(WWBT) - A 33-year-old Pennsylvania man has been arrested for threatening to kill Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the number two Republican in the House of Representatives, according to a Justice Department announcement today.
Today, a two-count complaint and warrant was filed charging Norman Leboon with threatening to kill United States Congressman Eric Cantor and his family.
As set forth in the affidavit to the complaint and warrant, in or about late March, 2010, Leboon created and then transmitted a YouTube video to Google over the internet, in which he threatened to kill Congressman Cantor and his family. No harm came to the Congressman or his family as a result of Leboon's threats.
Cantor's office issued the following statement:
"Over the weekend, Congressman Cantor was notified by law enforcement that a threat was made against his life. Law enforcement officials informed Congressman Cantor that the threat was determined as credible and they were responding accordingly. The Congressman was later notified that an arrest was made and a suspect was in custody.
"At this time, the Congressman will have no further comment on this threat or the investigation, and asks that inquiries be directed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Congressman is deeply grateful for, and would like to dearly thank all local and federal law enforcement involved, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Attorney's Office in Virginia and Philadelphia, U.S. Capitol Police and the Henrico Police Department in Virginia."
United States Attorney Michael L. Levy said "the Department of Justice takes threats against government officials seriously, especially threats to kill or injure others. Whether the reason for the threat is personal or political, threats are not protected by the First Amendment and are crimes."
If convicted of all the charges, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of 15 years imprisonment, three years supervised release, a fine up to $500,000, and a $200 special assessment.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But, but, but Cantor is a Republican (spit) and a Jew (spit, spit)---how can it be a crime to threaten to kill him?
#2
LeBoon?
Man the humor just writes itself here.
Le Loon, LeBoom, LeBum, etc.
Cantor, Kill, LeBoon, Man I could think of a hundred variations myelf.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/30/2010 5:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No doubt encouraged by Obama's anti-GOP and anti-Israel rhetoric. When is the President going to issue a statement condemning violence against the GOP and anti-semitism among his supporters?
Accounting basics: when a company experiences what accountants call "a material adverse impact" on its expected future earnings, and those changes affect an item that is already on the balance sheet, the company is required to record the negative impact--"to take the charge against earnings"--as soon as it knows that the change is reasonably likely to occur.
This makes good accounting sense. The asset on the balance sheet is now less valuable, so you should record a charge. Otherwise, you'd be misleading investors.
The Democrats, however, seem to believe that Generally Accepted Accounting Principles are some sort of conspiracy against Obamacare, and all that is good and right in America.
Here's the story: one of the provisions in the new health care law forces companies to treat the current subsidies for retiree health benefits as taxable income. This strikes me as dumb policy; . . . . But this is neither here nor there, because Congress already did it. And now a bunch of companies with generous retiree drug benefits have announced that they are taking large charges to reflect the cost of the change in the tax law.
Henry Waxman thinks that's mean, and he's summoning the heads of those companies to Washington to explain themselves. It's not clear what they're supposed to explain. What they did is required by GAAP. And I've watched congressional hearings. There's no chance that four CEO's are going to explain the accounting code to the fine folks in Congress; explaining how to boil water would challenge the format.
Now, it's entirely possible that these companies are taking as large a charge as possible, because that's what companies like to do--if they have to recognize a negative event, they try to make it as big as possible. Firms like to recognize as many upside surprises as possible, while minimizing the number of unexpected adverse charges. It is better to take one "big bath" then dribble out seven "Oops, we underestimated the size of the problem" notices. And, of course, companies have some discretion over when they "recognize" that the charge they took was too big, which allows them to use a "conservative" (very large) charge to smooth out future earnings somewhat.
But these charges aren't going to have much impact on the stock price, or anything else; they're non-cash charges, the costs will be spread over a number of years, and they're not a huge surprise to investors. I doubt it's even going to have much impact on the popularity of the health care plan.
