The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There
is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it
steadily." --George
Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obama’s Fall-Back Position on a Default by
Gary North
The
United States Constitution is clear: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall
originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur
with Amendments as on other Bills.” (Article I, Section 7)
If
the Republicans decide not to submit a budget, the government will shut down.
That is what we are being told. But is this correct? If the Republicans do not submit a
budget that the Senate and the President sign into law, the Treasury Department
will run out of ways to cook the books this month. It will have to stop paying
interest on the federal debt. That will harm the “full faith and credit of the
United States,” which is the traditional mantra of those who favor unlimited
debt for the federal government. That would increase risk for debt-holders. The
government’s credit rating would fall. But is this correct?
Let
us assume that the biggest bankers decide that a cessation of debt payments
would be pending. The banking industry has remained silent on this so
far. Here
is a huge story, we are told, but we do not see warnings being issued by the
American Bankers Association.
What
if, on October 17, the day the Treasury runs out of games to lock in the debt
of the government at $16.7 trillion, the House still does not submit a budget.
The Treasury supposedly will not be able to borrow any more money. Legally, the
government will be unable to fund whatever the borrowed money would have been
used for. For a while, the President will decry all this. He will blame the
Republicans for not doing what he wants them to do. The two sides will assess
political damage. But the government will not be able to pay all of its bills. Increases
in the federal deficit will end. We will get a balanced budget. What if
the Republicans do not capitulate before the government’s inability to borrow
forces budget cuts in the Defense Department and discretionary spending? Is
the solvency of the government really at stake?
No.
Because Obama can issue an executive order that orders the Treasury to borrow.
Why not? The President issues lots of these
orders. Why not another one? Would he be impeached by the House? Probably not.
If he is impeached in a long trial, will the Senate convict? No. Who can tell
the President to rescind such an order? Not Congress. The Senate will not issue
such an order to the President. This country has a Constitution. But it is
interpreted by the President. He decides what to enforce, and how to
enforce it. The Supreme Court decides cases. But would it decide in favor of
the House? This is not clear. Besides, it could decide not to hear the case. He
can cut defense spending to keep the government afloat. Or he can bite the
bullet in the name of government solvency and sign an executive order
authorizing the Treasury to borrow. Who is to say he can’t? Boehner?
It
is all politics. The Constitution is honored when it is convenient. It is
ignored when politicians decide to ignore it. When a President decides to go to
war without a declaration of war, he does. Obama threatened this with Syria.
Putin outfoxed him with the chemical weapons ploy, but that was a matter of
politics, not the Constitution. We may get to see the credit ratings agencies
downgrade federal debt. But as for the government shutting down completely, the
threat is not credible.
######
The Fake Threat: Government Default
The
head of the International Monetary Fund has warned that a default on the debt
of the United States government would create an international economic crisis.
The Secretary of the Treasury says the same.
Indeed,
the entire establishment of international debt warns that the ever-growing debt
of the U.S. government is central to the prosperity of the world. This debt not
only cannot be paid off, it must not be paid off. Without this endless expansion
of government debt, these highly paid experts assure us, the world will fall
back into recession. Clinton was praised because he balanced the budget, sort
of, by counting rising Social Security debt as income. But those days of praise
are over. Today, we are told, the United States government must absorb the
thrift of the world, or at least absorb the expansion of counterfeit money by
the world’s central banks.
A
Reuters story in the Australian newspaper sounds the alarm.
Top
officials of US and international financial institutions ramped up warnings
overnight that failure to raise the US debt ceiling to prevent the world’s
largest economy from defaulting would deal a serious blow worldwide.
The
warnings from the US Treasury, the head of the International Monetary Fund and
central bankers at home and abroad amounted to a shot across the bow of
lawmakers on Capitol Hill whose failure to agree on a funding bill has already
led to a partial shutdown of the US government. The Secretary of the Treasury
warns of dire consequences if the House does not raise the debt ceiling. The
nation will fall into recession. The US government spends a lot more than it
takes in, so not raising the debt limit would leave it unable to pay all its
bills, which range from pensions for the elderly to interest on money borrowed
from China.
Take
a look at how the U.S. government spends money. Notice the percentage spent on
paying interest. It’s 6%.
In
short, debt maintenance is peripheral in the budget. The federal government can keep
paying its bills by cutting defense spending and discretionary spending
a few percentage points.
The threat of default is a fake threat. It’s a Halloween goblin to scare
moderate House Republicans. The government can and will continue to pay
interest to the world’s central banks, including the Federal Reserve.
######
Bob Geldof Predicts the Death of All Humans by 2030
Sir Bob Geldof: 'All humans will die before 2030'…
Bob Geldof based his miserable prediction on the effects of climate change
The musician-turned-activist reckons
the world will end in 2030 – leading to the extinction of humankind. Sir
Bob, 61, based his miserable prediction on the effects of climate change.
“The world can decide in a fit of madness to kill itself," he told a group
of youngsters at a summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. “We may not get to
2030. We need to address the problem of climate change urgently.” –
Daily Star
Once
again, as before, for any one of a number of reasons WE ARE ALL GOING TO
FREAKIN’ DIE! Geldof’s latest rant is actually very
good news. Just as a fever spikes before subsiding, so Geldof’s hysterics as
reported above show clearly that the warmest tide is receding. Despite
literally trillions of dollars thrown at this meme, the world is not convinced,
much of the evidence has been exposed as fakery and those who made the mistake
of linking their careers and rhetoric to this promotion are now lashing out in
anger and grief.
The
world will not end, those pesky varmints called humans just won't be around
anymore. Then, the world can begin to
heal!
