TrishAndHalli.com

Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.

About

Profile TrishAndHalli.com
Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations


Jerry Sproul, CPA
ThoughtfulConsideration.com

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

Richard Larsen: Paying for Influence – The Kochs & George Soros

April 9th, 2014 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

Judging from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s nearly daily diatribes on the floor of the U.S. Senate, George W. Bush has been retired as the most despised villain, and the cause of all the evils that plague the world. Bush has been replaced by the Koch (a Dutch name, pronounced “Coke”) brothers who are often maligned by the left for their pecuniary influence in politics. Since those on the left are not equally malevolent toward George Soros, who does the same thing, it’s clearly not the money in politics that bothers them — it’s the ideology.

The Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize winning Fact Check granted a “Four Pinocchio” rating to Reid’s latest round of attacks. The Post says Reid is “setting a high standard for deceptive speech,” and concludes that Reid’s party is “reaching blindly” for someone to cast the blame of their own failures on. The paper, critical of the falsity of Reid’s claim, chides him with, “If you want to join a gun fight, don’t fire blanks.”

charles-and-david-kochDavid and Charles Koch are brothers who run Koch Industries, an oil refinery business that is the second largest private firm in the country. The brothers are tied at number 6 on Forbes top billionaires list with personal net worth of about $41 billion each. They’ve expanded and maintained their fortunes by successfully providing the refined product that keeps America moving – oil.

George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management, a hedge fund company. Soros is number 27 on Forbes list with a net worth of $23 billion. He’s made his fortune in large part by selling short against international currencies and collapsing financial institutions. In 1997 he was dubbed “the man who broke the Bank of England,” and he was blamed by the Malaysian Prime Minister for collapsing their currency during the Asian financial crisis. He was also convicted of illegal financial dealings in France. His big bet now is collapsing the U.S. dollar and the free enterprise system.

Economist Paul Krugman has been critical of Soros, and others like him, “who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is ‘Soroi’.”

The Koch brothers and Soros spend lavishly in politics. They support individual candidates, contribute to political party campaign funds, lobby politicians, bankroll political action committees, and have established foundations and think tanks to influence politics.
The Kochs spend by far the most, but the bulk of it goes to lobbying. The Open Society Institute is one of George Soros’ organizations, and they provide part of the funding of OpenSecrets.org, so even realizing that their data may be skewed toward a more pejorative coverage of the Kochs, I’m going to rely on their data. According to Open Secrets, the Koch brothers have spent, or as liberals typically describe it, “invested” over $50 million in lobbying from 1998-2010. During that same time, Soros and his primary Lobbying organization, Open Society Policy Center, spent about $13 million.

george-soros-economic-terrorist-obama-politics-1344236489Donations to federal candidates, parties, and political action committees give a smaller advantage to the Kochs. They invested $2.58 million vs. Soros’ $1.74 million from 1989 to 2010. When extended to include the past four years, the Koch brothers have contributed $18 million in political donations. This sounds like a great number, until we look at the 58 organizations ahead of them, including 18 different unions, according to Open Secrets. Those unions political contributions total over $638 million, almost all of whose funds go to liberal candidates, and is more than 35 times more than the Kochs donate. Among those are the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,667,379, the National Education Association $53,594,488, the United Auto Workers $41,667,858, and the Service Employees International Union $38,395,690
But from here the money for political influence gets a little more shady. From 2001 to 2010, the Koch brothers invested $1.5 million in other political groups, called 527 organizations, compared to Soros’ whopping $32.5 million.

The proliferation and expanded influence of 527s was made possible by the problematic McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform of 2002, so named because of the tax code, Section 527, that they fall under. As described by Benjamin Dangl, the groups “operate as shadow political campaigns working indirectly for or against a particular candidate.” Once contributed funds get to these groups, they can go anywhere, and the audit trail is virtually non-existent. Some are run totally above board and are very straightforward in their objectives. Many others are not. As Dangl says, “Prominent think tanks and campaign finance reform lobbyists say 527s are ‘illegal loopholes’ that enable the privatization of political campaigns.”

The groups that these men contribute to tell an even more significant tale than the sheer dollar volume they pump into our dysfunctional crony-capitalist, or corporatist political system. Since the Koch brothers are ideological libertarians, they’re driven by the classical-liberal Jeffersonian philosophy that America was founded on. Perhaps nothing defines this self-defined mission for the brothers better than the mission statement on the Cato Institute website, which states, “The mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.”

The Cato Institute, the Koch’s crown jewel, was established 40 years ago with seed money from Charles Koch, and his brother David still serves on the Board of the organization. Cato is recognized as the sixth most influential think tank in the nation, and number 14 internationally, with its scholarly and empirically documented research.

They also have contributed significantly to the Reason Foundation, publisher of Reason Magazine, applying reason and logic to economic and personal liberty issues. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman strongly supported the Foundation. And with a grant of $30 million, the Koch brothers were instrumental in the establishment of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, with similar objectives.

