The Cost of An Egg

I've read plenty of articles that deal with the price of food and how it relates to items like inflation, money printing, the economy, regional disasters, and free trade. I'd never really seen it used in the manner of a recent social media ad campaign posted on the Presidents feed as it was earlier this week.

23%! I know right?!? That's a pretty startling increase in a fairly short amount of time for something that seems as abundant as eggs. I was actually expecting that the correlation between the price of eggs had more to do with gas prices and other factors that seem to be holding back the economy that just don't seem to grab the headlines the way that they did ten years ago when we began this era of economic stagnation. Being fairly confident in my assertion, I began my research in the hopes of coming up with some snarky response to the 'real' reason that eggs were climbing in cost as such an aggressive click.

I was very shocked by what I found.

After looking up some historical egg prices from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and comparing it to some historic gas prices the only real correlation I was finding was that both prices were quite volatile. Sure, there are some gas price spikes in the 2005 to 2007 range that correlate with some spikes in egg prices, but gas prices, although high, have actually stabilized over the past few years. That's when I realized something else, the year 2009 was chosen very carefully for this ad. Just using the BLS numbers, the average price so far in 2014 compared to 2009 is right around 23% (21.4% by my math, but I usually assume the people who make these ads have access to a little more precise data or compound it at a slightly finer interval).

2009 was chosen because it came at the heals of the great recession. Gas plummeted in in price which coincided nicely with an over 16% reduction in the cost of eggs from 2008 to 2009. That is to say, if this ad chose the price increase from 2008 to 2014, the number would have been... wait for it... 1.77% increase.

Doesn't quite fire up the crowds the same way, huh?

but that's not all, I contrasted the data against another set of data provided by the Department of Labor. Obama wants us to believe there is some correlation between the cost of eggs and the wage that people are paid, and he is absolutely right!

Excusing 2009 as a major economic outlier for a moment (as it is for just about economic trend comparative), and selecting the change in price for the years of 1996, 1997, 2007, and 2008. Why these years you ask? These are the years were there was an increase in the minimum wage. over the past 20 years. What was the average increase in a carton of eggs for these years? 9.19%!! About the same as the raises minimum wage workers got during those years.

In the same 20 year span from 1994 through 2013 were we didn't have an increase in the minimum wage (again, omitting 2009), we had mostly positive economic growth years and a stable or downward trending unemployment rate. The average increase per year  for eggs during this time was a whopping 2.72%, just a little ahead of inflation for the time of 2.42%. This also includes some well above average increases in the last couple years. (Take out the Obama years, and the rate increase is closer to 2.41%, almost perfect with inflation)

Over 9% compared to less the 3%. Eggs go up in price over 3 times faster when the minimum wage goes up!

So, when it comes to eggs and raising the minimum wage, the last couple of decades tells us that the raise they get doesn't even cover the increase cost of a dozen eggs.

I'm not trying to say the increase in food prices isn't alarming, there are many issues out there causing these food increases that need to be addressed such as a bird flu outbreak in Mexico and new state regulations in California that have had an impact nation wide. Yet, once again, this administration is presenting very misleading facts to try and push an agenda on us while ignoring actual factors that are causing the problem. Call it breaking the yolk in order to fry an egg, it makes no sense. The numbers are pretty clear, an increase in the minimum wage would make the problem he is addressing worse, not better.

#Warfare

After the monumental success of Jen Psaki's "promise of hashtag", the administration is scrapping the bottom of the 'ever-more-ridiculous' barrel to come up with what is undoubtedly what they consider to be the best idea that they have. Pander to people who are trendy. To this end, along comes no less than Michelle Obama, the woman who stands behind the man who leads from behind, with this contribution:

"Our prayers are with the missing Nigerian girls and their families. It's time to #BringBackOurGirls. - mo"

Her pouty duck face of sadness will only provide some mirth to the Boko Haram terrorists who have kidnapped hundreds of adolescent schoolgirls as fodder for the sex slave trade. The recent attacks also resulted in over 300 people slaughtered in the process: throats cut, shot in the head, some burned alive.

Hastag warfare to this date has had as much impact in Nigeria as it has had in Ukraine. This, in all fairness, is also equivalent to productiveness of the administrations efforts to stop chemical warfare in Syria and come to a peace deal with Palestine and Isreal. Which (for those of you who are not picking up satire and vehemince in my text up to this point, is nada, zilch, zippo, nothing.)

This administration has had absolutely zero impact on world events over the past year.

Which begs the question, why through up this petty attempt at solace? Does Michelle actually believe that the families of the girls will receive some comfort from this narcissistic little tweet? Pretty sure market penetration of twitter is pretty low in Nigeria considering only about a third of the population even has internet access. Let's assume for a moment then that the answer is 'No'. 

Hashtag warfare, shockingly enough, is not about winning over any enemy abroad, but about winning easy points at home. The hope is that as people see this sorrowful face spread across twitter, a sympathetic reaction will befall not the victims of the violence of Nigeria, but rather those here who are powerless to stop them, our leadership.

After all, what could the US do to combat these kinds of atrocities? 

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton (also hopping on the hashtag bandwagon) repeatedly and inexplicably refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, despite many attempts by the CIA, FBI, and members of Congress to have her make that declaration in the wake of a 2011 bombing in Abuja (Last November, under Sec. Kerry, the group was finally added). This was hand-in-glove with the refusal to recognize a terrorist risk in Benghazi because, after all, the Obama campaign kept insisting that groups like the al Qaeda-affiliated Boko Haram were on the run.

In the end, we find ourselves once again reacting with disgust while hiding the paper trail that makes is obvious that we shouldn't be all that surprised by what's happening in the first place. It is apparent that this administration is concerned first, foremost, and almost exclusively about one war, the war of perception. Specifically, making sure the perception of him and his Presidency is just as trendy and hip as the hashtags that he is now basing his legacy on.

Distractions Be Damned!