######
Racial Trade-offs
By Walter E. Williams
Trade-offs
apply to our economic lives, as well as our political lives. That means getting
more of one thing requires giving up something else. Let's look at some
examples.
Black congressmen and black public officials in general, including Barack Obama, always side with teachers unions in their opposition to educational vouchers, tuition tax credits, charter schools and other measures that would allow black parents to take their children out of failing public schools. Most black politicians and many black professionals take the position of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who is on record as saying, "We shouldn't abandon the public schools."
Taking such a political stance is understandable because black congressmen and other black elected officials are part of a coalition. As such, they are expected to vote for things that other coalition members want in order that those coalition members vote for things that black politicians want.
There's no question that these black public officials are getting something in return for their support of teachers unions and others who benefit from the educational status quo. The question not addressed by black people is whether what black politicians are getting for their support of a failed educational system is worth the sacrifice of whole generations of black youngsters, educationally handicapping them and making many virtually useless in the high-tech world of the 21st century.
Though many black politicians mouth that we should fix, not abandon, public schools, they themselves have abandoned public schools. They see their children as too precious to be sacrificed in the name of public education.
While living in Chicago, Barack Obama sent his daughters to the prestigious University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. When he moved to Washington, President Obama enrolled his daughters in the prestigious Sidwell Friends School. According to a report by The Heritage Foundation, "exactly 52 percent of Congressional Black Caucus members and 38 percent of Congressional Hispanic Caucus members sent at least one child to private school." Overall, only 6 percent of black students attend private school.
It's not just black politicians who fight tooth and nail against parental school choice and have their children in private schools.
When President Obama's White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel resigned and became mayor of Chicago, he did not enroll his children in the Windy City's public schools. He enrolled his son and two daughters in the University of Chicago Lab Schools. And members of Congress, regardless of race, are three to four times likelier than the public to send their children to private schools.
According to a 2004 Thomas B. Fordham Institute study, more than 1 in 5 public school teachers sent their children to private schools. In some cities, the figure is much higher. In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, it's 41 percent, and Chicago (39 percent) and Rochester, N.Y. (38 percent), also have high figures. In the San Francisco-Oakland area, 34 percent of public school teachers enroll their children in private schools, and in New York City, it's 33 percent.
Only 11 percent of all parents enroll their children in private schools. The fact that so many public school teachers enroll their own children in private schools ought to raise questions. After all, what would you think, after having accepted a dinner invitation, if you discovered that the owner, chef, waiters and busboys at the restaurant to which you were being taken don't eat there? That would suggest they have some inside information from which you might benefit.
I don't think anything that black politicians get from the NEA, the AFT, the NAACP (many members are teachers), the National Urban League or others who have a vested financial interest in a failed educational system is worth committing whole generations of black youngsters to educational mediocrity. The prospects for a change are not good, particularly in light of the new fact that the NAACP is being wooed to join the AFL-CIO.
Black congressmen and black public officials in general, including Barack Obama, always side with teachers unions in their opposition to educational vouchers, tuition tax credits, charter schools and other measures that would allow black parents to take their children out of failing public schools. Most black politicians and many black professionals take the position of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who is on record as saying, "We shouldn't abandon the public schools."
Taking such a political stance is understandable because black congressmen and other black elected officials are part of a coalition. As such, they are expected to vote for things that other coalition members want in order that those coalition members vote for things that black politicians want.
There's no question that these black public officials are getting something in return for their support of teachers unions and others who benefit from the educational status quo. The question not addressed by black people is whether what black politicians are getting for their support of a failed educational system is worth the sacrifice of whole generations of black youngsters, educationally handicapping them and making many virtually useless in the high-tech world of the 21st century.
Though many black politicians mouth that we should fix, not abandon, public schools, they themselves have abandoned public schools. They see their children as too precious to be sacrificed in the name of public education.
While living in Chicago, Barack Obama sent his daughters to the prestigious University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. When he moved to Washington, President Obama enrolled his daughters in the prestigious Sidwell Friends School. According to a report by The Heritage Foundation, "exactly 52 percent of Congressional Black Caucus members and 38 percent of Congressional Hispanic Caucus members sent at least one child to private school." Overall, only 6 percent of black students attend private school.
It's not just black politicians who fight tooth and nail against parental school choice and have their children in private schools.
When President Obama's White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel resigned and became mayor of Chicago, he did not enroll his children in the Windy City's public schools. He enrolled his son and two daughters in the University of Chicago Lab Schools. And members of Congress, regardless of race, are three to four times likelier than the public to send their children to private schools.
According to a 2004 Thomas B. Fordham Institute study, more than 1 in 5 public school teachers sent their children to private schools. In some cities, the figure is much higher. In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, it's 41 percent, and Chicago (39 percent) and Rochester, N.Y. (38 percent), also have high figures. In the San Francisco-Oakland area, 34 percent of public school teachers enroll their children in private schools, and in New York City, it's 33 percent.
Only 11 percent of all parents enroll their children in private schools. The fact that so many public school teachers enroll their own children in private schools ought to raise questions. After all, what would you think, after having accepted a dinner invitation, if you discovered that the owner, chef, waiters and busboys at the restaurant to which you were being taken don't eat there? That would suggest they have some inside information from which you might benefit.
I don't think anything that black politicians get from the NEA, the AFT, the NAACP (many members are teachers), the National Urban League or others who have a vested financial interest in a failed educational system is worth committing whole generations of black youngsters to educational mediocrity. The prospects for a change are not good, particularly in light of the new fact that the NAACP is being wooed to join the AFL-CIO.
######
The
principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding,
is but swindling futurity on a large scale."--Thomas Jefferson, letter
to John Taylor, 1816
No comments:
Post a Comment