George Soros runs the Open Society Institute and the Soros.org website, and contributes heavily to many organizations that ideologically are aligned with leftist causes, including Moveon.org. He is reviled abroad for his shady efforts to foment revolution and collapse currencies. His “foundations have been accused of shielding spies and breaking currency laws, and he’s invested over $400 million in institutions of higher education to promulgate and teach his extremist ideology.

In short, the Kochs and Soros are heavily invested in politics and are, by all standards, prototypical “one percenters” in income, net worth, and political influence. And it would appear, at least ostensibly, that all three are playing the influence-for-money game according to the rules established by congress. There is near universal contempt for the crony capitalism and corrupt corporatism that has tainted our political institutions, and politicians, and adulterated our free-market system. But congress has created the rules these players play by. Blaming the Kochs and Soros for using their resources to buy influence is like blaming collegiate athletes for the rules established by the NCAA.

obama-puppet-teleprompter-george-soros-junkie-sad-hill-newsSince most of the Koch’s political money goes into lobbying, their funds are well documented, as required by congressional accounting rules. With most of Soros’ political “investments” going into 527s, the funds are less traceable, and has earned Soros the dubious honor of being dubbed the “Godfather to the left.”

The classical-liberal principles of individual freedom and free markets that are so fully embraced and advanced by Charles and David Koch are the very principles the nation was founded upon. They are the principles that made America great. The progressive socialistic agenda advanced by Soros is antithetical to America’s founding precepts, and is heavily invested in the failure of not only the U.S. dollar, but the collapse of the U.S. economic system.

As distasteful as the pay-for-influence system is, the ideological objectives and uses of that influence should be of even greater concern. Should we fear those who support the ideals that made America great, or the one who seeks to destroy and fundamentally transform the country?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Pocatello Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

David Ripley: Star Parker on Marriage, Abortion and the Economy

November 19th, 2013 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Marriage and abortion are economic issues.

Because fewer are working for every retiree, our taxation nowhere near covers what the requirements for Social Security and Medicare will soon be.

Political discussions commonly assume there are two separate sets of issues.

There’s a social agenda — issues like abortion and marriage. And there’s an economic agenda — issues like federal spending, debt, taxes, and government programs like entitlements.

It’s usually assumed that these two agendas don’t have anything to do with each other.

But it’s simply false that we can consider the challenges of our federal budget without thinking about the state of the American family, our birthrates and abortion.

Our massive entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — now make up about 45 percent of our current federal budget. These programs are overwhelmingly driven by the demographics of the country, mostly directly, but also indirectly. Their economics are driven both by how long we live but also by how many children we have.

Social Security and Medicare focus on our elderly, to assure they have income and health care. Because the programs are financed through payroll taxes of the working, their viability depends on how many are employed compared to the size of our aged, retired populations.

This picture is changing dramatically, for the worse. And this is the root of our problem. In 1945, there were about 42 working Americans paying payroll taxes for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits. By 1960, the ratio was about 5-to-1. Today it is about 3-to-1. Americans are living longer but having fewer children.

Currently, about 13.3 percent of our population is over 65. Projections from the Department of Health and Human Services are that by 2040 — in a little over 25 years — 21 percent of our population will be over 65.

Meanwhile, birthrates are dropping. According to data compiled by the Pew Research Center, between 1920 and 1970, birth rates varied from a high of about 118 births per 1000 women of childbearing age to a low of about 80. In recent years, this rate has been a little over 60 births per 1000 women.

A report from the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration discusses factors that have led to the drop in birth rates. These include more use and availability of birth control, more women working, postponement of marriage, increased prevalence of divorce, and more women choosing to remain childless.

Not surprisingly, the SSA report ignores the impact of legal abortion. But this is a critical factor. You can look at any chart showing historical fertility rates in the United States and see it bottom out after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 and staying around those levels.

Because fewer and fewer are working for every retiree, our current level of taxation nowhere near covers what the requirements for Social Security and Medicare will soon be. Meanwhile, although Medicaid is usually thought of as health care for the poor, it’s the source of funding for most long-term care for the elderly. Today, about 60 percent of Americans in nursing homes and long-term care institutions are being covered through Medicaid.

Just think what this financial burden will look like as our aged become an increasingly large portion of our population.

It’s why projections for the shortfalls in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined have been as high as $126 trillion.

A central premise of Obamacare is forcing healthy young Americans to buy health insurance to subsidize overall premium costs for older and less healthy parts of the population. What happens as the percentage of youth in our population continues to shrink? It should be clear that it is impossible to separate marriage, children and abortion from our overall economic picture. These factors are at the root of the economic picture. A renaissance in American family life — restoration of marriage and children as central to our culture — and purge of the scourge of abortion — can restore a healthy future that today looks so ominous.