World War II was started when Germany invaded Poland, The Korean War started when North Korea invaded South Korea, The Persian Gulf War started when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and now Russia has invaded Ukraine.

Not too many pundits and politicians are advocating to start up another war, considering we are still trying to get out of the last couple we started, but I state these to bring some weight and context to just how grave and serious an action it is when one country violates the sovereignty of another.

Need another anecdote to showcase my point? How about the President of the United States just a few days ago stating "We are now deeply concerned over reports of military movements taken by Russian Federation inside of Ukraine."

Well, it's been about a week and Putin and Russian Federation are showing no sign of letting up their pursuit of taking control of at least the Crimean Peninsula. I've been watching the President's response to events as they unfold, and even though I could make some snide comments about the pace of his responses, an indication of just how prepared he is to handle such a response, and have already written about the need for reforming our approach to foreign policy in much broader terms, I've been reasonably pleased with his calls to ban Russia from the G8, granting loans to the recognized Ukrainian government, and freezing assets of individual Russian officials and overall flexing what little leverage we have over Russia in an attempt to raise the price, both monetarily and politically, of Russia's actions.

Obviously this leverage is not enough to stop Putin, it was glaringly obvious from day one that US was in no position to actually stop him short of a massive military mobilization. Then what is the correct course of action? What else can our Commander in Chief do to dissuade Russia and continue to increase the cost to Russia for this clear violation of International Law? 

Well, apparently the answer is to gut up from the table, tell your Phone Czar to hold all your calls and your Airplane Czar to gas up the jet, and to go on vacation. Because that is exactly what he is doing.

Are the European's joining us in establishing sanctions? Idunno. Are we changing to Defcon 3 and mobilizing a force to help stabilize the region? Shrug. Will more calls to Putin finally wake him up to reason? Obama only knows that he isn't letting the incursion of Russian troops into Ukraine's Crimean peninsula prevent him and his family from enjoying a weekend away from Washington, currently beset by cold temperatures and sloppy piles of melting snow.

I'm sure staff and resources will travel with the President as they always do, but when you wake up every morning at he beautiful Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo. Will that Jack Ryan want to be CIA agent be traveling with him? I dunno, you can't take all of Washington with you on vacation.

It's an insult to the seriousness of the situation and another example how this President prioritizes the aspects of his office. Imaging the phone call Saturday morning when Putin finally calls Obama to try and negotiate some terms. So in the spirit of not taking this thing seriously at all, here is what I would imagine a phone call between President Obama and President Putin going this weekend.

"Hello"

"Yes, Barry, this is Vlad, I have seen light and am prepared to withdraw my forces. You have time to go over the terms for removing sanctions and get G8 summit back on schedule now, yes?" 

"Oh, yeah, Vlad, I'd love to, but... can I have you call back in about 5 hours, I got a tee time in 10 minutes and it is really hard to get one of those at this place, <chuckle>. I mean, how much taxpayer money do you have to spend to get some respect around here, you know what I mean?"

"I do not, Barry. In Russia, we have none of these golf courses. I spend vacations wrestling bears, not because I find it fun, but because if bear enters Russian Village, everyone gets in a hoopla, demanding show of force with nuclear weapons, I try to explain, 'bear is in Russian village and we cannot use nuclear warhead on Russians'.... well, you know how it is."

"Oh sure, sure. Like this one time, <chuckles> Michelle and I were trying to decide what stars to invite over to the White House for dinner last Tuesday, well, I wanted to invite the entire cast of Game of Thrones..."

"<interrupting> Mr. President, I am sorry, but Para-Olympic Ice Hockey game is currently in final period on Russian TV distracting people who oppose me making this call, if we can not come to deal right away I fear window of opportunity will close like Church once Vodka store opens."

"<Inhaling through teeth> You're putting me in a tough spot, Vlad. We have fantastic weather here, 76 and sunny."

"I understand, one time I shrug off meeting with fur hat makers union to enjoy 8 mile swim in lake, it was 20 of your degrees outside, who could refuse? I am sorry we are unable to come to terms today, perhaps you call me after we invade Lithuania?"

"Sure thing, Vlad. Always good to catch up, say hi to the Mrs. for me?"

"Absoloutely, and you give a hug and a kiss to Michelle for me, no?"

There is a moment of silence before both men break out laughing and hang up the phones.

This is Not a Smidgen

Would you bench your star player during the big game? Would you send the smartest guy in the room out for coffee while you are trying to solve a problem? Would  you refuse to allow the lead IRS scandal investigator to testify before a Congressional Oversight Panel that is overseeing... the IRS scandal investigation?

Well, in the crazy messed up, cats and dogs living together, diet Dr. Pepper tastes like regular Dr. Pepper, knowing the difference between butter and 'I Can't Believe It's Not Butter' world we live in the answer to at least one of the aforementioned questions is, YES!

Most Transparent White House... EVA!!

This news comes shortly after the FBI's internal investigation that was led by an interestingly hand picked DOJ civil rights attorney, and Obama donor, gave the Internal Revenue Service a clean bill of health after the Investigator General's office charged them with singling out Tea Party organizations for political gain.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) had asked Justice attorney Barbara Bosserman to appear before the panel on Feb. 6, 2014. Rep. Jordan received a response from Deputy Attorney General James Cole saying she would not be available.

Rep. Jordan wrote back to Deputy Attorney General Cole asking him to reconsider.

“The committee recognizes that there may be particular law-enforcement aspects of the investigation that the department is unwilling to discuss publicly. However, there is no legitimate basis for a blanket refusal to answer questions about an apparent conflict of interest and the overall integrity of the investigation,” Jordan wrote in his letter.

I tried this tactic once, I was assigned to read a book and write a book report for my English Literature class back in grade school. I refused to subject myself to the oral presentation part of the book report on grounds that having to orate a scripture that was clearly intended to be consumed through the written word would make the piece of work that was my report loose some of it's intrinsic meaning and profoundness. The Teacher gave me and 'F'.

