News Today

Seems like they just aren’t on their game like they should be. I mean first we had an Iraqi journalist manage to throw both of his shoes at George W., now we have reports of a couple of wannabe reality-TV stars who managed to sneak inside the White House and bump elbows with heads of state like Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel.

Just how far are people willing to go to be on TV? In the age of octo-mom, Jon and Kate, balloon-boys and White House crashers, the answer appears to be whatever it takes (Rod Blagojevich anyone?).

“It was obvious something was adrift, or ajar, when the phrase ‘reality-TV star’ began to be written and uttered with no trace of irony, even as more and more of these folks became involved this year in various serious crimes,” said Harry Shearer.

Indeed something is wrong when parents are pretending to sacrifice their own kids safety in a bid to star in a tv series. Tunku Varadarajan, of the Daily Beast, got the final word on this.

“Americans are exhibitionists by nature, and have been so for generations, perhaps as an ongoing, unresolved reaction against the country’s original Puritanism, which censured blusterers and showoffs,” said Varadarajan. “This is a large and competitive country, in which the most reliable way to catch the eye, or to rise above the throng is … to catch the eye and rise above the throng. Of course, when an entire throng is trying to rise above itself, an epidemic of free-form vulgarity and solipsism ensues.”

Sources:
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/28/white-house-party-crashers-fit-a-new-mold-fame-at-all-costs/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/

. . .

“If you want to turn your life around, try thankfulness. It will change your life mightily.”
–Gerald Good

Hehehe - caught this on TPM. Apparently Fox News sent a memo out to all of their staffers addressing the multiple mistakes in their broadcasting the last couple of weeks.

Subject: Quality Control

We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts.

Unfortunately, it is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months. We have to all improve our performance in terms of ensuring error-free broadcasts. To that end, there was a meeting this afternoon between senior managers and the folks who run the daytime shows in which expectations were reviewed, and the following results were announced: Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the “mistake chain,” and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews.

So we now face a great opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately, Newsroom is going to “zero base” our newscast production. That means we will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements. To share a key quote from today’s meeting: “It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on.” We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again.

Please know that jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough. I will review again during our Monday editorial meeting, and in the days and weeks ahead. This experience should make us stronger editorially, and I encourage everyone to invest themselves one hundred and ten percent in this effort.

Source:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/fox-news-threatens-pink-slips-for-on-screen-errors.php?ref=mp

Anybody ever read this book? Written by Jon Scieszka and illustrated by Lane Smith, it’s the story of a boy caught up in a “math curse,” where he begins to see math problems in everything.

Personally, looking at the numbers for the United States budget feels like a “Math Curse” nightmare to me.

Here are the fiscal year’s figures on government spending and debt (the
government’s fiscal year runs Oct. 1 through Sept. 30).

. . .

Total public debt subject to limit Nov. 20  —  $11,953,740,000,000
Statutory debt limit  —  $12,104,000,000,000
Total public debt outstanding Nov. 20  —  $12,010,562,000,000
Operating balance Nov. 20  —  $45,510,000,000

Interest fiscal year 2009  —  $383,365,000,000
Interest fiscal year 2008  —  $451,154,000,000

Deficit fiscal year 2009  —  $1,417,121,000,000
Deficit fiscal year 2008  —  $454,798,000,000

Receipts fiscal year 2009  —  $2,104,613,000,000
Receipts fiscal year 2008  —  $2,523,642,000,000

Outlays fiscal year 2009  —  $3,521,734,000,000
Outlays fiscal year 2008  —  $2,978,440,000,000

. . .

Okay, so what do these massive figures all mean?

The public debt, or national debt, is comprised of by two things - securities held by the public, and securities held by government accounts. We’re currently sitting around $12 trillion in the red. Around 60% of that $12 trillion (over $7 trillion) is considered “owned by the public,” and was spent on your behalf by your government.

The $12 trillion national debt figure doesn’t even tell the full story though, as some intra-governmental debt obligations (like the Social Security Trust Fund) are not included in the budget. A more accurate figure would be our gross debt, which will likely be 90.4% of our entire GDP for 2009. That figure is slated to go up over 100% of our GDP by 2011.

