by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
John Koskinen has failed the IRS and the American people. Should he resign?
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified last week about the missing emails lost forever due to computer failures. When questioned about any more crashes or computer issues recently, Koskinen told the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that “Hard drive crashes continue as we speak.”
Can someone please buy the IRS reliable computers and a backup system?
Don’t forget, the IRS canceled the back-up contract service that they had for six years, shortly after Lois Lerner’s original hard drive went missing. Koskinen was forthcoming during the hearing that no backup system currently exists: “There is no system outside the IRS, government or otherwise, that the IRS uses to back up or store emails,”.
On the other hand, there was also no mention if the IRS is complying with the law that states it must keep copies of all data; it apparently hadn’t been routine practice during the time of the IRS scandal actions, so there are no assurances that it is being followed now. That is a travesty.
Koskinen also admitted that “if the agency destroyed records then ‘that was an act not consistent with the law’ but said, ‘There’s no evidence that there were records destroyed.'”.
Notice he didn’t state that “The IRS didn’t destroy records” because then it would logically follow by his own admission that the IRS would have engaged in an act “not consistent with the law”. However, Koskinen chose his words carefully when he stated “there’s no evidence that there were records destroyed” — of course there is no evidence, because it is all missing. He further reiterated this position of “non-destruction”, when he stated, “I never said they disappeared, I said they were recycled.” Because “recycling” equipment and information that is irretrievable isn’t “destruction”.
Lastly, “Koskinen also admitted that IRS employees routinely use personal email accounts to conduct agency business but maintained that ‘they do it inadvertently.'” But how can someone do something “routinely” but also “inadvertently”? Of course, it makes no sense. Don’t forget, the email game is the same practice seen with the former EPA chief Lisa Jackson last year; the IG report found that the personal email use for agency business was indeed rampant among EPA employees. Since the IRS clearly engages in the practice as well, one can only conclude that this probably not “inadvertent” from an agency of the “most transparent administration ever.”
John Koskinen was confirmed by the Senate to head the IRS on December 20, 2013. In the nine months that have followed, he has done virtually nothing to restore the trust of the agency to the American people. As the testimony above freely evidences, Koskinen is aware of many issues and irregularities — such as no backup system and use of personal emails — and yet he has yet to crack down on practices or implement stringent rules among his employees. His leadership has been derelict; his attitude abysmal. American deserves better.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
Pension reform needs to begin in the public sector. it is clear that a wide gulf between funding and compensation exists. When pointing out the fact that the majority of federal and state public employees are overcompensated, the response is typically that “these amounts were promised”. But with most budgets now currently running severely in the red, addressing the compensation question is the key to solving major deficit dilemmas across the country. We need to analyze how we got here from two perspectives: 1) what was promised and 2) who promised it.
For localities that want to achieve solvency, it is essential to find out foremost exactly what was really and contractually promised to the public workers and for how long. An executive or union member works under a contract that exists for a specific time period. Their obligation is to provide their services in return for certain compensation and benefits during that time. But that’s it — they are only covered for the period of the current contract.
This point is important because there really can be no part of a negotiated contract that promises any compensation or benefits for services rendered after the end of the contract period; otherwise, the locality runs the risk of runaway financial obligations for which it cannot properly budget and it was not binding future governments not yet in office.
Therefore, if accruals to a defined benefit retirement program to a public service employee have been contracted for, the benefit accruals earned by that employee during the period of the contract can’t be taken away. However, unless a new contract specifically continues that same program into that next contract, the employee should not be entitled to any additional accruals.
Unfortunately, it is apparent that this simple concept has typically not been followed during the vast majority of contract negotiations in the public sector. If it had, negotiators for management would have long discontinued offering the out-of-control defined benefit plan.