NOTE: Ms. Star Parker will be our Special Guest Speaker on Friday, December 6th, in Boise. If you’d like to attend our Christmas Dinner & Auction, please call 344-8709 to make reservations!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, National Sovereignty, Politics in General, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Nation’s Spending is Unsustainable

November 8th, 2013 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

There was a time when it was thought to be prudent to not spend beyond one’s means; a time when frugality was a desirable trait, and when such discipline and restraint constituted a man or woman of wisdom in financial affairs. Judging from the predictable reaction to the storyline fed by the mainstream media regarding fiscal policy in our nation’s capital, such fiscal discipline no longer is perceived as wise, but as extremist and radical.

And apparently there’s an ancillary postulate that accompanies that conclusion; that those who desire to not inflict harm on the nation due to bad government regulation fall under the same broad definitional brush of extremism and radicalism.

Just since 2006, the last year the U.S. government had a budget passed by both congressional chambers and signed by a president, government debt has shot from $6.7 trillion, to over $17 trillion. The largest segment of that spending occurred over the past five years with four consecutive years of $1 trillion deficits. Our government has been spending 60% more than it’s been collecting in tax receipts.

Those figures do not even begin to address our long-term debt due to non-discretionary entitlement programs. According to the General Accounting Office’s (GAO) 2012 annual report, their most recent which was issued nearly one year ago, unfunded debt including Social Security and Medicare was $70.7 trillion, an increase of 8% over 2011 levels. Our national debt increases by an estimated $8.2 million per minute, and about $350 billion per month.

The GAO was explicit in its warning to the policy makers about our spending. They said in the very first paragraph, “GAO’s simulations continue to show escalating levels of debt that illustrate that the long-term fiscal outlook remains unsustainable.”

For those who may have difficulty grasping the gravity of the word “unsustainable,” let’s clarify the term. That means it is “not able to be maintained at the current rate or level.” That it is “not able to be upheld or defended.”

Former Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, has been sounding the clarion call of economic disaster for the nation if spending is not reined in, and politicians refuse to deal with fiscal realities of unabated spending. He describes America as a “sinking ship” in a sea of our own debt. He points out that, “The US ranks near the bottom of developed global economies in terms of financial stability and will stay there unless it addresses its burgeoning debt problems,” based on the Sovereign Fiscal Responsibility Index.

“We think it is important for the American people to understand where the United States is as compared to other countries with regard to fiscal responsibility and sustainability,” Walker said in a CNBC interview recently. He predicts that the country is rapidly heading towards a debt crisis that could come within the next few years if we continue on our present course.

Those are the facts, at least a small glimpse at our dismal fiscal reality. And yet, when facing another massively expensive entitlement, and a debt limit, and a government “shutdown” over spending issues, the press and their chorus of ideologically-compliant sycophants across the land excoriate the one group of politicians that sees the threat of our current reality!

The fiscal terrorists are not those in the House, who out of conscience and their commitment to their voters refuse to budge on spending without fiscal reform. The biggest terrorist threat to the nation are those who vote perfunctorily to increase our debt, continue to spend beyond our means, and refuse to say no to new spending programs that threaten to expedite the collapse of the nation from debt implosion! They are destroying the nation minute by minute, and debt limit increase by debt limit increase, by continuing our unsustainable spending trajectory with no attempt at addressing it.

How idiotic it is when the mainstream media rejoices when a debt limit, regardless of how temporary, is increased. When the government resumes full operations without any substantive assessment of our unsustainable mountain of debt, as identified by the General Accounting Office! And how idiotic it is when a majority of the American public applauds the resumption of our unsustainable course of debt accrual, with no apparent concern for the perpetuity of the republic!

The president is claiming credit for a slight deficit reduction this past year. That’s sublimely ironic considering it happened because of an idea he floated, and then denounced, and become enacted as a 5% reduction in spending known as the sequester.

The sequester has made a slight difference in the trajectory of our mountain of debt, but not nearly enough. If the nation is to survive financially, a change of course and reassessment of our spending priorities is critical. Our role is to be an informed electorate, and if we love America, support candidates with a commitment to saving the nation from the spendthrift politicians in control now.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Pocatello Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Illogic of U.S. Involvement in Syria

September 11th, 2013 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

With growing evidence of state-sponsored use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, the usual response would be some reprisal to discourage such usage again. That is certainly the hope of the administration. But that is hardly a “slam dunk” proposition when the country is embroiled in a bloody civil war, and our enemies are battling our enemies.

It’s morally unconscionable to back either side in this conflict. On the one hand is the despotic regime of Bashar al-Assad, who is also the Secretary for the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. The regime is closely aligned with Russia, and shares political and financial support of Hezbollah, the terrorist group, with Iran. Syria’s support of Hezbollah landed the country on the vilified State Sponsors of Terrorism list in 1979. Hezbollah has played a significant role during the civil war battling insurgents alongside the official Syrian military.

On the other hand are the insurgents, those fighting to topple Assad. Early on in the civil war, the largest revolutionary group was the Free Syrian Army, a group of army defectors that was non-sectarian. However, they have lost their leadership role to the Syrian Liberation Front, Hamas, and especially to Jabhat al-Nusra, all of which espouse an Islamist ideology. The latter group is comprised mostly of fighters from Iraq’s post-war insurgency and have pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Until the political correctness of the Obama administration started redefining Islamic extremist groups, these were all terrorists.