As accounting sins go, this is the corporate equivalent of moving your printer ink purchases up by two days in order to deduct them in the current tax year. It certainly does not warrant congressional investigation. What AT&T, Caterpillar, et al did was appropriate. It's earnings season, and they offered guidance about , um, their earnings.
I think when they planned for ObamaCare's costs to come online post-election, they didn't know enough to realize that accounting rules (and SEC regulations) would require companies to act now. Just another example of the “knowledge problem' confronting economic planners and regulators . . . .
UPDATE: Reader Bill Hesson emails: “Would somebody please explain to the gentleman from California that the incessant prosecution of business executives for nothing more than excessive optimism is likely to have consequences that include pessimistic accounting?' . . .
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Brad Garton writes: “What's really funny is that among other things Sarbanes-Oxley requires them to make the impacts public, and Waxman voted for that. Apparently he didn't read that bill either.'
Posted by: Mike ||
03/30/2010 17:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the Democrats want Waxman (D-Nostrilia) as their public face, I say let em. The CEOs will not bow to this asshole when they face SEC charges for avoiding realistic accounting write-offs. The Dems are not held to any realistic standards by the LSM. Should be fun
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/30/2010 19:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The guy looks and acts like a villain in an Ayn Rand novel.
So let me get this straight: Waxman is trying to force these companies to break securities law? Isnt that a felony?
By the way, pardon the language, but Waxman's pic belongs in the dictionary next to "rat faced fuck".
The Obama administration unveiled Monday $600 million in financial aid for five more states with high unemployment that have been slammed by the housing bust.
The funding is for North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina and Rhode Island.
It comes on top of the $1.5 billion in funding announced last month by the Obama administration for Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan and Nevada, which all have deeply depressed home prices.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Payoff for Obamacare votes?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/30/2010 5:13 Comments ||
Top||
A Democratic senator I can't name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly, in part because of the way it goes into effect: some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.
Besides that, this Democrat said, people who already have coverage will feel threatened and resentful about helping to cover the uninsured—an emotion they will sanitize for the polltakers into a concern about federal spending and debt.
So, just to clarify, some Democratic senator admitted to Fineman that he thinks the bill is political suicide, raises premiums for his constituents and feeds public anger, but voted for it anyway out of personal and party loyalty? Come on, Fineman, spill the goods so we can give this guy his Profile in Courage award.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/30/2010 16:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Days after the state Air Resources Board touted the economic benefits of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger advised his climate bureaucracy to slow down the rush to impose carbon dioxide cap-and-trade regulations.
Facing growing public opposition and a well-financed ballot initiative to suspend the governor's signature Global Warming Solutions Act, which mostly takes effect in January 2012, Mr. Schwarzenegger last week wrote to the air board, asking it to consider a less-costly approach to restricting greenhouse gas emissions.
Rather than auction government-invented "rights" to emit greenhouse gases, the governor suggested companies be rewarded with free permits to invest in energy conservation and emission reduction. Proponents estimate auction costs to private companies at $22 billion a year, but opponents say it will be $144 billion. Mr. Schwarzenegger suggested "a very small percentage" of government-issued emission permits still could be auctioned "to replace a fee system" the air board is considering.
Clearly, the governor is anxious about the costs of global warming regulations on the staggering state economy. Critics say the regulations still being written will cost billions, and up to 1 million jobs will be lost. The air board responded last week, claiming regulations "won't hurt" California and will add 10,000 new jobs in 10 years.
Despite the governor's boast that "California leads the nation" in global warming regulations, he's probably noticed there are fewer following that lead. A prime proponent, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., declared recently cap-and-trade is dead in Congress. New Jersey allowed a law requiring reporting of greenhouse gases to die rather than enforce it, and imposed cost-benefit analyses on other climate regulations. Even the French cancelled their cap-and-trade plan, citing adverse economic effects.