Such dereliction is part of the reason that it’s necessary to examine the second point – “who promised it”. It is evident that serious research needs to be done in localities into who it was that negotiated such overgenerous contracts. Ultimately, negotiators have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer not to pay more than fair compensation, thereby restricting compensation and benefits to amounts no greater than what those skills would command in the private sector. Valuable (and expensive) benefits such as job security must be factored in as an element of compensation paid to public sector employees.
Contrast how negotiations are performed in the private sector. The profit motive there keeps compensation at levels where economic forces show to be appropriate (i.e., the point where people generate results that justify its cost). This reflects economically rational “fair” compensation levels. But because the public sector does not have these economic forces to keep compensation levels in check, it is incumbent upon the public negotiators to do so properly. Failing to properly negotiate has created the soaring budget deficits we are experiencing.
There truly is a fundamental difference between private sector “management” and those doing the negotiating in the public sectors. In the private sector, the negotiator — either personally or the company who pays their merit based salary — will suffer serious financial damage if they offer their work force too much, because they will be unable to compete with their competitors in the marketplace.
On the other hand, there are no such competitive inhibitions in the public sector and therefore the negotiation routine lacks the incentive for restraint. Even worse, in most cases, the self-interest of the public sector negotiator is more directly aligned with the union that can get him elected rather than the taxpayer whom he is representing. This is a true case of the fox in charge of the hen house.
Examining the contract process in the public sector will provide an opportunity for fiscal reform. This will ensure that no public sector worker be paid more in any new contract then what those services warrant, without regard to what the prior contract provided. Most importantly, once a contract ends there is nothing on the table. There is nothing to prevent any new contract from offering less that the prior contract, especially where pay and benefits of the prior contract were out of line.
Even though it may be politically difficult and unpalatable, anybody representing the taxpayers has an obligation to those taxpayers. Those who breached the public trust with mismanagement should be held accountable. Budget reform and deficit reduction will naturally follow once compensation levels have been stabilized and brought in line with their private counterparts.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, TAXES
The Tax Foundation released its first global stat called the “International Tax Competitiveness Index”. This index aims to measure two criteria, competitiveness and neutrality, by examining “the extent to which a country’s tax system adheres to”, these “two important principles of tax policy”.
The index accounted for more than 40 tax positions and policies. In their analysis, two of the most damning reasons for ranking the United States near the very bottom of the list include the highest corporate tax rate (39%), as well as the “rare demand that money earned overseas should be taxed as if it were earned domestically”. As such, the United States outranked out only Portugal and France and was placed 32 out 34 industrialized nations.
The concept of “competitiveness” is described as one that “limits the taxation of businesses and investment”. The Tax Foundation acknowledges that heavy taxation runs the risk of the flight of capital and business location. This is turn drives “investment elsewhere, leading to slower economic growth.” We are seeing this is the growing popularity of business inversions, which is driving President Obama and Sen. Chuck Schumer to create punitive legislation on business that wish to leave. Ironically, if they are successful, the WSJ notes, ” the U.S. could fall to dead last on next year’s ranking. Now there’s a second-term legacy project for the President.”
Not only are corporate taxes the highest on this list of 34 countries, it is pretty much the highest in the entire world:
The accounting firm KPMG maintains a corporate tax table that includes more than 130 countries and only one has a higher overall corporate tax rate than the U.S. The United Arab Emirates’ 55% rate is an exception, however, because it usually applies only to foreign oil companies.
The other major concept besides competitiveness that shaped the overall index rankings is the concept of “neutrality”. Neutrality is characterized as “a tax code that seeks to raise the most revenue with the fewest economic distortions. This means that it doesn’t favor consumption over saving, as happens with capital gains and dividends taxes, estate taxes, and high progressive income taxes. This also means no targeted tax breaks for businesses for specific business activities.” These various forms of taxation, as well as the massive crony capitalism enterprises widely seen in the United States, are found to “misallocate capital and reduce economic growth”. This factored heavily into the low ranking that the United States received.