If Assad is deposed, Syria will likely follow the pattern of Libya and Egypt, with Islamic fundamentalists assuming control, which plays directly into the Islamic extremist determination to establish an Islamic Caliphate that encompasses the entire Middle-Eastern region, paving the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam.

The current U.S. players in the Syrian diplomatic minefield have significant baggage with regard to the Assad regime. John Kerry, current Secretary of State, has had several visits with Assad, where he’s referred to him as a “very generous man,” and a “friend.” Nancy Pelosi led a friendly congressional delegation to Syria in 2007 despite, or because of, the opposition expressed by the Bush administration, and then botched her message of peace with Israel. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has heaped praise on Assad for being a “reformer.” These socialistic bedfellows are no longer on cordial terms.

The Obama team has made it clear that they want to encourage Assad to not use chemical weapons again. That’s the intent behind their plan to fire a few tomahawk missiles at non-strategic locations within Syria. Assad is not to be targeted, nor are his chemical stockpiles, or any of his military installations. Obama clarified last week in a PBS interview that he envisioned the strike being a “shot across the bow,” a warning to not use chemical weapons again. In other words, it’s symbolic, and serves no tactical purpose.

The Obama strike would be comparable to when President Clinton ordered 23 tomahawk missiles shot into Iraq in June of 1993 for the attempted assassination of former President George H. W. Bush. Those strikes accomplished little, as alluded to by George W. Bush after the attacks of 911, when he vowed he wouldn’t make that same kind of mistake. Bush reportedly said, “I’m gonna be patient about this thing, and not go firing a 2 million dollar missile at a 10 dollar tent just to hit a camel in the butt.”

Hezbollah has been saber rattling ever since Obama’s announcement to bomb Syria. They have threatened retaliation against American interests overseas, especially in the Middle East, and retaliation against Israel. Israel has been consequently beefing up defense shields preparing for an attack from Iranian and Syrian based Hezbollah forces. And we shouldn’t be so naïve as to suppose Russia or China, close friends to the Assad regime, would sit idly by while their ally is attacked. Our diplomatic relationship with Russia is already the worst it’s been since the cold war. This will make it undeniably worse.

If you get the feeling that a tepid and mostly symbolic bombing of non-strategic targets in Syria can set off a full-scale regional conflict including the Islamic extremist desire to wipe Israel off the map, you’re not alone!

The U.S. has no national security interest in Syria, other than limiting the use of chemical weapons, which a limited bomb-strike will in no way assure. The country is engulfed in a bloody civil war where our enemies are fighting our enemies. Let them have at it. The consequences of our involvement are potentially much, much greater than can possibly justify the illusory intended results of a limited strike.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Pocatello Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Detroit’s Collapse is a Portent for America

August 12th, 2013 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

In his 2012 campaign for re-election, President Obama claimed saving Detroit as one of his success stories from his first term. He said, “We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.” The auto industry was “saved” in skeletal fashion, and is working its way back, but Detroit proper became the largest U.S. city to file for bankruptcy last month. And what should be alarming to all Americans is that the policies and politics that controlled the city for the past 60 years are the same that are leading the nation today.

Let’s just lay out a few facts on where Detroit was six decades ago, and where it is today. In 1960 the city of Detroit boasted the highest per-capita income in America. There were nearly 300,000 manufacturing jobs. The city was the fourth largest in the country with nearly two million residents. In many ways, it was the golden-boy of free-market America.

Today, it’s a broken and dilapidated city with nearly $20 billion in debt and unfunded liabilities, and no way to pay for them. The city has lost 63% of its population, has lost over 90% of its manufacturing jobs, over 48% of them lost in the last decade alone. The city is more reliant on casinos for city revenue, about $11 million per month, than on automaker tax revenue.

About one-third of Detroit’s 140 square miles is vacant or dilapidated, and there are over 78,000 abandoned homes. Two-thirds of the parks were permanently closed over the past five years. Only about a third of the city’s ambulances are functional, and the average response time to a 911 call is 58 minutes.

As disheartening as that is, the human toll is even greater. The murder rate is 11 times higher than New York City’s, and the violent crime rate is five times higher than the national average. Less than half of Detroit’s residents over the age of 16 have jobs, and over 60% of the children live in poverty. An astonishing 47% of Detroit’s citizens are functionally illiterate.

So what happened to this once proud symbol of America’s manufacturing successes? In short, they proved the validity of “Stein’s Law.” Herbert Stein was an economist and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisor’s under President Nixon. To him is attributed the succinct yet obvious economic truth, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Or, as he later restated, “Trends that can’t continue, won’t.” It’s ironic that Stein, father of author and actor Ben Stein, claimed Detroit as his hometown.