There's growing awareness in government that costly regulations mean dire economic consequences. Sacramento, which led the charge to curb global warming, appears more inclined now to join the retreat. It's about time.
Sometimes the bottom line of a story is its bottom line. From the article in the Olympian: "There were no anti-McKenna demonstrators."
Now then, McKenna is Republican Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna.
He filed suit to block Obamacare.
Democratic Governor Christine "Landslide" Gregoire is pissed.
From Larry Coppola: "Governor Christine Gregoire is absolutely livid. It's no secret she would love nothing better than to score a job in the Obama administration, and be relieved of dealing with the mess she's created in Olympia. McKenna's action, which amounts to nothing more than holding the Federal Government accountable for an act that is unconstitutional on its face, won't help her further that goal. However, accountability isn't a high priority among the ruling class."
OK, Larry's a little wound here and readers need not guess which side he is on. Suffice it to say, there is a division here.
In Washington state.
Starbucksland.
There was a little demonstration against McKenna on Friday.
Saturday was a different story. From KOMO-TV: "OLYMPIA -- Some 2,000 enthusiastic people rallied Saturday on the steps of the state Capitol in a rock star-style reception to support state Attorney General Rob McKenna in his battle against a new health reform law... The states' lawsuit claims that the health reform plan is unconstitutional because of its requirement that everyone in the country must pay into a health insurance plan by 2014."
Rock star?
To say that the protest against Obamacare and this administration is widespread is like saying the federal budget is a tad large.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
On six different occasions, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has offered six different responses to straightforward questions regarding Rep. Joe Sestak's, D-Pa., accusation that he was offered a plum appointment in exchange for his withdrawal from a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Sestak has been clear. For months his story hasn't changed. Sestak has gone on record that in July 2009 the White House offered him a federal job to keep him out of the Pennsylvania Senate race.
He will not divulge the name of the person who offered the position, and he will not disclose the nature of the job that was offered. But the essence of his story has not changed, and he has not walked-back his allegation.
The law is also clear. If President Obama -- or anyone else at the White House for that matter -- used his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for federal office, then a felony has been committed subject to both a fine and a prison sentence.
Clearly, these are very serious charges. The White House, however, seems to subscribe to the notion that if they ignore the issue and stonewall questions from the media and Congress alike, the issue will simply go quietly away. The underlying question for the American people is: Will we let them get away with it?
I have now sent two letters to the White House -- both of which remain unanswered -- asking some straightforward questions about who offered Sestak a position, what position was offered, when and under what conditions the offer was made, and what investigation the administration is conducting to determine the extent of the crime.
After being asked day-after-day in White House briefings, Gibbs finally acknowledged that something had happened and that he, the press secretary, personally discussed the matter with several White House staffers and concluded that "whatever conversations have been had are not problematic" and that "whatever happened is in the past."
A few off-hand questions posed by the chief press aide hardly constitutes the type of inquiry that is warranted by a serious charge of criminal conduct on the part of administration officials. The arrogance is apparent in Gibbs's assertion that the American people need not worry about illegal activity in the White House because the press secretary has read a memo or two and bumped into fellow staffers at the water cooler.
The White House's insistence that Sestak's allegation of a corrupt offer isn't "problematic" is indicative of the disturbing Chicago-style mindset that pervades this administration. Either the congressman is telling the truth, and administration officials have broken the law, or he's lying, in which case his outrageous falsehood should be exposed. Until we get answers, the questions aren't going away.
Frankly, if what Gibbs says is true, there is no reason why the White House shouldn't be willing to put forward who said what and when. Their refusal to offer a real explanation only reinforces the unavoidable conclusion that the White House is hiding something.
The bottom line is if the White House continues to stonewall Congress and the American people, I will petition the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to launch an investigation into the allegation. In the meantime, I fear we're in for more obtuse and evasive statements from administration officials. In that case, the White House will be falling back on a concerted scheme and cover-up strategy not seen in Washington since the days of Watergate.