Last Sunday, Obama gave a grade of 'A+' to the investigation saying that there was not a “smidgen of corruption” surrounding the IRS scandal before a national audience during the Super Bowl pregame. Unfortunately for his narrative, there is a decent amount of evidence that suggests otherwise. Back door dealings to re write 501(c)(4) rules. The White House knowing 5 months before the election of the investigator generals findings. And a narrative that dates back decades that depicts a systematic use of the IRS to dissuade conservative groups. 

On a side note, how about that prediction of Obama before the big game? The only thing he was willing to predict about the outcome was that "It's going to be close." Talk about a guy that doesn't have a clue until after it's reported in the papers.

To The Victor

It appears that in the eleventh hour of the treasury department expending it's 'extraordinary measures' that the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders have reached a final agreement on a deal to reopen the government and extend its borrowing authority into February, with final passage looking increasingly possible by this evening.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, announced the completion of the agreement shortly after noon, and the Senate Republicans who had led the push to shut down the government unless President Obama’s health care law was gutted conceded defeat and promised not to delay a final vote.

The deal, with the government shutdown in its third week, appears to yield no concessions to the Republicans. The only item offered was some minor tightening of income verification for people obtaining subsidized insurance under the new health care law. Basically more red tape in a system that appears more like a mummy playing for a Cincinnati baseball team then a well constructed benefit to anyone.

It is important to once again review the principals behind the decision to allow a government shut down in the first place to better understand what this proposal means for the country. First off, this was a Republican endused shut down, trying to say the democrats caused this is like swinging your fists in the air in front of you while walking towards your younger sibling shouting "I'm swinging my arms around like this, and if you get hit, it's your own fault." It was a principled stand that I supported to try and shed some light on all the issues facing the country that where not only not getting fixed by any action in congress, but getting much much worse through the enacting of the American Care Act, aka Obamacare;

Full time workers Loosing hours and pay

An Economy that is growing at 2% annually

Chronic Unemployment and Underemployment

Deficits that only pale when compared to the other deficits from this Administration

These problems are not new, we've been experiencing them either since the recession of 2008 or since the healthcare law has been passed. These along with so many other issues (Benghazi, NSA wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay) appear to be valid topics for discussion, but never at a time when the other side of the negotiating table hold any cards for which to actually have any leverage.

Think about this pattern, the Snowden release of NSA programs is a prime example, the story breaks on on June 5th and the public is appalled, two days later, Obama addresses the issue and explains that this can be up for debate in do far as what trade offs for security and privacy are acceptable. This debate never happens! A stupidly acting police officer at Harvard can get a summit at the White House but this issue is only deserving of a press conference and then is effectively deemed closed by this administration with a subtle 'I Got This!'.

Fast forward to July 23rd, no national conversations have occurred over the NSA issue, it has faded from the media spotlight with no changes, no resolution, no nothing. In an effort to strengthen their hand, propose a halt to the funding of all NSA gathering of this metadata. A specif, targeted bill that would effect nothing other then this program that is supposed to be up for debate, the White House response? "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process."

The Press Secretary is saying debate in Congress is not informed, open, or deliberative.

This approach is used over and over again. Call is punting, call is dodging, call is waiting for the next scandal to come along and distract us all from the current debacle we are in. We seem to be incapable of discussing jobs, the budget, the debt ceiling, anything!  And when the opposition party tries to press the issue, what are the terms that this President uses?

He calls them deadbeats. He calls them arsonists, he calls them hostage takers, he calls them terrorists.

Now he wins, now he gets a huge bump in the debt ceiling and he gets to reopen the 14% of government that was closed, he gets to keep his law and this government just the way it is. He offered nothing as a concession, nothing as a reform, nothing that even acknowledged that there is a problem in the first place. No spending cuts, no jobs programs, nothing to spark the economy on this premise that he will not negotiate until we reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. Sure, he says that once we allow him to spend a trillion dollars more then we take in that he is open for some debate. Debate what? He now has his healthcare reform, he has his de facto budget. We are going to be near tied for the largest revenue year in American history and we still can't get the deficit down to the levels from any year under the Bush Administration.

The decision to shut down the government was an attempt to get this administration to acknowledge that things are bad and only going to get worse with the healthcare overhaul. This attempt failed. We got caught up in WWII memorials and WIC checks. It becomes about the pain here and now rather then the pain of our economic condition that we appear to have grown a thick skin to. Pain that seemed to be intentionally made more poignant by extraordinary actions from this administration.

His objective wasn't to make people not like the shutdown, it was simply to distract us yet again, to not worry about the hurt from the poor economy, or the sticker shock felt from Obamacare, it was meant to make us believe the issue was the shutdown and nothing more. And it worked. Now we have no solutions and the republicans have no leverage.

I believe the old saying is, "the ball is in your court" Mr. President. Now, what is your plan?

A Race to the Bottom

Obama insisted today that Congress pass a bill that would prevent wide spread suffering for many Americans that both parties can agree to, and then He and congress can focus on the items which they disagree.

Wait-a-minute, that wasn't today, that was last summer when Obama called for an extension of the middle class Bush-era tax cuts while they continue to debate the merits of raising taxes on the upper class (fast forward clip to about 8:30 for the specific part I'm referencing). What happened today was a complete role reversal, when the Republican dominated House brought up a bill that would have funded  the National Institute of Health (NIH), which had to put on hold a series of medical trials for the treatment of cancer that has 200 children now waiting on potentially lifesaving care.

Upon passage of this bill in the House, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid was asked if he would have the provision brought to the Senate floor to be voted on. His response raised a few eyebrows.

“Why would we want to do that?”

He also threw in a cheap shot questioning the intelligence the reporter who would ask such a question, mumbled something about how they've already addressed this issue. Then tried to explain that the House of Representatives didn't have the right to decide what the government spends money on (Double Checking Article I Section 7 of the Constitution, yeah, they kind of do). He also tried to compare Federal workers taking unpaid leave with children dying of a terminal disease.

