs. For years, we had that.

Workers who lost factory jobs found new work in the fast-growing service industry. Creating software, movies and medical innovation is just as valuable as manufacturing and often more comfortable for workers. Anyway, politicians don’t know where new jobs will appear.

“Yet the president wants 15 ‘manufacturing hubs,’ which I guess will be like Solyndra cities,” lamented Deroy Murdock, one of three libertarian reporters who came on my show to react to our president’s plans.

Murdock’s right. Politicians should accept the fact that making things is something the market does pretty well on its own. This month, the Energy Department’s inspector general reports that, three years after being awarded a $150 million federal grant, a taxpayer-backed battery plant in Holland, Mich., has not produced a single battery. At one point, the company’s workers were paid to do nothing.

“Then we have a ‘college scorecard’ that Obama will bring,” said Murdock. “U.S. News & World Report updates which colleges do a good job, but (now) government will do that?”

Then came the president’s call for more spending on preschool.

“I am sympathetic to people wanting to shove their kids out the door,” joked Katherine Mangu-Ward, “but Head Start, our pilot program for universal preschool, has a not-great record. We spend $8 billion to get very, very little in terms of results. ... We suck at education.”

Well, government does.

Michael C. Moynihan was disappointed that President Obama’s speech contained no talk of significant reform of Social Security and Medicare. “Even in this sort of dire circumstance: no change whatsoever.”

Both parties are guilty of avoiding our “dire circumstance,” said Moynihan. “There was a big announcement in 2011 -- $300, $400 billion in spending would be cut, (but) this was a mirage, there were no spending cuts. … (What) cuts in Washington mean is that you reduce the rate of increase a little.”

Instead of letting obsolete government programs die, bureaucrats come up with new excuses to keep spending. “Like the Rural Electrification Administration,” said Murdock. “That was put in by FDR to bring power to Appalachia. (Now) they put in broadband Internet.”

The Washington Post reports on a federally supported program that is so bad that even President Obama wants it cut. The Christopher Columbus Fellowship spent 80 percent of its money on overhead. Three Republicans introduced legislation to end it, but the subsidy lives on, because one senator, Thad Cochran, R-Miss., likes it.

So America continues to move toward bankruptcy. Instead of addressing that, the politicians will spend more

Instead of announcing 15 new “manufacturing” hubs, the president should just announce 300 million “do whatever you want with your own money” hubs. Then American citizens can do as they please.

That would actually do some good.
 

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.


View the original article here