Somebody might want to remind the president how that story ended.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Rep. Joe Sestak's, D-Pa., accusation that he was offered a plum appointment
Enuf of Gibbs and enuf of Sestak's spineless, arachidian tactics. Alright Admiral, you like being the tough guy. Save us some time and money. Man up and give the American people the straight skinny!
Craig Varoga, a longtime Democratic political operative, has formed a group -- known as Patriot Majority PAC -- with the specific goal of keeping tea party candidates out of office.
"Americans need to confront the dangerous ideas of the tea party movement head on, without any fear, before they gain any additional traction in the legislative process or the 2010 elections," said Varoga, who managed former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack's 2008 presidential run.
The idea behind Patriot Majority PAC is to pick 12 to 15 races where tea party-affiliated candidates are running then launch a barrage of television and radio ads (as well as online targeting) to keep them from winning. The funding, according to Varoga, will come entirely from individuals and thanks to a ruling in U.S. District Court last week the group will be able to expressly advocate for the defeat of candidates.
(Varoga also hopes to establish Patriot Majority as a clearinghouse for information -- on the negative side of the ledger -- about the tea party movement. "We are asking all Americans to join us and oppose the extreme tactics of the tea party and the dangerous ideas behind them," he said.)
While Varoga has yet to identify his targeted races, the first real test of the power of the tea party movement will come May 18 in Kentucky where ophthalmologist Rand Paul, a favorite of the tea party crowd, will face off against Secretary of State Trey Grayson who has the support -- whether public or implicit -- of the vast majority of establishment Republicans in Kentucky and nationally.
A victory by Paul would give further legitimacy to the power of the Tea Party movement -- and could potentially endanger other Republican incumbents or quasi incumbents like Grayson. It could also jeopardize Republicans' chances of picking up a bundle of seats in the House and Senate this fall.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
These people do not get it. The Tea Party stands for what this country stood for, for centuries. To go after the Tea Party is to go after the foundation of America's greatness. The people in the Tea Party are solid in thier beliefs. This counter action by this so called "Democratic Group" is a waste of time and money.
#2
"Americans need to confront the dangerous ideas of the tea party movement head on, without any fear, before they gain any additional traction in the legislative process or the 2010 elections," said Varoga
#4
No, these people definitely do NOT get it. There is no top-down organized Tea Party, there are no national leaders, no specifically Tea Party-nominated and backed candidates, just self-motivated, self-organized, fiscally-responsible community activists. This happy little astroturf circle is swatting wildly at a swarm of hornets.
And their notion of strict adherence to the Constitution being "dangerous ideas" is purely laughable.
#5
Interesting, and we should do nothing to counter the idea that the Tea Party movement is some sort of organization. As long as the LLL believes it is an organized movement the better. What they are not quite smart enough to figure out is that is an organizing principle.
#6
What the Tea Party is, WT - and anyone who might be interested - is a distributed insurgency.
No leaders, no organization, really. Just a couple of principles: fiscal responsibility, strict adherence to the Constitution and free markets. Nothing much more than that. I've always called it a 'herd of cats.'
And I've been involved in one since March, 2009, which ought to count for something.
The Democratic National Committee is having a field day Monday at the expense of its cross-town rivals at the RNC--or the "Risque National Committee," as the Dems put it in one of the blizzard of e-mailed releases they are sending out.
It started overnight when a politically themed blog, The Daily Caller, released the latest report about RNC Chairman Michael Steele's spending habits and his affinity for flying private jets at party expense.
The story also said that Steele dropped more than $15,000 of committee money on a recent trip to the Los Angeles area.
Included in the RNC's report for February spending was $1,946.25 for "meals" at Voyeur West Hollywood, which the online article said was a "bondage themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex."
The Daily Caller says the FEC filings "suggest" that "Steele travels in style." From there it wasn't much of a leap for the DNC to send out emails stating that "Yes, it appears that Michael Steele spent RNC money" at the nightclub.