In summary, this was potentially the worst press conference by a politician in the history of press conferences held by politicians, and he got through all of these points in just over a minute.

When millions of Americans are at risk of seeing their tax rates raising to a level that was still, by Obama's own admission, lower then when Obama took office. The Republicans buckled, the President got what he wanted, and as we all know, no discussions ever arose after the great fiscal cliff deal of 2013 about lowering tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. We are still waiting for the economic boom this was supposed to usher in. However, when hundreds of suffering children are denied a potential life saving treatment, holding on to the principle that just last year, when the stakes where that much lower, THIS is when Democrats hold firm. Ironically enough in the name of healthcare reform. Couple this with the Honor Flight incident where the White House denied a request that would have classified the visit as a First Amendment demonstration and avoided the first in what is now becoming several embarrassing displays of power and ignorance. Who is causing the suffering now?

If the last election taught us anything, it's that no matter how bad things get, no matter how horrible this President fails, his constituents will never abandon him. I personally feel that he is now exploiting this fact. He knows that both sides will suffer from this fiasco. He is making the calculated move that all this pain, all this suffering, all this stupidity, will drag down the republican side much more violently then it will the democratic one. Let's call it year round negative campaigning. It may work too because people like you and I are getting sick and tired of all of it. All of it! And the side that pays attention and is disgusted with all of it is a lot less likely to vote incumbent in 2014 then the side that seems to blindly follow and point blame to only half of Congress.

"This Law is so good...."

"...That I'm delaying even more parts, that I'm sure you'll love, until after the election."

Now that the fourth 'Recovery Summer' is drawing to an end. The White House was supposed to take time to reintroduce the public to the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, and to teach the public how to sign up for benefits this fall, which is critical to the success of the law. If the young and healthy don't sign up, well, it is the difference between rates falling and rates rising for the elderly and sick, the persons Obamacare is suppose to help. In a nutshell, Obama needs the youth vote to save his legacy yet again.

The White House has had little time to focus on the fight to get young people signed up. Instead, this month kicked off with the Obama administration deciding to offer personal tours of the White House as a cheap alternative to the sequester cuts. Just kidding, yeah, he used the frequented God provision in Obamacare to delay a key piece of the law. The requirement imposed on larger employers of 50 or more people to provide coverage or risk fines. This is making many pundits cry foul because this leaves the individual mandate, and it's newly Supreme Court minted taxes, in place. The same individual mandate that is supposed to help force the young and healthy to go out and buy insurance. Take away the mandate, and premiums for Obamacare will, in most places, skyrocket.

Seeing a structural weakness in the law and a logical argument to hammer it with, the Republican-led House this week voted to delay the individual mandate for a year to match with the other decree. It was the 39th such vote trying to defund, delay, or outright dismiss the law. This has forced the White House to change their marketing from a sales pitch to sign up back to promoting the law itself. One can't help to chuckle a little at the idea that one man can declare a delay for one part of the law, but largest single body of elected officials in Washington is rendered mute when they try and do the same.

That one man, President Obama surrounded himself with smiling beneficiaries of the parts of the Affordable Care Act already in effect yesterday. Among those singled out: those who have been on the receiving end of a somewhat obscure provision requiring insurance companies to pay rebates to policyholders if the companies spend too much on administrative costs rather than medical expenses.

"Dan Hart, who's here, from Chicago, had read these rebates were happening, but he didn't think anything of it until he got a check in the mail for 136 bucks." -President Obama 7/16/13

Of course if Mr. Hart is a healthy 25 year old non-smoker who had individual insurance, then the 136 bucks for last year would cover only about 10% of his rate increase for this year, but I digress.

This year an estimated 8.5 million checks mailed out thanks to the law's "medical loss ratio" rules. That's actually down from the 13 million from last year and is expected to keep falling as companies adjust their business models to fit the new law. Also, since corporations aren't people and the majority of those checks are going to businesses, the number here is greatly inflated. And, while the President is talking about a few million people getting refunds of $100 or $200, Republicans have been talking in much more expansive terms.

Despite recent CBO projections that keep estimating a reduced number of people enrolling in the exchanges, based on numbers that are well under predictions, and fewer tax credits being handed out as a result in these lower enrollments, the net cost projections over ten years has been increasing every year and now sits in the net range of $1.3 to $1.4 Trillion dollars, net. I give a window since these estimates are constantly changing, usually for the worst. The February to May estimates resulted in a net cost increase of $40 billion.

Not enough people signing up mixed with ever increasing costs. I'd say that this is a disaster, but once again, I mention that this is what the bill is supposed to do. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, but several years down the road, there will be only one fiscally responsible route to take, that is to force everyone into the healthcare exchanges. Once that is completed the rules of the exchanges will become so tightened as force most of the healthcare providers out of the game. Once selection drops to a point, the only morally responsible thing left for the government to do is take control of all the insurance plans, standardize them, and convert our country into a single payer system.

Support it or fight it, I just wish for everyone to know where this battle is ultimately heading.

Nobody Wants to Play With U.S.

Over the last week more documents and details have been fed to the populous from the Snowden collection of NSA secrets. The latest revelation is that the US of A has not only been spying on terrorist groups, China, and Russia, but also the leadership of the EU and other countries for the past 6 years.

This latest bit of embarrassing news has, understandably, outraged several ally nations which prompted a slew of questions and outright demands for explanations from around the EU directed at Washington.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have tried to play these new leaks down. Secretary Kerry stated, "Every country in the world that is engaged in international affairs of national security undertakes lots of activities to protect its national security and all kinds of information contributes to that," But these dismissive remarks appear to have only provoked further anger among some European leaders, who seem genuinely shocked and aghast at the scope of the NSA’s blatent disregard for the 1961 Vienna accord. Elsewhere, government officials in Luxemburg, Austria, Turkey, and Japan have demanded answers from the Obama administration about the NSA’s spying efforts. And U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon raising serious questions about the faithfulness of the United States diplomatic core.