The trends that could not continue for Detroit were: steadily increasing city spending as tax revenue steadily declined, continued expansion in the size and scope of city government, and increasingly unrealistic benefit and wage concessions to municipal unions.
The latter is what syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer referred to as “legal corruption.” He described it this way. “The legal corruption was the cozy symbiosis of Democratic politicians and powerful unions, especially the public-sector unions that gave money to elect the politicians who negotiated their contracts — with wildly unsustainable health and pension benefits. . . .The market ultimately forced the car companies into reform, restructuring, and eventual recovery. The city of Detroit, however, lacking market constraints, just kept overspending — $100 million annually since 2008. The city now has about $19 billion in obligations it has no chance of meeting. So much city revenue has had to be diverted to creditors and pensioners that there is practically nothing left to run the city.”

If something can’t go on forever, it will stop. A family, city, state, or nation, simply cannot continue to spend more than it collects in revenue. It will eventually stop, as it did for Detroit with their Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing last month, and as countless families learn too late when they’re headed to their own bankruptcy court.

Many other municipalities that have made the same egregious spending mistakes will undoubtedly learn the lesson Detroit has; the hard way. But will the nation follow suit?

Presidents cannot continue to propose spending for every idea that sounds good. Congress cannot continue to kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with, by perfunctorily raising the spending limit, and spending beyond our means. And the size and scope of government cannot continue to expand inexorably, providing services and programs that we cannot afford. And the habit of perennial increases in benefits and pensions to public employees must be broken.

Remember, trends that cannot continue, will not. Detroit is now facing their day of reckoning. Will the nation, as well, or will we finally learn to demand fiscal accountability of our elected officials before it’s too late?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Pocatello Issues, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Global Warming Models Prove Fallacy of AGW

July 31st, 2013 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

It’s always fascinating to see the public responses to columns challenging the notion that man is “causing” the earth to warm.

Predictable are the personal attacks against such purveyors of contrarian dogma, as well as references to the favorite buzzwords and invalidated theses. It’s difficult to understand such fierce loyalty and fealty to a theory invalidated by their own models. Whether they’re looking for meaning in life by “saving the world” by diminishing their CO2 footprint, or they’re susceptible to the mainstream media propagandistic endorsement, it’s hard to say.

Let’s start with the obvious, which for some is not obvious, nor easily accepted. According to NASA, global temperatures have not increased for 15 years. Here is the chart for actual temperatures as published by NASA clearly illustrating the cessation of warming in 1998.

The plot appears dramatic, but notice the scale on the left axis. From 1880 to 2013 the range is .8 of one degree Celsius.
We can then look at the chart developed by former UN IPCC Lead Author & Climatologist Dr. John Christy which plots 73 global warming models. The models’ projections are based on climate sensitivity to manmade carbon dioxide. In other words, the models reflect the premise that man is causing, or at least contributing significantly to, warming of the planet. Yet not one of the models even comes close to reality based on NASA’s empirical data. The mean average for those models is nearly 1 degree Celsius higher than what has been observed for the past 15 years.

Why is this significant? Because it shows that, based on their own theories, and their own calculations of climate sensitivity to manmade CO2, that they’re all wrong. If their theories about the greenhouse potency and feedback of carbon dioxide emissions were correct, their model projections would match reality. And it’s not the earth that’s at fault; it’s the models and their underlying theory!

When they’re so wrong for so long, how can anyone with a semblance of cognitive functionality even possibly consider taking them seriously!

I can’t help but conclude what a phenomenal job it is to be an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scientist. Come up with these alarmist theories to provide global governments the premise to regulate and tax what we exhale as a pollutant; rake in hundreds of millions from government grants to do so; generate sophisticated models to ring the warning bells of catastrophic manmade global warming; be proven totally wrong empirically, and yet still be heralded by media, academia, environmentalist activists, and low-information citizens, as ultimate authorities on the issue, and claim to be right!

With such an abysmal record of projecting reality, now 15 years and running, it would be like a stock analyst in my industry forecasting a decade-and-a-half of bull markets, and be proclaimed a market guru even if all 15 years were bear markets! It’s logically impossible to be right, as claimed by media, academicians, and AGW sycophants, when the alarmist’s calculations, as evidenced by their projections, are completely wrong!

Last month the German news publican Der Spiegel interviewed Hans von Storch, renowned German Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg. Storch said “scientists are so puzzled by the 15-year standstill in global warming that if the trend continues their models could be fundamentally wrong.” Could be? Do you think? After fifteen years of being wrong, it seems rather obvious that the underlying premises have already been empirically invalidated. He continued, “We are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

“There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us,” said Storch. “The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes,” Storch added. Now that’s an astute statement of the obvious. And notice how he was more concerned that they were all wrong, rather than that the earth was facing cataclysmic warming.

And just a quick note on the “97% of scientists” buy into the AGW hypothesis statement so often repeated by the alarmists. This figure of “consensus” originated from the “Doran Survey.” This was a nonscientific survey of 77 climate scientists polled for a master’s thesis. And it’s been debunked as a flawed and statistically invalid “survey.”

