Obama’s New Regulations to Cost $1 Billion each…Annually

OBAMA: 7 PROPOSED REGULATIONS WOULD EACH TOP $1B Via AP/Yahoo (Hat tip: Doug Powers)
	President Barack Obama says his administration is considering seven new government regulations that would cost the economy more than $1 billion each a year, a tally Republicans will pounce on to argue that Congress needs the power to approve costly government rules. In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Obama lists four proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules and three Transportation Department rules estimated to cost in excess of $1 billion. One of the proposed EPA rules — an update to the health-based standard for smog — is estimated to cost the economy between $19 billion and $90 billion. [...] The four environmental regulations, which target air pollution and coal residue primarily from coal-fired power plants, already have been attacked by House Republicans, who have said they would kill jobs and harm the economy. [...] Obama’s letter was in response to a Boehner request last week for more details from the president on the proposed costs of the most expensive regulations under consideration by his administration. Obama’s administration has identified 219 proposed regulations this year with a cost to the economy of more than $100 million each. Boehner, in a statement, said the administration should now release detailed cost estimates for all those proposed regulations. “At a time like this, with our economy struggling to create jobs, it’s misguided for the federal government to be imposing so many new rules with such enormous costs, even when some of those rules may be well-intentioned,” he said.
RELATED - Obama added $9.5 billion in new regulations last month

Democrat Congressman: “Tea Party Wants Blacks Hanging on a Tree” (Video)

DEMS INCITING VIOLENCE AGAINST THE TEA PARTY Powerful Democrat congressmen continue to lie about Tea Partiers who simply are Americans from all walks of life who want a responsible government. Obviously, this is an orchestrated effort by the Left to blame Tea Partiers for Obama’s failures…and to inspire violent reactions against those Americans who agree with the Tea Party philosophy. This is intimidation, slander and hate speech. (Hat tip: NakedEmperorNews, GatewayPundit)

RELATED - Mark Levin calls out CBC members spewing violent hate speech - Rep. Andre Carson: Tea Party Protesters Are ‘One of the Largest Threats to our Internal Security’ (May 6, 2010)