The Statutory Debt Limit is how high Congress has approved our national debt to go — currently $12,104,000,000,000 thanks to a measure in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Obviously, our deficit is how much money we lost that year.

Now I want to take a special look at the interest portion of government spending, as this has been a hot topic in the news lately. For decades the United States has increased its borrowing and we’ve now reached trillion-dollar-a-year rates.

According to the White House, by 2019 the cost of paying off our interest will be more than the combined federal budgets this year for energy, homeland security, education and both the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

This is some pretty scary stuff. From Edmund Andrews, New York Times:

“Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode.”

One thing that is really at stake here is our dollar. There are three main hazards coming our way in the next couple of months. The first will be dealing with all of the new debt we’ve acquired. The next will be $1.6 trillion of marketable debt that the Treasury must work to refinance (pretty please with sugar on top, China?). Finally, eventually the Fed will have to normalize interest rates, which could cost the Americans quite a lot of money (According to the New York Times, an increase of one percentage point in the Treasury’s average cost of borrowing would cost American taxpayers an extra $80 billion this year).

Even as the government looks at these looming budgetary numbers, they are preparing to borrow $3.5 trillion over the next three years.

“What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter,” said William H. Gross, managing director of the Pimco Group. “The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter.”

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/20/financial/f141157S11.DTL
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

…Thank you, Mr. President.

Some of us were beginning to think you had forgotten about the issue completely….

Somewhat appropriately, Obama’s harshest warning about the U.S. budget deficit came during his recent nine-day trip to Asia. In an interview with Fox News, Obama said his administration was facing a “delicate balance of trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction.”

“It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession,” said Obama.

Obama also said he plans to hold a jobs forum with business leaders and financial experts in December to discuss ways to turn around the 10.2% unemployment. After taking office, Obama said, the focus of the administration was avoiding the Great Depression.

“Our first job was to get the economy to recover. And we’re now seeing that,” said Obama. “We’ve seen economic growth (in the third quarter). We anticipate economic growth next quarter as well. I always said the job growth would lag behind economic growth. The question now is how can we accelerate it.”

In an interview with NBC Obama said there was a whole “range of ideas” to give companies an incentive to start hiring again. Two ideas he did note were searching for more export opportunities and possible tax provisions that would encourage businesses to hire “sooner rather than sitting on the sidelines.”

I, like a lot of Americans, have been pretty discouraged by the amount of spending in the Obama administration so far. I don’t even blame Obama completely since it really does take over a thousand pages of legislation to get the Democrats in Congress to reach a consensus on big issues.

Plus, this guy went to Harvard. He’s a smart man. He knows that we can’t keep spending at these levels… right? Right???

Because we really can’t. For the United States to continue to keep borrowing more money at this point is downright irresponsible.

Put it like this, courtesy of China, Japan and a host of other countries, the United States was given an international credit card. A credit card with no spending limit. Then, with all of the excitement of a fifteen year old girl at the Mall of America, we went crazy with it. We racked up a lot of charges and… now we owe almost $12 trillon.

$12,000,000,000,000.

The forecast doesn’t get all that greater over the next few years either. According to the CBO, over half of the $9 trillion in debt that the U.S. is expected to build up over the next decade will be in interest rates alone (see chart).

States across the country are going bankrupt, California is looking at a $21 billion budget gap over the next year and a half. For a more comprehensive look at California’s situation visit NWunderlich, who has been documenting the state’s budget woes for a while now.

At some point our lawmakers need to come together and address this issue. It will take making some tough choices, unpopular choices like spending cuts and tax raises. Measures do need to be taken though.

If not, then President Obama is correct, we will experience a great deal of economic turmoil. The decades of borrowing are adding up, and if we don’t work to correct this soon it may be too late. It’s essential that we move forward with a streamlined and efficient government, one that is in control of its spending.