There are two possible lines of logic that I can follow that could lead the government to take these extreme measures. The first being that we are truly scared of countries like France, Germany, Japan, and the UK. We fear that they may be helping terrorists enter this country under the guise of a diplomatic convoy and using these connections to get so close to our upper echelons of government that these terrorists would complain about the President's bad breath before exploding their suicide vests. Leaving us with little recourse but to pull a Jack Bauer try and get a step ahead of these groups to protect ourselves.

The other scenario that I see is that the United State's negotiating position has gotten as weak as a starving mans farts over the years, and we are so incapable in regaining a more persuasive position when going into something as mundane as trade talks, that we feel obligated to obtain an upper hand through these amoral methods.

Seeing the almost daily revelations that this administration (with an acknowledgement that a lot of this began prior to Obama's election) of diplomatic failures, be it the Ecuador trade agreement, the North Korean saber rattling, Iran still thumbing their nose at us, or dozens of failures in the middle east, a different explanation seems somewhat more likely;

This administration sucks at negotiating...

Sucks the big one, sucks like a leech on a blood bag, like a plunger on my toilet after mexican night, like a movie starring Nicholas Cage, well you get the idea. Be it a sanction against a country doing something wrong or trying to enforce a treaty for extraditing. This administration appears to have such a poor track record of using it's leverage, winning friends in the diplomatic arena, and rallying countries to the American view to the point that it has cheat and lie it's way into getting an upper hand at the negotiating table. The truly sad part is that this method still appears to leave the U.S. wondering what just happened on many occasions.

This administration, especially, has built it's reputation on it's ability to talk. Though it looks like every time someone talks back, it suffers from a lack of ability to justify itself, and lacks any true conviction or guiding principals in it's navigation and foreign policy.

America is now standing on an island. We have disenfranchised our friends, and forsaken our own populace. Either that or the new practice of diplomats just mumbling their demands in their embassies late at night and waiting for the US to respond on a card that is delivered via a secret code embedded in the monthly unemployment numbers. Ironically all this takes place while also we discuss building up a massive wall on our borders, because not having any country willingly talk to us is not sufficient, we don't want to look at them or smell them either. A very rude gesture since we come visit almost every country in the world in the form of setting up military bases all over the globe. We can't return the favor of being a good host?

Practice what you Preach

Readers of this blog know that I can be critical  of the representatives of my home state, Iowa. But, this week I'm quite proud of my Senator Chuck Grassley, not for any specific action taken this week, rather for an amendment to a bill he presented years ago during the now infamous Affordable Care Act debate.

The Grassley Amendment in the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) legislation that ensured that the government could not offer members of the House and Senate and their staffs any insurance plans but those created by the bill or those that were part of the exchanges set up in association with it. A simple exercise in practicing what you preach. If Congress, acting at the behest of President Obama, was going to shove this unpopular idea down the throats of an unwilling nation, those involved in making the law were going to have to live with it the same as the rest of the country. Fast forward three years later when there are only six months remaining before this provision goes into effect, it appears a new bipartisan consensus has emerged in  Congress, I'll pause here for you to get back up in your chair after being blown away by that little factoid... good? OK. It appears that nobody in Congress wants any part in participating in the nationally mandated program

Though Democrats have berated the House Republicans over more than a few dozen attempts to repeal the act,many in Washington view the impending deadline with horror since the prospect of being forced into ObamaCare insurance has set off a mass exodus of members and their senior staffs who would rather retire and stay grandfathered into their current insurance programs, touted as being very nice, then be submitted to the same type of rules and regulations that you and I are subject to. As Politico reports, there could be a surge in resignations before December 31 among congressional staff since doing so will allow representatives, senators and other congressional employees to retain their old federal insurance plans.

This has led the same Democrats who pushed for the passage of ObamaCare to demand that it be changed to let the inhabitants of Capitol Hill off the hook, one such outspoken person was John Larson of Connecticut who seems quite confident that an arrangement will be made to suit their own specific needs and wants without it effecting anyone else who may want the same considerations. But even though Republicans have just as much incentive to want to amend the bill to save their own members and their staffs, their answer should be no. If Congress doesn't want to cope with the far higher costs and poorer coverage that ObamaCare will ensure, they can scrap the entire bill rather than just adding a single paragraph to the already  it to suit their own interests.

If a Democratic like Connecticut’s John Larson, who voted for the legislation probably without reading it, thinks it’s unfair to expect his employees to be put in the same boat as his constituents, then maybe he should rethink the entire measure that he played a pivotal role in passing when his party controlled Congress.

Most Americans, who already think about as much of Congress as a vegan thinks of McDonalds, will shed few tears for the travails of these servants of the masses. Nor will they think the exodus of said members and staff will do the country much harm. But, to be fair, if the kind of turnover really does take place, a void of experienced staffers and veteran politicians could make Capitol Hill an even more dysfunctional place than it already has become. Losing their staffs (who provide much of the expertise and institutional memory of this branch of government) may be a disaster, but Congress must suffer along with the rest of us if they are to retain even a shred of credibility.

Secrets: Part 3 of 3 - Whistleblowers

Deep Throat would be hunted down like the dog he is today.

The story of wiretapping a reporter did not begin last month with James Rosen, back in 2006, a panel of three federal appeals court judges in New York struggled to decide whether a prosecutor should be allowed to see the phone records of two New York Times reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, in an effort to determine their sources for articles about Islamic charities.

One of the Judges of that panel, Judge Robert D. Sack recited lines from the movie "All the President's Men" when forming his arguments. He spoke of the part where Bob Woodward, in the process of unraveling the Watergate scandal for The Washington Post, meets his source in an underground parking garage.

“First of all,” Judge Sack asked, “do you really have to meet in a garage to maintain your confidentiality? Second of all, can the government go and subpoena the surveillance camera?”

Six years and six press leak prosecutions later, those questions seem as naive as their answers are obvious: yes and yes.