The United States is falling behind around the world:
“Liberals argue that U.S. tax rates don’t need to come down because they are already well below the level when Ronald Reagan came into office. But unlike the U.S., the world hasn’t stood still. Reagan’s tax-cutting example ignited a worldwide revolution that has seen waves of corporate tax-rate reductions. The U.S. last reduced the top marginal corporate income tax rate in 1986. But the Tax Foundation reports that other countries have reduced “the OECD average corporate tax rate from 47.5 percent in the early 1980s to around 25 percent today.”
This new index ranking should be a wake-up call and a springboard for discussion about much-needed tax reform. Our tax code is byzantine, our businesses are over-taxed, and our economy is continuing to suffer. Our reputation should not be, “At least we beat France!” We can do better. We have done better. We deserve better.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Just like the recent rise of business inversions — moving business HQ abroad — the United States has seen an uptick (up 221%) in Americans renouncing their citizenship. The elephant in the room in both these cases is taxes: both high taxes and burdensome tax compliance in foreign jurisdictions.
Instead of facing the problems directly, the Obama Administration has resorted to punitive measures. The shame and blame tactic of calling out businesses who wish to relocate as “unpatriotic” was undignified. Perhaps realizing that using the same strategy with individuals would be even less well received, they went the more quiet, direct route: yesterday, the State Department announced their interim final rule that raises the fee for renouncing citizenship from $450 to $2,350.
Their justification for raising the fee is the time and labor involved in the process; that is, the bureaucratic red tape that they created, and then decide to charge exhorbitant fees for:
“The CoSM demonstrated that documenting a U.S. citizen’s renunciation of citizenship is extremely costly, requiring American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases. For example, consular officers must confirm that the potential renunciant fully understands the consequences of renunciation, including losing the right to reside in the United States without documentation as an alien. Other steps include verifying that the renunciant is a U.S. citizen, conducting a minimum of two intensive interviews with the potential renunciant, and reviewing at least three consular systems before administering the oath of renunciation. The final approval of the loss of nationality must be done by law within the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services in Washington, DC, after which the case is returned to the consular officer overseas for final delivery of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the renunciant. These steps further add to the time and labor that must be involved in the process. Accordingly, the Department is increasing the fee for processing such requests from $450 to $2,350. As noted in the interim final rule dated June 28, 2010 (77 FR 36522), the fee of $450 was set substantially below the cost to the U.S. government of providing this service (less than one quarter of the cost). Since that time, demand for the service has increased dramatically, consuming far more consular officer time and resources, as reflected in the 2012 Overseas Time Survey and increased workload data. Because the Department believes there is no public benefit or other reason for setting this fee below cost, the Department is increasing this fee to reflect the full cost of providing the service. Therefore the increased fee reflects both the increased cost of the provision of service as well as the determination to now charge the full cost.
Interestingly enough, if you compare the cost of renunciation in the United States to the cost of renunciation in other countries, the new fee puts the United States way above others. You can check out this handy chart here. The next two highest are Jamaica ($1,010 in US dollars), and Sierre Leone ($663 in US dollars).
So those who wish to renounce their citizenship get to buy their freedom by paying a 422% fee increase for the express privilege of dealing with United States bureaucracy one final time.
This is considered an administrative fee, issued by the State Department, but it is essentially an unofficial “exit tax” for regular citizens. But there is a real one too. As Forbes notes, “To leave America, you generally must prove 5 years of U.S. tax compliance. If you have a net worth greater than $2 million or average annual net income tax for the 5 previous years of $157,000 or more for 2014 (that’s tax, not income), you pay an exit tax”.
So for those who have done well in the United States, besides the higher administrative fee/exit tax, you get to pay that real “exit tax” knows as the 877A.