No way to know, from the monthly RNC filing (all 2,500 pages), just who was there.
The line immediately above the expense in question in the FEC report provides a clue.
It contains a payment to Erik Brown, at an address in Orange, California, who was reimbursed for the $1,946.25.
Brown is a Republican direct mail consultant (his business address is the one on the FEC report). He did not immediately respond to a telephone call from The Baltimore Sun.
In a follow-up item, the Daily Caller reported that Brown appears to be close to Steele: In October, Brown wrote on Twitter, "Enjoying the football game with RNC Chairman Michael Steele. (Eagles vs Redskins at FedEx Field)".
Posted by: Fred ||
03/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It was a staffer. It was NOT Steele.
The media in this country is useless.
#5
I send what little I can directly to the candidate, NOT the party. If there's anything left over, I'll be the one going to the titty bar for sirloin and mash.
#6
It doesn't matter if Steele was at the club physically or not. He's kept on a staffer who thought it was a good idea to drop a lot of money where it would show up on FEC accounts that it was spent at a lousy damn strip club.
Either he's a democrat plant or a VERY incompetent republican, and either way should be fired.
And the hotel expenses don't look too good either.
#8
An unnamed RNC staffer was fired, Nimble Spemble. See here. This is exactly the kind of thing that has the MSM types extolling the necessity of having editors on staff. Not that the MSM makes proper use of the people, but at least they have them to prevent the kind of outright lies deliberately spread bly the blogs that wrote this story.
TO some of us 1600 dollars is a whole lot of money.
Agreed, Snowy Thing. So does RNC management, it seems, as they fired the idiot, and will no doubt go after him for the money he conned Mr. Brown out of, assuring him the RNC would reimburse him. Sadly, most enterprises sooner or later make hiring mistakes.
The Republican National Committee staffer who was fired Monday for coordinating the use of donor money to pay the $2,000 tab at a California strip club was warned ahead of time that the party would not cover such expenses, the RNC chief of staff said in a letter to members.
RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay wrote in a letter Tuesday that the donor who was reimbursed for the expense, Erik Brown, has "verbally agreed" to repay the money to the national party.
McKay said "a group of individuals" attended the club after a "Young Eagles" donor event in Los Angeles, but that "this was not an RNC sanctioned event and was not associated in any way with any RNC official event."
Elsewhere I've read that the expense report was submitted with the note, "Meals," not "entertainment". A bookkeeper would not necessarily question that.
The article goes on to list some of the other expenses of that donor event, each of which no doubt cost a great more than $2,000, but which raised no eyebrows among the bloggers fussing about this item.
Bottom line up front: sly kid tries to pull a fast one, gets caught and gets fired, sucker who should have known better has to eat the expense... and those who tried to raise a lynch mob are quietly hunting for the next Republican/Conservative/Tea Party/business victim to frame.
#15
TW, I disagree somewhat. Steele has been Biden-esque in terms of stepping on his crank, and has mismanaged the RNC with questionable issues cropping up too often.
Steele must go - he is the head, and the responsibility rests with him. No more buckpassing.
#16
The private jets cost a whole lot more than the titty bar. The RNC has been spending money like water under Steele's leadership. Frugal he is not and as such is a lousy figurehead for the party moving forward. Toss him out says I!
Two new polls out from Rasmussen today suggest that even Democrats who voted against health care reform are in serious danger of losing their seats. The first shows that 54% of respondents favor repealing ObamaCare, essentially unchanged from last week.
The second shows that Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., now leads one of her potential Republican challengers, Secretary of State Chris Nelson, by only 44%-42%. In February, she led 45%-38%. Herseth Sandlin, co-chair of the Blue Dogs, a group of more moderate Democrats, voted against the health care bill both in November and in March, and was outspoken against the "Slaughter solution", dubbing it "poison."