It used to be that journalists had a sporting chance of protecting their sources. The best and sometimes only way to identify a leaker was to pressure the reporter or news organization that received the leak, but even subpoenas tended to be resisted. Crazy talk about the freedom of the press kept being brought up. Today, advances in surveillance technology allow the government to keep a perpetual eye on those with security clearances, and give prosecutors the ability to punish officials for disclosing secrets without provoking a clash with the press.

But in today's government structure, the ability for the watchmen of our secrets to maintain them as such is inhibited. We live in a world where data flows too easily, to too many people, at such speeds and frequency that oversight is impossible, the perfect example of this issue can be explained in one proper name, Edward Snowden.

The tools that allow a person to keep a secret for themselves no longer apply in such a huge superstructure. Information needs to change hands, be reviewed, and ultimately end up in the correct hands for it to be actionable and worthy of being gathered in the first place. So rather then trying to find the leak that is causing this seepage of information, the government has decided to go after then sponge that is socking our secrets up. My crude metaphor is of course, meant to refer to the government pursuing the persons who are publishing the secrets, rather then those who share them.

The changes have unsettled a decades-long accommodation between national security and press freedom, one in which the government did what it could to protect its secrets but exercised discretion in resorting to subpoenas and criminal charges when it failed. Even the administration of George W. Bush, no friend of leaks, more or less stuck to this script.

That does not seem to be the view of the Obama administration's Justice Department, which has used the tools of the Patriot Act and other recently made legal avenues to bring more prosecutions against current or former government officials for providing classified information to the media than every previous administration combined.

To what end does this new culture of pursuing these links lead? An obvious conclusion would be that it increases the level of paranoia of those within the system, feeling eyes lurk over them every time they hit 'send' on an email, causing high levels of anxiety that a misstep or a mistake could lead towards a leak investigation. This adds a second layer of 'security' around the governments secret keeping apparatus as information that could or would normally be shared with the general public as a way of maintaining the public trust begins to become omitted out of fear of prosecution. The shining example of that is a bureaucratic being led in front of congress to give testimony only to claim innocence and then claim the fifth.

We, the people, are left forced to trust a system that forces itself to be less trustworthy. The government won their case in a 2-1 decision against the ability for the press to maintain their leaks confidentiality back in '06. Opening the way for these historic levels of prosecutions. In a dissent, Judge Sack said he feared for the future.

Part 1: Too Many Parts
Part 2: What is Sacred?

Meanwhile, back at the White House

The Boston Marathon Bombing is a tragedy, the person(s) responsible for this will undoubtedly be found.

However, there is another news story that broke today that will get zero coverage now. President Obama has just signed a rollback of key transparency provisions of the STOCK Act. Late Thursday night, the Senate gutted the disclosure requirements by approving S.716, an act amending the requirements of the 2011 law. The House followed suit the next day, and the president signed the bill minutes ago. Back in 2011, congress passed this bill into law by a net vote of 513-5.

With no hearings or notice to the public or to most members of the body, the Senate voted by unanimous consent to remove both the online disclosure requirement for staff members on the Hill and in executive branch agencies and the creation of a public database containing the information within the reports.

The bill doesn't just eliminate a controversial requirement that personal financial disclosures of tens of thousands of high level federal employees be made publicly accessible online. It also reverses two critical components of the original STOCK act: mandatory electronic filing of PFDs by the president, his cabinet and members of Congress, and the creation of a publicly accessible database. The signature of the man who said his administration "...is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government." is now on this law.

Required electronic filing for Congress, the president, vice president, the president’s cabinet and congressional candidates, as well as high-level executive and congressional branch employees. Even images of the staffers' filings will not be available for viewing on the web. Paper copies can still be made available to the public, and using information that is not available to the public for personal gain is still banned in the law, but the ability for the general public to act as watchdogs to hold congress honest. 

Find the bastards who think some pipe bombs can make a political point, but don't forget to ask what the heck happened here as well.

Explaining the Explanation

Today, the President had a press conference explaining the need to raise the debt limit. There has been a lot of confusion reported as a result of some of his comments, allow me to assist with a what they said v. what they meant segment.

"Now right now our economy is growing, and our businesses are creating new jobs. So we are poised for a good year -- if we make smart decisions, sound investments, and as long as Washington politics don’t get in the way of America’s progress."


It's going to be another crappy year, and I will once again blame the House and Republican leadership, and for reasons that even shock and elude me, a lot of people out there will believe it.

"Now, step by step, we've made progress towards <balancing the budget>. Over the past two years, I've signed into law about $1.4 trillion in spending cuts. Two weeks ago, I signed into law more than $600 billion in new revenue by making sure the wealthiest Americans begin to pay their fair share."

We need to focus on raising more taxes because I've already done everything I'm willing to do as far as spending reduction.

"These are bills that have already been racked up, and we need to pay them. So while I’m willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficits, America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they've already racked up."

We're not only spending money we don't have, we're spending money that we don't even have a loan for yet. Kind of like inking a deal on a house without talking to your bank yet. So get ready for those stinking republicans who are going to try and say that there is something wrong with this way of governing.

"If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America’s bills on time, Social Security checks and veterans’ benefits will be delayed. We might not be able to pay our troops or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialists who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn't get their paychecks."

Republicans will cause old people to die, our troops to be abandoned, small businesses to go under, planes to collide in mid air, and a nuclear holocaust. This $#*! just got real...

     In response to a question about using executive authority to raise the debt limit without congressional approval;

"...if the House and the Senate want to give me the authority so that they don’t have to take these tough votes, if they want to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I’m happily (sic) to take it. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, had a proposal like that last year, and I’m happy to accept it."

Could you imagine the kind of $#*! I could get away with if I didn't have to keep asking these pesky congressmen for permission all the time. 

This kind of reminds me of that fourteen year old who asks his or her parents for their own credit card so they can stop annoying mom and pop with requests for their allowance. This analogy falls apart when you realize this teenager would have already spent his allowance for earnings from now until they are in their mid twenties.