So how do most scientists really feel about AGW? According to Forbes, citing peer-reviewed surveys in February, only 36% of geoscientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis, and a solid majority believe what warming is occurring is from natural sources.

If the AGW argument was correct, their models would be accurate. Since they are not, their basic premises are obviously flawed. And to say there’s a consensus is equally fallacious.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Pocatello Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Dismantling the Dollar’s Reserve Status

July 31st, 2013 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

The U.S. dollar has enjoyed an enviable position for years as the reserve currency of the world. This has allowed the Treasury Department presses to run around the clock printing new dollars that will be used to facilitate global trade, finance the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing, and fund our deficit spending. But the dollar’s status as the reserve global reserve currency is slowly unraveling. The consequences of losing that most favored currency status could be devastatingly inflationary.

In 1944, an international conference was held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire that included a gathering of over 700 delegates from all 44 Allied nations of the 2nd World War. The purpose was to design a global currency system that would facilitate trade and render financial order to the post-war world. Several significant developments resulted from this summit, formally called the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), was established, as well as the establishment of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Resolutions accepted at the conference led to the transition of world reserve currency status from the war-ravaged British sterling, to the U.S. Dollar.

The function of the reserve currency is to serve as a standard of value by which all global financial transactions are measured and facilitated. And after Bretton Woods, the dollar was it. All other currencies were fiat currencies that had no intrinsic value, but rather derived their value compared to, and relative to, the dollar, which in turn was tied to the value of gold at $35 per ounce.

This meant that all global transactions were consummated by exchanging national currencies to dollars for uniformity and accuracy. The dollar has continued in this role, even after the dollar was removed from the gold standard in 1971.

What led to the demise of the gold standard has relevance to today’s challenge to the dollar. During the late sixties, government spending grew significantly with the costs of the escalation of the Vietnam conflict and funding of LBJ’s Great Society programs. These were funded mostly by deficit spending, essentially charging the costs with a promise to pay for them in the future. This was extremely risky while the dollar was tied to the value of gold, for overspending and printing of dollars meant an excess of dollars in global circulation which could then be exchanged back to gold, depleting U.S. gold reserves.

This limited the extent to which Washington could deficit-spend, and caused inflationary pressures on the economy. With Washington lacking the fiscal policy discipline to control the spending, President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order 11615, which “closed the gold window,” making the dollar just another fiat currency with a free-floating value for global exchange.

In many ways, we’re facing a similar situation now. The United States has had five consecutive years of more than $1 trillion in deficit spending. The first two of those years we were within a few hundred billion of spending twice what we were collecting in treasury receipts. The lack of discipline and fiscal responsibility in Washington led to a downgrade of the nation’s sea of debt two years ago by Standard & Poor’s. The ratings organization stated at the time, “Elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating.”

S&P added that the nation’s credit rating could be lowered even further if serious attempts to reduce the debt and deficit were not successful. They further asserted that $4 trillion in spending reduction would be a “good start” towards rebuilding our credit rating.

Global confidence in the dollar is weakening. The massive spending which led to the downgrade of our debt has only been exacerbated by the Federal Reserve’s easy money policy of low interest rates and Quantitative Easing, funded by free-running printing presses and newly minted dollars. As a result, the dollar’s standing as the global reserve currency is steadily eroding.

China has been aggressively touting their yuan, or renminbi, as a replacement to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Many nations have already agreed to bilateral trade with China, bypassing conversion to dollars. Just in the past two years, China has inked deals with Germany, Russia, Brazil, Australia, Japan, France, Chile, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, India, and South Africa.

“Generally speaking, it is not believed by the vast majority that the American dollar will be overthrown,” Dick Bove, vice president of equity research at Rafferty Capital Markets, said recently. “But it will be, and this defrocking may occur in as short a period as five to 10 years… If the dollar loses status as the world’s most reliable currency, the United States will lose the right to print money to pay its debt. It will be forced to pay this debt. The ratings agencies are already arguing that the government’s debt may be too highly rated. The United States Congress, in both its houses, as well as the president, are demonstrating a total lack of fiscal credibility.”

Money News reported in February, “The greenback is declining as a percentage of the world’s currency supply. Compared with its peers, it has dropped to a 15-year low, as nations show a willingness to use other currencies to conduct business, according to the International Monetary Fund.”

In March, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece titled, “Why The Dollar’s Reign Is Near an End.” They pointed to some of the obvious implications of the dollar’s demise as the reserve currency. “In this new monetary world, the U.S. government will not be able to finance its budget deficits so cheaply, since there will no longer be as big an appetite for U.S. Treasury securities on the part of foreign central banks. Nor will the U.S. be able to run such large trade and current-account deficits, since financing them will become more expensive.” In fact, the March Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that we will be paying over $5 trillion for the next ten years just to pay the interest on the national debt. This figure will be adjusted much higher as the dollar declines in use as the reserve currency, leading to an erosion of its purchasing power.