Her lackluster numbers can be linked to voters' preference for repealing ObamaCare, even though she voted against it.
One of the necessary steps for repealing ObamaCare is making Speaker Nancy Pelosi into Minority Leader Pelosi. Unfortunately for Herseth Sandlin, a vote for her is also a vote for keeping Pelosi as Speaker in 2011. By most accounts Herseth Sandlin is quite likable, so no doubt some South Dakota voters will be facing a stark choice: either vote against a woman they like, or vote for a woman they don't.
Herseth Sandlin has to hope that her votes against ObamaCare will add to her likability in South Dakota and offset the Pelosi poison. But the latest polls suggest that they aren't.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lipinski (D-IL) will win because of his vote and the sniping he has been taking from the Chicago Media
#2
It's because the Democratic PARTY is poisioned, now the good (Damn few) Go down with the bad.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/30/2010 5:17 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Pelosi gave them a pass on this one. She might not on the next. Why take a chance. They could have easily bolted from the party, but didn't. Boot them all!
#4
Take a look at this and just remember elections in November 2010.
a. U..S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
b. They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
c. Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.
d. You will get no COLA on your mil retirement either. Along with S.S., it may be gone forever.
e. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife. (Not counting mil retirement)
f. Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000
Do you feel SCREWED? Will they have your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes - food, etc., decrease? NO WAY. Vote them all out!
#7
Might also want to consider the next time Zero gets to appoint another Supreme Court justice. Just mention Sotomayor in any Senate contest and see what effect that has.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/30/2010 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#8
What Besoeker said. We need a new political class in this country. Change the primary election system while you're at it so that independents can run on an even footing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
#9
Nobody's falling for this "I voted for it before I voted against it" crap anymore. You are all going down for what you've done to the nation in just over one year. Burn baby burn.
Posted by: regular joe ||
03/30/2010 19:45 Comments ||
Top||
Former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio used the first debate of the Republican Senate primary Sunday to repeatedly link Gov. Charlie Crist to President Barack Obama.
In a 40-minute face-off broadcast nationally on "Fox News Sunday," Rubio hammered Crist for supporting Obama's 2009 economic stimulus package -- a bill deeply unpopular with conservative voters likely to turn out for the August 24 primary.
"The choice for Republicans in Florida is: Do you want a candidate that would have stood up to Barack Obama, voted against the stimulus and supported something that would have cost less money and created more jobs?" said Rubio. "If that's the candidate you want, that would be me. Or do you want the next Republican senator from Florida to be someone who would have voted with the Democrats for the stimulus package, and that candidate would be Gov. Crist?"
It's that frame on the race that has enabled the once-underfunded Rubio to stake out a double-digit lead against Crist, the early establishment favorite.
Crist not only defended his embrace of the stimulus but said that he would have voted for it had he been in the Senate, making the case that Florida's economy was in desperate straits at the time and that his decision reflected an example of "putting people above politics."
"As governor, you've got to make tough decisions," Crist said. "I made the tough decision to utilize the funds to help the people of Florida."
But, recognizing that discussing the merits of the stimulus won't help him make up ground in the primary, Crist used the session to take aim at Rubio's character.
Alluding to recent reports in the Florida press about Rubio's use of a state party credit card and PAC for personal purposes, Crist said his rival abused the public trust.
"My opponent has viewed public service as a way to have personal enrichment," Crist said, alluding to what he called Rubio's "slush fund."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted because some of you have college age kids
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), the U.S. secretary of education from 1991 to 1993, tells National Review Online that President Obama's revamping of the federal student-loan program is "truly brazen" and the "most underreported big-Washington takeover in history."
"As Americans find out what it really does, they'll be really unhappy," Alexander predicts. "The first really unhappy people will be the 19 million students who, after July 1, will have no choice but to go to federal call centers to get their student loans.
They'll become even unhappier when they find out that the government is charging 2.8 percent to borrow the money and 6.8 percent to lend it to the students, and spending the difference on the new health-care bill and other programs. In other words, the government will be overcharging 19 million students."
The overcharge is "significant," Alexander adds, because "on a $25,000 student loan, which is an average loan, the amount the government will overcharge will average between $1,700 and $1,800."
"Up to now, 15 out of 19 million student loans were private loans, backed by the government," Alexander says. "Now we're going to borrow half-a-trillion from China to pay for billions in new loans. Not only will this add to the debt, but in the middle of a recession, this will throw 31,000 Americans working at community banks and non-profit lenders out of work."
Alexander, a former University of Tennessee president, says the effects of Obama's policy could be felt for decades. "When I was education secretary, one of my major objections to turning it all over to the government was that I didn't think the government could manage it," he says. "This is going to be too big and too congested, and makes getting your student loan about as attractive as lining up to get your driver's license in some states."
"It changes the kind of country we live in more than it changes American education," Alexander concludes. "The American system of higher education has become the best in the world because of choice and competition. Unlike K-12, we give money to students and let them choose among schools, having the choice of private lenders or government lenders. That's been the case for 20 years.
Having no choice, and the government running it all, looks more like a Soviet-style, European, and even Asian higher-education model where the government manages everything. In most of those countries, they've been falling over themselves to reject their state-controlled authoritarian universities, which are much worse than ours, and move toward the American model which emphasizes choice, competition, and peer-reviewed research. In that sense, we're now stepping back from our choice-competition culture, which has given us not just some of the best universities in the world, but almost all of them."
#4
it is ironic that educatyional costs are primarily driven by government. Instead of addressing the double digit % cost increases over the years the government just takes of the business of loaning more money to the stooges who go to college. Note: I am one of those stooges who went college and send 2 to college presently.
a. Students from Red States pay standard 6.8%
b. Students from Blue States pay standard 5.8%
c. Non-US Foreign students pay 4.8%
d. Students whose parents earns less than $35,000 per year pays 3.8%
e. Students whose parents earn more than $35,000 per year pay 6.8% plus high-earner penalty of 1.2% per $10,000 dollars over minimum earner limit but not to exceed 22.8% (see Red State penalty Annex A for additional fees)
f. Students having one special category (non-earner) parent as listed in Annex A, Schedule 101, deduct 8% from interest listed in paras a through e.
g. Students having two special category (non-earner) parents as defined in Annex A, Schedule 101, deduct 16% from interest listed in paras "a thru e."
h. Students paying in excess of -2.2% but not more than -27% must elect direct deposit option as prescribed in Annex B, Schedule 102.
i. Students paying in excess of -27% must be reimbursed (free GM car lease option, laptop, meals, travel, etc, via Annex C.)
j. All students with the exception of those listed in categories A and E qualify for job placement upon graduation.
#6
this will throw 31,000 Americans working at community banks and non-profit lenders out of work
Yeah, but they can apply for the 50,000 new jobs with the Federal government that will have to be created to administer the same loans. And if they get one of those jobs, it will be at a 45% premium in pay, and better benefits and job security too - minus their government union dues and DNC 'contributions'.
#7
Glenmore points out the one thing that no one seems to have picked up on. How many federal employees will be required to support this program? And what will their wages be?
Laura Ingraham didn't waste any time getting into it with NBC's Matt Lauer, on Monday's Today, as the conservative talk show host and author took Lauer, his colleague George Lewis and MSNBC to task for their slanted reporting of Sarah Palin and the tea party. After a Lewis set-up piece, in which the reporter asked if Palin gets "people too riled up?" Ingraham, in her interview with Lauer, charged him with bias: "How do you go from Sarah Palin giving a speech to saying did she rile up the people too much and then talk about death threats? I think that kind of reporting, really is what drives people crazy about the dinosaur media." Lauer countered that "some people" have noted that Palin's "comments" and "graphics" have "incited some people."
Later on in the interview Lauer claimed Palin was "polarizing" to which Ingraham, citing low approval ratings for Obamacare, fired back at Lauer: "Well I think that, if you want to look at polarizing people right now, I wouldn't look at Palin, I'd look at Barack Obama."
Finally Lauer, making his best attempt at being balanced, asked if there was too much "vitriol" and "intimidation" from both sides. Ingraham acknowledged that "folks get angry" on from the right and left, but then slammed MSNBC for stoking that vitriol as she threw back at Lauer: "We have people on, frankly, your cable channel saying really hateful things about conservative commentators and politicians".
Posted by: Fred ||
03/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Growing concerns about the dangers of indoor tanning beds are leading to new taxes -- and possibly new restrictions -- designed to curb the practice among young people.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel recommended Thursday that the agency consider actions such as requiring that teenagers get parental consent before using a tanning bed or even banning the use of tanning beds among teens. The advisers also recommended reclassifying tanning lamps from Class I medical devices -- a category that includes tongue depressors and elastic bandages -- to a Class II or Class III device, which would permit the agency to impose greater restrictions.
About 35% of 17-year-old girls use tanning machines, an FDA report says. People under 30 who use tanning machines increase their risk of skin cancer by 75%, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is affiliated with the World Health Organization. That agency last July listed ultraviolet radiation-emitting beds as "carcinogenic to humans," its highest category of cancer risk.
The melanoma rate among young women nearly tripled from 1973 to 2004, a National Cancer Institute study showed.
In a statement, the Indoor Tanning Association described the panel's recommendations as "excessive" and added, "It is our sincere hope that the FDA will fully explore this issue and base any decision on sound science."
Because teens have less spending money than adults, a new 10% tax on indoor tanning -- included in the health reform bill signed last week by President Obama -- may make some young people think twice about tanning, says dermatologist Bruce Katz, a spokesman for the Skin Cancer Foundation and director of the Juva Skin and Laser Center in New York. The tax, scheduled to take effect July 1, is expected to raise $2.7 billion over 10 years to help offset the costs of the bill, Katz says. "We'd like to see tanning beds banned completely, but this is a good start," Katz says.
The Federal Trade Commission also has been cracking down on the marketing of indoor tanning. In January, the agency charged the Indoor Tanning Association with making false health and safety claims in its ads. The association agreed to pull the disputed ads.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel recommended Thursday that the agency consider actions such as requiring that teenagers get parental consent
But no parental consent required for trips downtown to arrange for the murder of the unborn during high school lunch breaks. A Third Reich level of bizzare.
#3
I suspect these businesses have dermatologists as silent partners or underwriters, assuring themselves of a future clientele, sort of like dope dealers. (And no, I am not serious, just snide.)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Craig Varoga, a longtime Democratic political operative, has formed a group -- known as Patriot Majority PAC -- with the specific goal of keeping tea party candidates out of office.
The Democratic National Committee is having a field day Monday at the expense of its cross-town rivals at the RNC--or the "Risque National Committee," as the Dems put it in one of the blizzard of e-mailed releases they are sending out.
Laura Ingraham didn't waste any time getting into it with NBC's Matt Lauer, on Monday's Today, as the conservative talk show host and author took Lauer, his colleague George Lewis and MSNBC to task for their slanted reporting of Sarah Palin and the tea party. After a Lewis set-up piece, in which the reporter asked if Palin gets "people too riled up?" Ingraham, in her interview with Lauer, charged him with bias: "How do you go from Sarah Palin giving a speech to saying did she rile up the people too much and then talk about death threats? I think that kind of reporting, really is what drives people crazy about the dinosaur media." Lauer countered that "some people" have noted that Palin's "comments" and "graphics" have "incited some people." 
Growing concerns about the dangers of indoor tanning beds are leading to new taxes -- and possibly new restrictions -- designed to curb the practice among young people.