Normally this is the part where people begin to wonder how one man can be so naive to actually believe he should have what basically amounts to unilateral control over all spending in the United States Government, which for the remainder of his presidency would equate to something in the $15 Trillion range. I'm flabbergasted because somehow he is pulling this off within the realm of public perception. People are actually encouraging him to bypass congress with chants of the greater good and overcoming dissent through executive fiat. 

I simply want to remind people that whatever is done in this presidency carries over to the next, regardless of which party they might be a member of.

The USS Cole Connection

On October 12th, 2000, at 11:15 a.m., as the Cole was preparing to get under way, a fiberglass fishing boat approached its massive prey. Some of the sailors were standing watch, but many were below decks or waiting in the chow line. Two men brought the tiny skiff to a half amidships, smiled and waved, then stood at attention. The symbolism and the asymmetry of this moment were exactly what bin Laden had dreamed of. "The destroyer represented the capital of the West," he said, "and the small boat represented Mohammed."

USS Cole, October 12th, 2000

Within Hours of the attack, Barry Mawn, head of FBI's New York office, called headquarters and demanded that the New York Office gain control of the investigation . "It's al-Qaeda," he told FBI deputy director Tom Pickard. He wanted O'Neill, the chief of the FBI's counter terrorism section, to be the on scene commander.

As he had during the embassy bombings investigation, Pickard declined, saying that there was no proof that al-Qaeda was involved. He intended to send the Washington Field Office instead. Mawn went over his head, appelaing the decision to FBI director Louis Freeh, who immediately agreed that it was a New York's case. But the question of sending O'Neill was controversial.

-From The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright

These three paragraphs tell a lot, the first describe how a simple attack on a single target can represent so much to a cause hell bent on defeating a culture and nation in the name of their religion. The second can show  the capacity our country has to leap into action and start finding answers, and the third demonstrates the reluctance that is inherent in individuals to consider the worst explanations.

There are many similarities that can be drawn between the assault on the USS Cole and the Benghazi embassy, it appears to be a concise targeted attack against an object that was meant to represent the greater United States, carried out by a common lackey used to call people to there cause. I believe in the months to come as more details are unearthed the intent behind both these attacks may turn out to be very correlated. In the first weeks though, one thing has become brazenly apparent, that this administrations response, when compared to the response from October 12th, 2000, has been found wanting. Consider this following transcript from CNN with about 8 hours of the attack happening;


The president (Clinton) met with his top national security team for a little more than an hour here at the White House security room -- the Situation Room -- receiving updates from agencies around the government and around the world on developments today. When the president came into the Rose Garden to speak to the American people today, he concerned himself first with that suspected terrorist attack on the U.S. Naval vessel on a refueling stop in Yemen -- Mr. Clinton voicing prayers for those killed, injured, and those still missing.

And he promised an aggressive investigation was already under way.

Sound familiar? It shouldn't. Obama did not use the word terror, he pinned responsibility for the attacks on a Youtube video all the way to the UN, he waited weeks before dispatching the FBI, and once his early morning speech in the Rose Garden was completed, he hopped on a plane to Las Vegas.

Nothing like a re election campaign as an excuse to skirt out of a lot of meetings about investigating, and diplomacy, those things are so boring...

Members of the State Department testify to Congress

From ABCNews;

Though the timeline of events outlined on the call was similar to the last official account of the incident, which was given on Sept. 12, some stark differences and new details were revealed.

The biggest difference was a clear statement that there were no protests before the attack. Also it was revealed that former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods died from a mortar attack and that officials still do not know how Stevens, who was suffering from severe smoke inhalation, made it from the compound to the hospital.

...Though some administration officials had initially said that the attack grew out of protests over an anti-Muslim film, the senior State Department official told reporters today that "nothing was out of the ordinary" on the night of the attack.

Yes, there are many correlations that you could draw from these two terrorist attacks. No, there are very few that you can draw from the way that our country has responded to them. Tomorrow will be the one month mark since these deadly attacks, and we are still feuding over verbiage and getting stalled as we try and point the finger and anything except the smoldering pile of ash that seems so clearly labeled to so many, and nothing but a bump in the road to some greater goal for others. 

My Day with President Obama

July 10th, 2012, President Obama Campaigns at Johnson Hall 

at Kirkwood Community College 

in Cedar Rapids, IA

This is a log of the day, as experienced by an Amateur Blog writer.

9:26am - I wave my co-workers adieu as I head out of the office, on my way to meet the President of the United States of America. The excitement coursing through me so violently that I forget to tie my shoes. Lucky for me, the Army Corp of Engineers had been notified 5 months prior and promptly set up a trip free environment for me to pass through.

9:47am - The line to this event is longer then Romney's shot to win his home state. My brother and his significant other have been holding my spot for almost an hour. After some condescending back and forth to save face with the people that I was budging in front of, we grab some buttons and snap a picture of the bomb sniffing dog that was screening the bands equipment. Luckily for the band, named "Reefer Ganja Chillums", the dog was a victim of over specialization and had not received his grant for developing it's drug sniffing job skills.

11:14am - Met a very nice gentleman who, based on signage on his shirt, was either named Phil, or Tsa Trainee. He offered to lighten my load as a passed through a metal detector. Sure, I felt safe once I was inside, but after I left the party everyone outside knew I was not packing.

12:05pm - The first guest speakers begin. Including an opening benediction and an awkward moment during the pledge of allegiance when nerves got the better of the speaker, causing him to skip a line. He then attempted to explain to the crowd that this was as embarrassing as one of those dreams where you arrive at school wearing no pants. It got even more uncomfortable when several people from the audience tried to cheer him up by offering him their pants.

12:51pm - The heavens parted, the angel choir sang, the oceans rise began to slow, and for one brief moment, democrats and republicans held hands with all the children of the world and joined the President in a message of peace.

12:51.001pm - The moment passes

12:53pm - President Barrack Obama addresses the wild crowd of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

12:54pm - Blah blah blah Tax Cuts, blah blah blah I'm not Romney, blah blah blah war in Iraq, blah blah blah really, I'm not Romney, blah blah blah education, blah blah blah seriously though, I'm not Romney. 

   <On a serious note, he spoke about the momentum Iowa gave him back in the '08 primaries, and tried to bring back some of the emotion from the historic '08 election to try and fire up the crowd. No real new ideas where shared, a few jabs at Romney but nothing over the top. He mostly hit home the need to keep taxes low on the middle class but not rolling back government programs when the wealthiest Americans can pay a little more. Overall a pretty generic stump speech.>

1:38pm - In an attempt to illustrate his tax proposal, Obama declared that the 2% of people closest to the exit had to wait for the other 98% to leave, to show how the many can benefit at the sacrifice of the few. Unfortunately (or true to form depending on your political persuasion) the 2% stood their ground, not allowing anyone to pass through the only exit. I used my cunning to shimmy out a window that went directly into Canada, however, my Brother and his girlfriend are still at the event awaiting the 2% to play out their fair share... of Obama's demonstration.

2:26pm - After picking up some lunch and a quick visit to my wife, I return to work. I find it a poor escape from the elation and exhilaration that I feel from the days events. After having a taste of living life with my good buddy Obama, life without him seems a bit dimmer, and less satisfying. I ate a steak dinner, and it just didn't have it's savory taste, I took my dogs on a walk, and it just didn't have the relaxing effect it normally does, I made love to my wife, and it just didn't have the satisfying spark that I've now come to know, after having spent a day, with President Barrack Obama.

A Look Back: Obama-Care

In anticipation of a Supreme court decision this week, I dug out an e-mail I sent to my local Congressman back when The America's Health Choices Act (a.k.a. Obama-Care) was being debated. The meat of the letter is below. My major concern was that the "savings" from this Bill not only didn't exist, but left the entire insurance industry with no choice but to convert to a single payer system. In my usual manner, it's littered with hyperlinks and references. Enjoy!

---------------------

What is the Purpose of the Healthcare Reform Act?

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer "Universal Healthcare system"
~State Senator Obama, 2003

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

"...But I don't think we'll be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately, there's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, 15 years out or 20 years out..."
~Senator Obama, 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

"...At Least we (Government) can let Doctor's know, and your mom know that you know what, this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer"
~President Obama 7/25/09

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

What are the tools of the new legislation?

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:Comments <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text#>Close Comments <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text#>Permalink <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:253>

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-Comments <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text#>Close Comments <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text#>Permalink <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:254>

49 <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text#>

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.Comments <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text#>Close Comments <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text#>Permalink <http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:255>

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
-Section 102 (a) of HR3200 Health Care Reform Bill

That's it, Either you are on a plan before this new bill takes effect, or you are a dependent, otherwise you are NOT exempt from this program. There is no option in the bill to change plans with a new employer, your insurance term expires, etc.

The fundamental principal of insurance is that a larger number of people pool their resources together to spread out costs. The only way this bill can truly lower costs, as the President is constantly stating, is to have as many people of all classes and health included in this system. There is no logical way that this plan can only be imposed on the poor and disproportionately sick and not have to be heavily subsidized by taxpayer money. The Congressional Budget Office says this, and common sense says this.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf \\note that net cost is lowered from Medicaid cuts and Revenue increases (taxation) and even then it's still hundreds of Billions

I don't see how this plan can do anything other then create a single payer system and then ration care to control costs.

Stimulated Stagnation

So here we are, 3 years since the official end of the '08 recession. The national economy still crawls along just strong enough to avoid a declaration of an emergency or a full blown depression. Europe's debt crisis still lingers as Greece come ever closer to a economic hurricane that is sure to result from its succession from the EU as it recreates a sovereign economic climate. The housing market troubles are still ever prevalent, as many areas across the nation still has homeowners trapped inside houses that are worth less then what is owed on them, creating a best case scenario that families are tied to their houses regardless of what employment woes they may face. Government jobs cuts that are used to stem the tied of expense caused by elongated unemployment benefits and welfare receipts, and a hangover from the financial crisis that has created such uncertainty in who can be trusted with our dollars.

My point is, what is the plan for addressing any of the countries current ails? For the next year? The next five years? Are the Bush tax cuts going to expire? The payroll tax breaks prolonged? How many more exemptions will be enacted to the Obama-care law? There is such a cloud of uncertainty it's truly scary. When Bush ran in 04, it was on a solid, though controversial, tactic in the Middle east, and he even introduced tort reform and social security reform as new ideas, granted his 2nd term was more or less a lame duck session until the financial crisis got people moving in Washington, but I digress.

Can someone please tell me the Obama plan for a second term? Education reform? Tax reform? More investment in Green Energy? Anything? It truly scares me because I think there is a very fair chance that he is going to win and will not be tethered to anything as far as what he promises before the election. Leaving the country to flounder along at it's current pace as the constitutionally questionable changed in healthcare and erratic tax policy continue to hinder us.

5 Obama Facts

5 things you *probably* didn't know about Obama;

1. He wrote an auto biography at the age of 30. - Sure, everyone is hung about this born in Kenya thing, but my question is what kind of a guy starts writing his autobiography before he turns 30? I guess I should through in the tag line that he never finished the book 'Journeys in Black and White' and took another 15 years to put out Dreams of my Father.
2. He was a pot head in high school - He also worked at Baskin Robins, a deadly combination.
3. On top of his Noble Prize, Obama has already won two Grammys. - Back in 2006, That smooth sultry voice of his also got nominated in 08, along with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. I still think George Ws' rendition of "Goodnight Moon" got jip'ped. (Who's smiling right now?)
4. He is being Sued by Over 40 Chatholic Organizations - Which doesn't bother me as much as the department of Health and Human Services coming out and saying that a church can only serve, primarily, it's own members. Sooo..... Church homeless shelters and soup kitchens are no longer religious based institutions? What is going on here?
5. And this one I can not forgive him for, will never forgive him for <deep breath> - Obama uses Macs...

Anyone else got some good ones?