RON PAUL IS NO CONSERVATIVE

Ron Paul and anti-Semitism, racism, isolationism, far left-wingism and intimidation Summary of the American Spectator’s article exposing Ron Paul’s neo-liberalism: (Emphasis added)
NEOLIBERAL. NOT CONSERVATIVE.
	When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives. This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul’s views are, self-described, “non-interventionist.” [...] There is no great sin in Paul’s non-interventionist stance (or “isolationist” stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul’s idea of evil spawn — the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.) The deception — and it is a considerable deception — is that almost to a person those prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist “Paulist” politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left. From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR’s ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party. But of particular interest, and here is where the deception by Paulists is so considerable, the Ron Paul view of foreign policy has been the cornerstone of Republican liberals and progressives. Those who, using current political terminology, would be called the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) of their day. [...] …Ron Paul, as noted, has deservedly developed a reputation for fiscal conservatism. Just as all of those Liberal Republicans from days long gone by were able to run and get elected as Republicans by developing enough of a conservative reputation for something seen as the conservative position in the time — support for a tariff here or a government reform over there. All the while carrying the liberal flag for Bryan’s left-wing Populism or Wilson’s Progressive New Freedom or FDR’s New Deal. So if Ron Paul is conservative on domestic issues, but of a like mind with liberal non-interventionists of both parties, what precisely is Ron Paul? The right term is certainly not conservative. …Liberal Republican LaFollette Sr. and liberal Democrat Senator Wheeler even teamed up to run on the Progressive Party presidential ticket in 1924, supported by no less than the Socialist Party. The proper term for Paul and his followers, then, would take into account this political half horse/half man philosophical creativity. Conservative on domestic policy, a staunch advocate of historically liberal views on foreign policy. Ron Paul is what might be called a “Neo-Liberal.” Or even a “Quasi-Conservative.” [...] …[H]istory shows non-interventionists have been historically incapable of resisting what they clearly see as the next step after making the non-interventionist case. That next step? Finding someone to blame for the calls to intervene in this or that war or international situation. And right here is where Paul and his neolibs, in the style of his neolib predecessors, begin going off the rails.
BLAMING THE JEWS
	Disturbingly, the history of Neoliberalism is replete with charges of anti-Semitism. While this is a charge in today’s political dialogue that has been thrown repeatedly at Paul and his neolib followers…It is a charge that appears to be inevitable when the core premise of non-interventionism is that some dark force somewhere is pushing America into an unconstitutional interventionist war. All too often that dark force for the Neoliberals turns out to be the scapegoat of hard-leftists everywhere in the world: the Jews. A story from history. Before Pearl Harbor, as the war in America over going to war in Europe raged, the once fierce opposition by the American people to taking on Hitler and the Nazis began to change as Hitler’s relentless march through Europe picked up speed. This opposition also began to change in Hollywood, and soon a small raft of anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi films began to appear. These included Confessions of a Nazi Spy starring Edward G. Robinson (1939), Alfred Hitchcock’s 1940 Foreign Correspondent and, hilariously, Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator (1940).  Neolibs were furious. Senator Gerald Nye, the liberal Republican non-interventionist, took to the radio airwaves in August 1941 to accuse Hollywood studios of serving as “gigantic engines of propaganda… to influence public sentiment in the direction of participation by the United States in the present European war.” The speech, take note, was mostly written for Nye by one John T. Flynn, a former editor of the progressive New Republic magazine. [...] Nye also did something else in that radio address written by John Flynn. One by one he read out the names of the heads of these Hollywood studios — names which, as he used particularly scathing or sarcastic tones to pronounce them — were unmistakably taken by his audience to be Jewish names. [...] Meaning, of course, the men responsible for these films were Jews. Literally before the day was out Nye had a resolution on the Senate floor demanding an investigation of Hollywood studios. In little over a month — September 9, 1941 — the liberal Democrat non-interventionist Senator Wheeler had ginned up that Senate investigation and it was opened for business…The witnesses against the three? That would include Senator Nye himself — and John T. Flynn.[...] What does this old history have to do with what might be called the dark side of the Paul campaign? In his book The Revolution: A Manifesto, Congressman Paul includes at the end a section called “A Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America.” And on that recommended reading list? Here’s the entry, in full: Flynn, John T. As We Go Marching. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1944. Flynn, an accomplished journalist, analyzes fascism in Italy and Germany and concludes by considering the state of America in his day. That’s right. Congressman Paul is recommending the writings of a man who, in his day, was seen as a driving force behind the anti-Semitic liberal Republican Senator Nye and the Senate investigation into Jewish influence in Hollywood. Take a look at this CNN video, featuring Congressman Paul, Texas Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Ben Stein…The discussion, about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the so-called “Underwear bomber” accused of trying to blow up a plane over Detroit) quickly draws a charge of anti-Semitism from Stein, which causes Paul to erupt and demand an apology, which was not forthcoming. [...] Stein is not alone. This issue of a connection between Paul or those around him and anti-Semitism has been hotly discussed by all manner of well-respected conservatives. From David Horowitz (here) to Commentary‘s John Podhoretz to Andrew Walden at The American Thinker… The too-cute-by-half cleverness in this current argument over the newest appearance of anti-Semitism as an anchor of Neoliberal philosophy is the use of the term “neoconservative” as a euphemism for “Jew.” [...] …[A] Paul supporter like Newark Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine repeatedly zeroes in on conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, always dismissing the Jewish Mr. Levin as a neocon… In historical fact, self-identified “neoconservatives” hold beliefs that are both straightforward and have nothing whatsoever to do with being Jewish. The core of the neoconservative belief is the use of American economic and military strength to topple a foreign enemy in favor of a liberal democracy. One can agree or disagree — but the concept is both an old one in American history and utterly un-related to either Jews or neocons. Washington had Canada invaded. He wasn’t Jewish.
HATING CONSERVATIVES
	But anti-Semitism aside, perhaps the real key to understanding the decided left-leaning tendencies of neoliberals is their considerable dislike of… Conservatives You read that right. Here are the views of various prominent Paul supporters about some conservatives you may be familiar with. • Ronald Reagan: Here the late Paulist Murray Rothbard labels the conservative presidential icon as a “cretin,” Reagan’s two-terms in office described as “eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years.” [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html] • William F. Buckley, Jr.: The man who became the very gold standard of the American conservative movement is viewed as a “defacto totalitarian” here, again in another Rothbard selection from ex-Paul chief of staff Lew Rockwell’s site, a site for which Paul himself has written. [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard6.html" target="_blank] • Antonin Scalia: Justice Scalia is not only no conservative in Paulville, he is — sitting down? — “a reliable supporter of presidential dictatorship, the police state, the torture-warfare state, and the empire.” This gem was penned by ex-Paul chief of staff Rockwell himself. • Sarah Palin: That’s right. This business of Sarah Palin being a conservative, according to Rockwell, is just a ruse. In fact, Governor Palin is really a “double agent” for the “regime.” From the same article as above. Oh yes… don’t forget Governor Palin is quite possibly a “puppet” (as seen here by Jack Hunter, now the Paul campaign’s “official blogger”). Oh, and Mr. Mulshine, the Paulist columnist? To him Palin is “just another whiny liberal claiming victimization.” [http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/03/the_most_comprehensive_analysi.html" target="_blank] • Edwin Meese: The former Reagan Attorney General beloved of conservative activists is described in Paulville as the “mouthpiece” for fascists [http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/76465.html" target="_blank] • The Koch Brothers: The fascists for whom Ed Meese is the fascist mouthpiece? That would be the libertarian Koch brothers who, apparently, aren’t libertarian at all in the eyes of Paulville. In Paulville, libertarian conservatives David and Charles Koch are said to be supporters of a “fascist regime.” Same post as above. It is surely no coincidence that the Koch brothers were targeted earlier this year by the far-left hacking group Anonymous. As seen in this Politico story. Once again, the right/left neoliberal profile surfaces. [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Anonymous_takes_down_Americans_for_Prosperity_website.html?showall" target="_blank] • Clarence Thomas: Dubbed part of a fascist “tag team” by Paul supporters. Why? Because Justice Thomas, along with fellow Justice Scalia, spoke at that gathering sponsored by those fascist Koch brothers. Where Ed Meese was covering as the mouthpiece for the fascists. • Rush Limbaugh: Rush? Rush Limbaugh? That Rush Limbaugh isn’t a conservative? Nope. Not in Paulville. In the eyes of Paulvillians the Rush Limbaugh so many millions of conservatives thought they knew and loved turns out to be a man with “Stalinist tendencies” — aka a commie. Read all about it here. [http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/93045.html" target="_blank] • Sean Hannity: So OK, understanding that Sarah Palin is a double agent and a puppet and Rush is pulsing with Stalinist tendencies, surely Sean Hannity — conservative talk show and TV host extraordinaire, author of the bestselling Conservative Victory — surely Sean is a real conservative? Naaaaaaaaah. Not in Paulville. There our friend Sean is — no kidding — “evil” That’s right. You read that right. Hannity is, quite seriously in the minds (?) of Paulville’s neolibs, part of the “pantheon of warmongers that make up the true axis of evil.” Once that is understood, this  video of Ron Paul supporters literally chasing Hannity through the streets of New Hampshire in 2008 can be seen for the leftist intimidation it was intended to be. The fact that the video of Paul supporters chasing Hannity so closely matches this  video of Wisconsin leftists chasing and trapping a Wisconsin Republican legislator is a chilling reminder of the commonality of the protestors involved. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5rJI5e0jBU] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cx77K8e3WE] • Mark Levin: Come on. So he wrote the bestselling conservative manifesto Liberty and Tyranny. So Michele Bachmann has called Levin an inspiration to the Tea Party. So Tea Party members were waving the book in the air at their rallies. So what? Levin’s no conservative in Paulville. Levin’s… you know… wink wink… one of them. • The Cato Institute: The Cato Institute? The premiere libertarian think tank in America under attack in Paulville? No way! Yup. Here. [http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo129.html" target="_blank] There’s more — much more than we have room for here. The Ron Paul campaign’s “official blogger” Jack Hunter hates Lincoln but can’t find his tongue with Confederate president Jefferson Davis suspending habeas corpus or 100% of the civil liberties of blacks — aka slavery. Then there’s Thomas J. DiLorenzo, whose arguments are recommended reading by Ron Paul. Here’s Mr. DiLorenzo on Amazon. The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present. [...] They simply aren’t conservatives.
RELATED - The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

Miami-Dade Commissioners’ Slush Funds Paid by Taxpayers

BUYING VOTES WITH YOUR MONEY One more example how government bureaucrats misuse taxpayer money to benefit themselves.
Via America Times
	Despite steep spending cuts and looming layoffs, Miami-Dade County commissioners continue to stockpile cash that they spend with few restrictions and scant oversight. Commissioner Sally Heyman is sitting on $804,000 in unspent money, Jose “Pepe” Diaz controls $461,000, Bruno Barreiro has $361,000 and Dennis Moss $354,000. Taken together, commissioners have more than $3 million in surplus taxpayer funds set aside for their personal spending whims. The money comes from the commissioners’ individual office budgets, which are $814,000 each per year, but aren’t required to be used solely for office expenses such as staff salaries or paper and pens. Instead, the funds are regularly doled out by individual commissioners to favored groups within their districts with virtually no checks or balances; allocations are subject to a perfunctory vote at the end of commission meetings and are rarely denied. Critics deride the money as slush funds, a stash of political pork that commissioners pass out to curry favor with constituents. Commissioners defend the practice, declaring they best know how money should be spent in their district, and that the funds support good causes. “If that’s not illegal, it should be,’’ said Dominic Calabro, president and CEO of Florida Tax Watch, a Tallahassee-based government watchdog group, who called the free spending “ripe for mischief” and “blatantly wrong.” In recent years, commissioners made sure they kept firm control of the taxpayer-funded bounty: They passed an ordinance in 2007 mandating that each commissioner gets to carry over unspent funds at the end of the year, even as they are given a fresh, fully funded office budget for the new fiscal year. The ability to roll over surplus money allows commissioners to build a mountain of cash that can be handed out before an upcoming election. [...] Two years ago, a Palm Beach County grand jury — charged with addressing a “crisis of trust in public governance” after a string of public corruption convictions — called for a slate of reforms. Topping the list: ending county commissioners’ discretionary funds…[T]he process of commissioners individually handing out the funds smacked of unseemly political patronage that “at a minimum, politicized the manner of funding” and created a negative effect “in both fact and perception.” [...] Palm Beach County commissioners discontinued the practice. Broward County commissioners aren’t provided discretionary funds. Yet Miami-Dade County elected officials have continued the practice, and some commissioners are already signaling they will fight a change. Sally Heyman, whose district includes Aventura and Bal Harbour, said she should be able to continue steering office funds to nonoffice uses at her discretion. If not, she said, nonprofits are “not going to be getting anything at all. The money wouldn’t be available.” Barreiro said the use of office funds for nonoffice discretionary purposes is “done to benefit the community. Commissioners each fund programs in our areas.” The commissioner, whose district includes Miami Beach and Miami’s Little Havana neighborhood, defended his hefty carry-over funds, saying they illustrate his frugality. “One reason I have been saving is I am looking forward to improving the computer system in my office,” he said. “You know, the computers become outdated quickly.” BIGGEST SPENDER This biggest spender this year: Commissioner Diaz, who handed out $227,505 of office funds to constituent groups. Diaz was on vacation and unavailable for comment, his office said Friday. The debate about how commissioners can use their office funds is not new. Two years ago, amid increased scrutiny of the practice, two other sources of discretionary funding were zeroed out. Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez axed the commissioners’ “Discretionary Reserve” and “County Services Reserve” accounts, eliminating $400,000 in funds per commissioner that could be doled out with few restrictions. Those discretionary funds were in addition to the office funds. With those gone, commissioners have turned to their handsome “office” budgets. “When flagged, they have been clever about calling it something else. It is no longer a ‘discretionary’ fund but is buried in the office budget,” said Douglas Halsey, a lawyer with White & Case, which is taking a hard look at Miami-Dade discretionary spending on its own on a pro bono basis. “It is clear that county commissioners have for years enjoyed being able to use taxpayer dollars for patronage purposes.” As Gimenez is pledging to end discretionary funding and require surplus monies be returned to the general fund, some commissioners may take no chances and begin rapidly unloading their largess before the fiscal year runs out Sept. 30. Commissioners are in recess for August and return in September. Last week, county commissioners closed their meeting by taking turns individually doling out, in rapid fire, nearly $100,000 in office funds. Barreiro handed $18,000 to American Coach Lines to hire the bus company to transport seniors in his district to holiday parties later this year. Heyman doled out $10,000 to the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis. Commissioner Audrey Edmonson allocated nearly $5,000 toward backpacks for the “District 3 Annual Back-to-School event.” Commissioner Barbara Jordan allocated $235.65 for expenses “related to District 1’s Annual Senior Valentine’s Day Dance.” All the spending raises a looming question: If commissioners can save so much of their office fund for future years or spend it on nonoffice expenses, why do they get such a big office budget? As part of a countywide budget-cutback totaling some $400 million, Gimenez has proposed cutting the Board of County Commissioners’ overall budget by 10 percent. But there are other departments under commission control, including the Office of Protocol, the commission auditor and Intergovernmental Relations. As a result, commissioners could choose to slash those budgets while keeping their individual office budgets at current levels .