Sam Zell, chairman of Equity Group Investments, said in an interview with CNBC: “My single biggest financial concern is the loss of the dollar as the reserve currency. I can’t imagine anything more disastrous to our country. I’m hoping against hope that isn’t going happen, but you’re already seeing things in the markets that are suggesting that confidence in the dollar is waning. I think you could see a 25% reduction in the standard of living in this country if the U.S. dollar was no longer the world’s reserve currency. That’s how valuable it is.”

The managing director of Pimco, Bill Gross, who manages more bond assets than anyone else in the world, wrote recently, “The future price tag of printing six trillion dollars worth of checks comes in the form of inflation and devaluation of currencies.”

The Wall Street Journal’s George Melloan concurred, “Indeed, it is unlikely that Americans themselves will escape the inflationary consequences of current Fed policy. The Fed is financing a vast and rising federal deficit, following a practice that has been a surefire prescription for domestic inflation from time immemorial.”

Investor Jim Rogers recently advised, “The dollar is not just in decline; it’s a mess. If something isn’t done soon, I believe the dollar could lose its status as the world’s reserve currency and medium of exchange, something that would lead to a huge decline in the standard of living for U.S. citizens like nothing we’ve seen in nearly a century.”

Dollar weakness has accelerated since the downgrade of U.S. debt. To prevent this continued decline Washington must get a handle on spending, and make serious cuts, not just cuts in the rate of growth as the recent sequester was. The Federal Reserve must discontinue the Quantitative Easing that has buoyed domestic equity markets, but has infused too many dollars into global markets, and created a fiscally incestuous relationship with the Fed buying our own debt. If these actions are not taken soon, all Americans can expect to see double-digit hyperinflation comparable to the 1980s. The continued erosion of the dollar as the reserve currency will affect all of us.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Pocatello Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: It’s NOT Just the IRS That’s Targeting, and It’s Clearly Coordinated

June 5th, 2013 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

To anyone with any sense of political propriety, the growing story of IRS abuses targeting conservative groups is unsettling. Even they who are supportive of the administration at the Main Street level of American politics must realize that with a change of administration, groups and individuals of their political orientation could be the next targets. But the IRS isn’t the only agency involved in this targeting, which even more clearly validates the thesis that it’s all coordinated from the White House, and not just some “rogue agents.”

We now know the IRS was targeting applications for non-profit status by conservative groups. We also know, from recent revelations, that the Department of Justice (which seems increasingly to be an oxymoron) has been targeting media organizations and reporters that are seen to pose a threat to the administration. But that’s just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

The IRS is further implicated in this web of corruption by their audit division. Idaho resident Frank VanderSloot served as a national co-chair to the Mitt Romney campaign, and was a major donor. In April, 2012, the Obama Campaign published a scurrilous piece on their website, attacking the character of eight conservatives who were backing Romney, including VanderSloot.

Shortly after that posting, VanderSloot was subjected to three federal government audits. Two of those were by the IRS, one for his personal income and one for his businesses. The other was a Labor Department audit of one of his businesses. Is this a coincidence? Not according to VanderSloot, who said he “wasn’t the only one” on that list that received the royal Obama treatment.

In 2009 and 2011, Gibson Guitar Corporation was raided by armed federal agents from the FBI and the Justice Department, for allegedly using “endangered” wood in the construction of their acoustic guitars. The agents seized raw materials, electronic files and finished guitars. The raid cost the company over $3 million, not including a $300,000 settlement with the government. None of Gibson’s competitors received this kind of treatment, even though Martin & Co. is known to use exactly the same “endangered” wood. The difference? Gibson CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, actively supports Republican candidates, while Martin’s CEO, Chris Martin IV is a Democrat supporter.

Catherine Engelbrecht, saw a need to educate citizens to prevent voter fraud. She founded a non-profit organization, True the Vote, for that express purpose. Her organization’s non-profit filing was one of those held up for years by the IRS’s “Advocacy Group,” which has admitted to targeting conservative groups.

After filing for tax-exempt status, she has gone through four IRS audits; two of their personal finances, and two of their family business. Her business was also inspected several times by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), where only minor issues were found, but they were fined $25,000. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) made an unannounced audit of her business. And not to be outdone, the FBI started contacting them, probing for improprieties. Neither the ATF nor the FBI could find anything to charge them with. It was all harassment.

To believe all of this is coincidental is tantamount to suspension of all cognitive functionality. It is targeted, coordinated, and implemented with the precision that would make Stalin, Mao, or Hitler envious.

Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal revealed a year ago that the president maintained an “enemies list.” Not enemies of the state, but people who oppose his agenda and are outspoken in their opposition. As she said, “Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice. Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules.”

Peter Wehner in Commentary Magazine said recently, “We have seen from this White House Nixonian tendencies and, it would appear, a burning anger and resentment toward its critics. Whether it’s Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, or companies that sponsor reports that take issue with the administration’s assessments, there seems to be a cast of mind that views critics as enemies, as individuals and institutions that need to be ridiculed, delegitimized, or ruined… there are lines that ought not to be crossed, temptations that need to be resisted, and people in the White House who need to say ‘no’ to tactics that begin to drag an administration, and a country, down.”