Alas, this isn’t the first time those wishing to leave have been targeted. A bigger, punitive measure was attempted in 2012 by Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey. When the co-founder of Facebook, Eduardo Saverin, renounced his U.S. citizenship as a means to save millions in taxes before Facebook went public, the Senators reacted by proposing the “Ex-PATRIOT Act” of 2012 that essentially doubled the exit tax for high worth individuals. “People who could not prove another reason for renouncing citizenship would face a 30% tax on future capital gains on U.S. investments – twice the current 15% rate – and be barred from receiving a visa to enter the country.” Thankfully the bill died in committee the first year, and did not advance out of the Senate in 2013.
Though this new fee hike is different than the standard exit tax, and on a much smaller scale (dollars-wise), it speaks the same language: punish. All this fee hike does is prove that that current administration would rather squeeze U.S. citizens for more revenue, thus likely reiterating to those renouncing their citizenship that being a U.S. citizen lacks much of the value that it once did. And that is a very sad thing.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS
This would be really funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Brad Woodhouse is President of American Bridge 21st Century, a SuperPAC that “monitors what Republican politicians say and fights back when their rhetoric doesn’t match their records.” This is a PAC well known to be funded by billionaire George Soros.
So when Mr. Woodhouse pushed out a news story entitled, “GOP Senate Candidates Bow at Koch Throne”, someone else noticed the irony in attacking the conservative billionaire Koch Brothers, while simultaneously receiving PAC funding from liberal billionaire George Soros.
Andrew Kaczynski, who writes over at the popular BuzzFeed took to twitter to call out Mr. Woodhouse: “It’s almost pathetic how weak the Democrats ‘run against the Koch brothers’ strategy is.”, he wrote.
One might say this falls squarely under the “fights back when their rhetoric doesn’t match their records” mantra proudly proclaimed on the American Bridge website — except that Mr. Woodhouse clearly did not approve of this particular instance of holding people “accountable for their words and actions”. This only applies to Republicans, according to the PAC website.
Mr. Woodhouse huffily replied to Kaczynski: “it’s a shame you have no idea what you are talking about”, to which Mr. Kaczynski bluntly asked, “Since you’re outraged by billionaires influencing politics @woodhouseb will American Bridge be refunding largest-donor George Soros?”
Pointing out that American Bridge takes money from certain billionaires (approved by the Left) while attacking other billionaires (not approved by the Left) did not sit well with Mr. Woodhouse, as he retorted, “That’s a stupid question”, to which Kaczynski confirmed, “So that’s a no?”.
Mr. Woodhouse then began to rationalize the hypocrisy by applying logic Animal Farm: some billionaires are more equal than others.
“Since you don’t understand the difference I don’t think there is any reason to continue this discussion,” wrote Mr. Woodhouse, to which Kaczynski replied, “I guess @woodhouseb your billionaires are better than their billionaires,”.
Mr. Woodhouse clarified that observation by writing, “well, they’re not looking to screw the middle class to enrich themselves – so yeah – maybe you do get it.”
Kaczynski confirmed the duplicity by pointing out, “So you dislike big money @woodhouseb only when it isn’t your ideology. I understand now.”
Mr. Woodhouse’s reply (and final tweet) continued using the leftist playbook by a) casting the Koch Brothers as anti-middle class and b) his opponent as stupid, by responding, “I dislike people who want to stack the deck against the middle class and am irritated by people who don’t get the difference.” You can view the twitter exchange here:
So, American Bridge is okay with taking good billionaire money while attacking bad billionaire money. Because American Bridge “understands” and “feels” and “believes”.
Its website describes how, “We understand the frustration you feel with elected officials who campaign on one set of principles but govern by another, because we feel it too. We believe you deserve better than that. We think our elected officials should have one set of principles, not one for each set of special interests they represent.”
Can we substitute “PAC” for “elected officials” above?
Nope — apparently this sentiment only applies to Republicans, not liberals or PACs. If you check out American Bridge’s opening description, it states that American Bridge “is a progressive research and communications organization committed to holding Republicans accountable for their words and actions and helping you ascertain when Republican candidates are pretending to be something they’re not.”
Therefore, according American Bridge, only Republicans should be accountable for their words and actions, and only Republicans can pretend to be something they are not. Certainly not Mr. Woodhouse, who became irritated when Mr. Kacyznski “helped him ascertain” that American Bridge was “pretending to be something they’re not” by taking (liberal) billionaire money in politics while attacking (conservative) billionaire money in politics.
That rule does not apply to Woodhouse at all. Not one bit. Because Mr. Woodhouse is not a Republican. So Mr. Woodhouse “gets the difference.” (He “understands” and “feels” and “believes”.)
All billionaires are billionaires. But some billionaires are more equal than others. A classical abuse of logic by the Left.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
On April 5, 1764, Parliament passed something called “The Sugar Act”, which, interestingly, had another name: “The American Revenue Act”. It was a modification of the 1733 Molasses Act, and it also affected other goods, such as wine and coffee.
The Preamble to this Act states: “it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom … and … it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised … for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same.”
The Sugar Act/American Revenue Act, therefore, was a revenue raising measure (and not just a regulation measure), whose revenue was intended to help defray the costs of defending the colonies during the 7 Years War which ended in 1763. Instead, it wreaked havoc in the colonies:
“The situation disrupted the colonial economy by reducing the markets to which the colonies could sell, and the amount of currency available to them for the purchase of British manufactured goods. This act, and the Currency Act, set the stage for the revolt at the imposition of the Stamp Act.”
Fast forward to 2014. A new measure was introduced by Rep. Rosa deLauro called the SWEET Act, also known as the “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax” — a proposed tax of “one cent per teaspoon – 4.2 grams – of sugar, high fructose corn syrup or caloric sweetener”.
The Act sounds eerily like a revenue-raiser, much like its ancestor, the Sugar Act. From the text of the SWEET Act:
“This Act is intended to discourage excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages by increasing the price of these products and by creating a dedicated revenue source for programs and research designed to reduce the human and economic costs of diabetes, obesity, dental caries, and other diet-related health conditions in priority populations”
Let’s compare:
Sugar Act: “improving the revenue of this Kingdom”… “just and necessary that a revenue should be raised”… “for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same.”
SWEET Act: “dedicated revenue source for programs and research”… “to reduce the human and economic costs of diabetes, obesity, dental caries, and other diet-related health conditions”.
Same over-reaching thinking, different government.
As a response to the Sugar Act in May 1764, Samuel Adams drafted a report on the Sugar Act for the Massachusetts assembly, in which he denounced the act as an infringement of the rights of the colonists as British subjects:
For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of?
”
Will there also be a similar rebuke over the Sweet Act of 2014? The Sugar Act was subsequently repealed in 1766 because it was such a disastrous piece of legislation. Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself and the SWEET Act never comes to fruition.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
Lately there have been recent discussion about whether or not Congress can sue the President. We have had several occurrences, in fact, where the President has violated the Constitution by overreaching his authority with regard to Congress. In these instances, Congress should have the standing to sue the President.
When Congress has acted in its authority as the Legislative branch, that institution as a whole has been compromised when the President, acting as the Executive branch, has ignored the actions of Congress and acted unilaterally in a manner other than that which was decided by Congress.
For instance, Congress voted for Obamacare. It contained some 2000 pages of laws, rules, and regulations. And yet dozens of times since the implementation of the law (March 2010), parts of the law been ignored, delayed, or changed by the President or some of his agencies — directly contrary to the actions of Congress crafting and passing a law.
In an even more obtuse example, Obama passed the Dream Act on his own. Though the president wanted it, Congress did its institutional job and it did not pass. Instead of letting the matter end there, as proscribed by the Constitution, the president implemented it anyway.
The crux here lies in understanding the will of the people. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson aptly remarked that, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”
Remember, Congress (composed of elected representatives) is the Legislative Branch. Under the Constitution, the Executive Branch has no direct power to pass legislation. That power lies solely with Congress. Therefore, if Congress does not create and pass a particular law, it is because the people don’t will it. That is the free expression of their Constitutional power.
When the President says, “I have to act because Congress does not”, he violates the will of the people with a gross overreach of Executive authority.
Part of the current problem lies in the fact that Obama’s actions are allowed to stand because no one fights it. If this continues without a challenge, then future successors in the Executive branch can — and will — point to Obama and say “Obama did it, so now we can too”.
So let’s get this clarified once and for all that the constitutionality of some of Obama’s actions are not correct. When Obama has acted directly contrary to a decision made by the institution of Congress — creating a law after Congress has declined to do so, or changing a law passed by Congress — he threatens the institution of the Legislative Branch itself and the will of the people as a whole. We have the will of the people through Congress, not the majority of the people’s opinion as defined by the latest poll question.
The three branches of government, and their checks and balances, must be meticulously maintained. A lawsuit on behalf of the institution of Congress to the President regarding powers specifically granted and not granted (including the lawmaking powers), is a necessary safeguard for our Constitutional Republic.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
As if the recent letter from the Inspectors General to Congress wasn’t enough, there’s a new story about apparent interference from the Feds into an Inspector General report.
The Washington Post reports today about an incident in which an Inspector General for the Commerce department received a “filtered” version that watered down telework abuse incidents in the U.S. Patent Office.
The original report, seen here described “‘fundamental issues’ with the business model of the patent office”, and that oversight was “Oversight of the telework program — and of examiners based at the Alexandria headquarters — was “completely ineffective,”.
The final report was only 16 pages, compared to the original one, which was twice the size.
The report confirmed the fears allayed in the aforementioned letter to Congress: The post reports that “Investigators recommended “unmitigated access” to records when abuse is suspected.
The version supplied to the inspector general, though, explained that managers did not provide full access to computer records that could substantiate allegations of fraud because officials did not want to be seen as “big brother” through electronic surveillance.”
This is in direct violation to the Inspector General Act of 1978, which mandates that each Inspector General is to “have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material available”. And yet, this tactic is growing all-too-common with regard to Inspectors General and their ability to audit the federal government for waste, fraud, and mismanagement.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Inspectors General (yes, that’s the plural) are considered watchdogs for the government. Their jobs primarily focus on “uncovering waste, fraud, and mismanagement”, which is an important function to keep government programs and agencies in check.
A serious breach of trust is evident, therefore, when 47 of 73 Inspectors General pen a letter to Congress describing “serious limitations on access to records.” That’s 64% of the total watchdogs who express such concerns. You can read the letter here:
The letter takes aim at primarily three agencies: the General at the Peace Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Justice. These Inspectors General “recently faced restrictions on their access to certain records available to their agencies that were needed to perform their oversight work in critical areas.” The restrictions were not limited to just those Inspectors General; hence the overwhelming need to pen a letter to Congress. The Inspectors General described how other
“Inspectors General have, from time to time, faced similar obstacles to their work, whether on a claim that some other law or principle trumped the clear mandate of the IG Act or by the agency’s imposition of unnecessarily burdensome administrative conditions on access. Even when we are ultimately able toresolve these issues with senior agency leadership, the process is often lengthy, delays our work, and diverts time and attention from substantive oversight activities. This plainly is not what Congress intended when it passed the IG Act.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 is clear. The pertinent statute that relates to access is Section §6: Authority of Inspector General; information and assistance from Federal agencies; unreasonable refusal; office space and equipment. It patently states:
(a) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by this Act, each Inspector General, in
carrying out the provisions of this Act, is authorized—
(1) to have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations,
or other material available to the applicable establishment which relate to programs and
operations with respect to which that Inspector General has responsibilities under this Act
The full text of the law can be found here:
The letter to Congress was addressed to the Honorable Darrell Issa, the Honorable Thomas R. Carper, The Honorable Elijah Cummings, and The Honorable Tom Coburn. What made the letter particularly notable, however, was its size and scope.
Darrell Issa described, “I’ve never seen a letter like this, and my folks have checked — there has never been a letter even with a dozen IGs complaining. This is the majority of all inspectors general saying not just in the examples they gave, but government wide, they see a pattern that is making them unable to do their job.”
Reading the official website for Inspectors General, one can see they pride themselves on service, “whose primary responsibilities, to the American public, are to detect and prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and violations of law and to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the operations of the Federal Government.”
The fact that the majority of the Inspectors General find themselves unable to perform their duties to audit the federal government is quite troubling, because it is another example of the “most transparent administration” choosing to willfully cloak themselves in secrecy. Stonewalling the very agents — who have a duty to the American people to keep government in check — is another tactical abuse of power.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM
Thomas Sowell is one of the greatest minds of today. His latest essay entitled “Is Thinking Now Obsolete?” is exemplary: I have reposted it in its entirety below:
“Some have said that we are living in a post-industrial era, while others have said that we are living in a post-racial era. But growing evidence suggests that we are living in a post-thinking era.
Many people in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are staging angry protests against Israel’s military action in Gaza. One of the talking points against Israel is that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military attacks than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel that started this latest military conflict.
Are these protesters aware that vastly more German civilians were killed by American bombers attacking Nazi Germany during World War II than American civilians killed in the United States by Hitler’s forces?
Talk-show host Geraldo Rivera says that there is no way Israel is winning the battle for world opinion. But Israel is trying to win the battle for survival, while surrounded by enemies. Might that not be more important?
Has any other country, in any other war, been expected to keep the enemy’s civilian casualties no higher than its own civilian casualties? The idea that Israel should do so did not originate among the masses but among the educated intelligentsia.
In an age when scientists are creating artificial intelligence, too many of our educational institutions seem to be creating artificial stupidity.
It is much the same story in our domestic controversies. We have gotten so intimidated by political correctness that our major media outlets dare not call people who immigrate to this country illegally “illegal immigrants.”
Geraldo Rivera has denounced the Drudge Report for carrying news stories that show some of the negative consequences and dangers from allowing vast numbers of youngsters to enter the country illegally and be spread across the country by the Obama administration.
Some of these youngsters are already known to be carrying lice and suffering from disease. Since there have been no thorough medical examinations of most of them, we have no way of knowing whether, or how many, are carrying deadly diseases that will spread to American children when these unexamined young immigrants enter schools across the country.
Are you worried about Ebola breaking out in the U.S.? Sound off in the WND Poll.
The attack against Matt Drudge has been in the classic tradition of demagogues. It turns questions of fact into questions of motive. Geraldo accuses Drudge of trying to start a “civil war.”
Back when masses of immigrants from Europe were entering this country, those with dangerous diseases were turned back from Ellis Island. Nobody thought they had a legal or a moral “right” to be in America or that it was mean or racist not to want our children to catch their diseases.
Even on the less contentious issue of minimum wage laws, there are the same unthinking reactions.
Although liberals are usually gung ho for increasing the minimum wage, there was a sympathetic front-page story in the July 29 San Francisco Chronicle about the plight of a local nonprofit organization that will not be able to serve as many low-income minority youths if it has to pay a higher minimum wage. They are seeking some kind of exemption.
Does it not occur to these people that the very same thing happens when a minimum wage increase applies to profit-based employers? They, too, tend to hire fewer inexperienced young people when there is a minimum wage law.
This is not breaking news. This is what has been happening for generations in the United States and in other countries around the world.
One of the few countries without a minimum wage law is Switzerland, where the unemployment rate has been consistently less than 4 percent for years. Back in 2003, The Economist magazine reported that “Switzerland’s unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9 percent in February.” The most recent issue shows the Swiss unemployment rate back to a more normal 3.2 percent.
Does anyone think that having minimum wage laws and high youth unemployment is better? In fact, does anyone think at all these days?”