IRS: Taxing ALL Rich People Not Enough to Pay U.S. Deficit

MILLIONAIRES’ INCOME VS. BUDGET DEFICIT A recent IRS report proved that if government confiscated the entire annual earnings from the so-called rich, it would not provide enough money to pay the annual budget deficit: ● People with annual incomes over $1 million earned a total of $727 billion in 2009. ● People with incomes of $10 million per year or more earned a total of $240 billion in 2009. The $727 billion from those millionaires would not be enough to cover the 2011 U.S. budget deficit which is estimated to reach $1.5 Trillion. It would not have been enough to cover any of Obama’s deficits which ran up to $1.3 Trillion in 2010 and $1.4 Trillion in 2009. Here is the 2009 income data according to the IRS: (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inalcr.pdf)
The Charleston Daily Mail explained there are not enough “rich” people to cover the deficit:
	Soak the rich, eh? They do not have the money. A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich — 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more — earned a total of $240 billion in 2009. Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days. Of course, about a quarter of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So make that 18 days. Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009. Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008. They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year. Barack Obama was the first president to sign a budget with a $1 trillion deficit into law. [...] We must cut. We cannot afford to buy everything we want.
SOURCES - IRS report, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inalcr.pdf

UK RIOTS: London Rioters to BBC: “We’re Showing the Rich we do what we want”

Two girls who took part in Monday night’s riots in Croydon, South England, boasted that they were showing police and “the rich” that “we can do what we want.”

UK RIOTS: London Rioters Forcing People to Strip

Via UK Daily Mail:
	Humiliation: A young man is forced to strip to his underpants in the street, having apparently already handed his t-shirt and trainers to a looter during lawless riots overnight. Unconfirmed reports last night claimed that on top of the widespread destruction, victims were forced to strip in Deptford, south London, and in Birmingham. Reports on Twitter claimed some people were being stripped, while another shocking video shows a bleeding teenager being robbed in broad daylight by lawless thugs who pretend to help him to his feet.

MORE - Stunner. Far Left Cheers On Mob Violence in London

OBAMACARE NEGATIVE EFFECTS: Obamacare Limits Children’s Access to Health Care

The Foundry reports:
	Last Wednesday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released a grim report showing a reduction in the availability of child-only policies for parents looking to purchase health insurance for their children. They findings show that, “Of the 50 states, 17 reported that there are currently no carriers selling child-only health plans to new enrollees. Thirty-nine states indicated at least one insurance carrier exited the child-only market following enactment of the new health care laws.” The reason for this decline in child coverage is that specific provisions of Obamacare regulating the child insurance market have made it more difficult for insurers to continue offering the plans. Obamacare creates what is commonly known as a “guarantee issue” requirement for the child-only market, which means insurers cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. Although this intent behind this policy is obviously to expand coverage, in reality it makes it financially unsustainable for insurers to continue offering child-only health insurance due to adverse selection. As the report explains: Requiring carriers to sell child-only plans to anyone at any time allows individuals to wait until a child is sick and then purchase coverage. This undermines one of the fundamental principles of insurance, which allows individuals to manage risk by pooling resources to help pay for future, unpredictable expenses. If an individual can avoid paying premiums until they know they will incur an expense, it is impossible for such a system of insurance to be financially sustainable. If healthy individuals forego insurance, only the sickest individuals are left in insurance pools, increasing costs for insurers. This further drives up premiums and further discourages healthier individuals from participating. This is aptly referred to as the insurance “death spiral.” The effects of prohibiting preexisting-condition exclusions in the child-only policy market will impact all covered individuals in 2014, when the same rules will apply to adult policies as well.