Obama and his cronies have painted targets on groups and individuals who don’t buy into their statist ideology, and his henchmen in the federal government take the shots. And the proof that it’s coming from the very top is in the pervasive use of government agencies to stifle dissent and intimidate critics. It’s not just the IRS, but includes the Labor Department, the Department of Justice, FBI, ATF, and OSHA.

These are the consequences of sending a Machiavellian to lead a government that has such expansive control of our lives. Obama and his gaggle of “Csars” and government henchmen are only curtailed in their insidious intimidation and attacks on his political adversaries by bringing the administration’s atrocities to light. These are the tactics of tyrants, and have no place in America!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Pocatello Issues, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Rep. Tom Loertscher: House Highlights, March 4

March 4th, 2013 by Halli

by Representative Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

During the week I caught two Capitol press corps reporters standing on the sidewalk east of the Capitol comparing notes and writing like crazy in their little notebooks. I just couldn’t resist the opportunity to stop and visit with them. I told them that they reminded me of what a former State Senator, Dane Watkins, had said about these types of situations. “All we know is what we tell each other,” was how he put it.

For those of you who have followed the Legislature over a period of time, you would probably say that this is about the time of the session when things start to get a little interesting. Currently we are between the stages where the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee is setting budgets and when we start to see them for action on the floor of the House. So far, all we have seen are the corrections to the current year’s budget that we set last year. This is a normal activity around here because we find adjustments are needed because things have changed since the budget was set.

Second Amendment legislation is progressing in the House. Two of the measures passed the House this past week, one of which was the bill that provides for an enhanced concealed carry permit. It would make our permits recognized in several other states that don’t currently do so. Those who hold existing permits will continue on as they now are. Two other Second Amendment bills cleared the State Affairs Committee and were sent to the full House. One of those bills generated public comment of a very emotional nature. One person who testified crossed over the line and it was necessary that I use the gavel to reinforce our efforts to deal with these emotional issues in a civil manner. I for one am grateful that these are very rare occasions.

There has been some discussion about federal sequestration and its effect on Idaho, but no changes have been made in our current budget to reflect anything that is happening along those lines, at least not yet. The number crunchers are working behind the scenes to determine if and by how much corrections in our budgets need to be made.

There is still much talk around these halls about the personal property tax issue, but as of this writing there has still been no legislation proposed to deal with the issue. I was reading one of the newspapers over the weekend and one of the comments there was that local government entities and all other taxing districts have been very effective in having their points of view heard. It’s my best guess at this point, that the proposal has lost some of its traction.

Health exchange legislation has still not be been heard in the House Health and Welfare Committee. The lobbying effort has been extraordinary but an even bigger effort has been made by our constituents at home. There is no doubt about how our folks feel about it, they are about 90% opposed. To say that we live in interesting times is definitely an understatement.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, National Sovereignty, Politics in General, Presidential Politics, Rep. Tom Loertscher, Taxes | No Comments »

David Ripley: Obama Delivers Threat to Idaho

February 26th, 2013 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

President Obama has become a master of manipulation. When confronted with opposition, he enlists the MSM to deliver his version of contorted reality without scrutiny. We saw another stage production just this week when the Idaho media reported on Obama’s message that he will hurt Idaho kids, seniors, travelers, military personnel – unless Congress capitulates again to tax increases.

Under the guise of implementing the “sequester” – Obama says he will cut $3.7 million in federal funds to schools. Particularly hard hit will be those children with disabilities. Funding for Mountain Home Air Base will be cut. Grants for law enforcement, kids’ vaccines, and even a program to help women caught up in domestic violence will suffer because Barack Obama says they must. They must suffer to make Republicans pay and repent of their obsession with fiscal responsibility.

Why do we talk about this?

By our count, Obama is threatening to stop something like $15 million in federal funds from going to Idaho if the sequester happens later this week.
Here’s another idea: The Idaho Senate just approved a plan to implement an insurance exchange as part of Obama’s plan to impose health care “reform” on the people of Idaho. A program no one but Blue Cross wants. Attached to the bill is a $30 million federal grant.

How about we tell Obama to keep his $30 million, and keep the change to pay down the deficit – so long as he promises to leave us alone? So long as he stops using our tax dollars to impose ugly social policies upon the people of this state, so long as he ends his war on our religious freedom?

And why hasn’t Dan Popkey or other media personalities commented on the expansion of federal “aid” to Idaho at a time when Obama is threatening to slash spending in other areas already dependent upon the Santa Claus on Pennsylvania Avenue? For that matter – why haven’t members of the Idaho Legislature taken notice of this tragic irony?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, National Sovereignty, Politics in General, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

« Previous Entries

Copyright © 2oo6 by TrishAndHalli.com Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting