Tag Archives: government

The Democrats Don’t Like Speech?

Posted on by
Reply

At least when it’s not been approved by them. This Constitutional Amendment passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday on a straight party line vote:

                       JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to contributions and expenditures intended

                       to affect elections.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two

3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol

4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con

5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States:

1                          “ARTICLE—

2 “SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle

3 of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity

4 of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall

5 have power to regulate the raising and spending of money

6 and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections,

7 including through setting limits on—

8          “(1) the amount of contributions to candidates

9 for nomination for election to, or for election to,

10 Federal office; and

11         “(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,

12 in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

13 “SECTION 2. To advance the fundamental principle

14 of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity

15 of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall

16 have power to regulate the raising and spending of money

17 and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, in

18 cluding through setting limits on—

19         “(1) the amount of contributions to candidates

20 for nomination for election to, or for election to,

21 State office; and

22         “(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,

23 in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

1 “SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be con

2 strued to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom

3 of the press.

4 “SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have

5 power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate

6 legislation.”.

Sections 1 and 2 are identical other than Sect 1 addresses Congress’ power, and Sect 2 addresses States’ power. The key phrase is this: shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on together with its applicability to limiting contributions. It’s open-ended. A party in the majority would be fully empowered by this Amendment, were it to pass, to set the limit at zero regarding candidates of the opposing party. Even were the limits found required to be applied equally to all candidates, the incumbents would have the critical advantage of already having, for instance, name recognition and the bully pulpits of their elected offices to spread their messages—advantages denied the other candidates by their inability to purchase air and newspaper time, or to stump.

This is a guaranteed incumbency amendment, and nothing else.

IRS and Internal Emails

Posted on by
Reply

Like a lot folks, I’m skeptical about the…accuracy…of the IRS’ lately claim that they can’t find Lois Lerner’s emails from before 2011.

My skepticism flows from a number of sources:

  • Why are they only now discovering the loss, a year after all that documentation was subpoenaed by House oversight committees?
  • The IRS claims a hard drive crash is at the heart of the loss—on what basis are we to believe that a single hard drive held all those documents?
  • The IRS’ hard drives—actually, the material stored on them—like all government hard drives/data, and like all such materials in the private, competitive sector, are backed up nightly: what are we to believe happened to all those backups?
  • Are we expected to believe that a professional IT crew would be so careless as to leave a single hard drive at the core of such a critical system? That they would leave all those backups at mercy of a single point of failure?

Note to those of you who believe the IRS’ claim: perhaps I can interest you in some beachfront property north of Santa Fe.

A Bit of Paranoia

Posted on by
Reply

In 2010, a report from Amnesty International painted a grim picture of North Korea’s crumbling health care system, with witnesses and health care workers recounting barely-functioning hospitals, multiple medication shortages and epidemics caused by malnutrition.

And

US military officials soon grew concerned over the possibility of a lethal pathogen originating within North Korea, as the nation’s health care officials would be nearly powerless to stop the spread of infection. And if such an illness were to continue to expand, a global pandemic would likely occur.

But what if this is deliberate? Baby Kim isn’t stupid, and he is insane enough to give serious thought to such a thing. Northern Korea can’t invade with their army, so might they invade with disease? They’d infect a major fraction of their population (they’re already allowing a major fraction to become infected) and let a goodly number leak across the DMZ, which really is quite porous from the north’s side. And many of these diseases can spread via airborne vectors, against which the DMZ is no barrier at all.

A thug’s version of Napoléon’s levée en masse.

Pride and Reluctance

Posted on by
Reply

Two hundred and seventy-six young girls were kidnapped by the terrorist organization* Boko Haram, whose leader is threatening to sell them into slavery, if he hasn’t already.

On the matter of offers from the US, Great Britain, Israel, and a number of others of military help both in dealing with these terrorists and presently in recovering the stolen girls, though, Nigerian pride seems more important than the safety of Nigerian children.

Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan’s spokesman Doyin Okupe, has said about foreign military aid

Nigeria is a very proud nation. We feel that to subjugate our military under another world power would be to really compromise our integrity.

How is your national integrity, President Jonathan, not already disastrously compromised by your failure to protect even your children and your present inability to recover them?

 

*Aside: Why is it that so many “news” organizations and “journalists,” all of whom pretend to respectability, keep referring to such gangs as “insurgents” or “radical Islamists?” Why are they so desperate to avoid naming these organized mobs for what they are: terrorists?

Bureaucratic Misbehavior

Posted on by
Reply

Bipartisan legislation…would prevent federal employees from receiving bonuses if they have been disciplined for tax and conduct issues.

Senators Kelly Ayotte (R, NH) and Claire McCaskill (D, MO) are sponsoring the bill inspired by a recent government report describing how the Internal Revenue Service paid more than $2.8 million in bonuses to employees with disciplinary problems.

“Federal employees who have disciplinary problems or who haven’t paid their taxes shouldn’t be getting bonuses,” Ayotte said in a statement. “Taxpayers in New Hampshire and across the nation were alarmed by recent reports of IRS employees being awarded bonuses that they shouldn’t have received.”

McCaskill added

The notion that taxpayer dollars would be used to pay cash bonuses to employees who’ve engaged in conduct that could get them fired or sent to jail is outrageous—and our bill would put an end to it.

What’s even more outrageous, though, is that “employees who’ve engaged in conduct that could get them fired or sent to jail” weren’t fired or prosecuted. As dismaying as that is outrageous is that McCaskill doesn’t even see that: she’s happy to have them on the payroll and unprosecuted, just denied bonuses.

To all of which I say, why not make the relevant bosses hold their people accountable themselves—because that’s the right thing to do? If those “supervisors” can’t or won’t perform, fire them and get supervisors who will.

Moreover, the tax scofflaws should be fired for cause. Why aren’t they? Oh, wait—public service unions. Those with a history of disciplinary problems (as opposed to one or two incidents) should be fired for cause. Why aren’t they? Oh, wait—public service unions. Their discipline problems should be listed as an, if not the, explicit reason for their getting no bonus for the period. Why aren’t they? Oh, wait—public service unions.

Plainly, we need to deal with the public service unions, too.

It shouldn’t have to come to this. The bureaucrats, including the appointed officials at the top, should have more moral backbone than this, even if it means crossing the unions. It’s crap like this, though, that contributes excuses for government to grow.

The whole viper’s nest needs to be cleaned out, a 100% turn-over, from the top down.