Sources:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/government/update–obama-debt-fuel-double-dip-recession/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g4:r4:c0.000000:b28934020:z10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_bi_ge/us_california_budget;_ylt=AjVjPu2jpQ9f4C16RAxoY239xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJuZ3QzZjFjBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTE4L3VzX2NhbGlmb3JuaWFfYnVkZ2V0BGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDMwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2ZvcmVjYXN0Y2FsaQ–
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/

Although 99% of the new Saturday Night Live stuff is terrible, every once in a while they come up with a good skit (a stopped clock is correct twice a day, right), and this is one of my favorites.

Enjoy!

. . .

. . .

Responding rather angrily to questions about the recent Fort Hood shooting and the United States military in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made his feelings more than clear to reporters in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

“I have been appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on,” said Gates, adding that it would likely cost someone at the Pentagon their career if he found out they had leaked anything.

“Everybody ought to shut up” said Gates.

You see to Gates, when journalists find out about what the country is doing, it “doesn’t serve the country” or the military’s interest.

I would beg to differ, Mr. Gates. I think it’s a good thing. It’s one of the reasons that I blog, and will continue to blog. So when government officials do stupid things, like tell everyone to shut up, I can make a post like this one and label it under “stupid politicians.”

I once had a chance to visit the Newseum in Washington D.C. and there was a quote I read on the wall that really hit home with me. Since I was pretty young at the time I don’t remember who the quote was from, but it also happens to be the motto of the Aspen Daily News.

“If You Don’t Want It Printed, Don’t Let It Happen”

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091112/pl_afp/usafghanistanmilitarycrimeshooting
http://www.hcn.org/issues/177/5757

President Barack Obama is reportedly rejecting his national security team’s Afghanistan war options.

Harry Reid opening door for debate to begin on health care reform.

Lou Dobbs announced he is leaving CNN! Abruptly! -yawns-

John Allen Muhammed, the D.C. sniper, was excecuted.

…And Joe Biden’s motorcade was involved in a fatal accident. No, Mr. Biden was not driving in the car at the time.

One of my favorite quotes from George Washington was two little snippets of advice that he had for the young United States of America.

His first word of advice was that we should not form political parties (oops!) and the second had to do with the U.S. making alliances with foreign countries.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible… Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?… It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

– George Washington.

Well, for better or for worse, we didn’t listen to George on this one either. Would we have been wise to?

. . .

Today the United States holds alliances all across the world. We’re allied in one form or another with almost all of Europe, several countries in Asia, and with many countries in North, South and Central America. With these alliances come both assets and liabilities, but what real assets are we talking about here?

Let’s take a look at one alliance in particular, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

NATO was formed on April 4, 1949. Originally it was a pact between the United States and 11 other countries, but over the years NATO’s ranks have swelled to 28 countries. The point of NATO was to provide a military support between its members.

From the treaty:

“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

NATO member’s military spending accounts for about 70% of the military spending in the entire world. You can bet that’s not divided up evenly between all 28 members of NATO either. In fact, the United States military spending works out to about half of the military spending in the world.

To make a bad situation worse, we have treaties like the 2002 Berlin Plus Agreement. Signed between the European Union (EU) and NATO, the Berlin Plus Agreement gives the EU rights to the use of NATO assets should NATO decline to intervene in an international crisis. What was that whole bit about entangling our peace and prosperity with the toils of European ambitions again, George?

Six months into President Barack Obama’s administration Obama received a letter from several Central and Eastern European NATO members stating that the “ability to sustain public support at home for our contributions to Alliance missions abroad … depends on us being able to show that our own security concerns are being addressed in NATO and close cooperation with the United States.”

Here’s the thing, almost all of the countries that were demanding more resources from the United States spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense spending. The government puts defense spending at 20% of the United States GDP, but if you account for past military expenses such as veteran’s benefits and interest from debt that number jumps dramatically to about 54%.

“The primary purpose of our alliance from a military standpoint is to provide for the security of Japan.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on a recent visit with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. “It allows Japan to have a defense budget … of roughly 1 percent of GDP.”

These countries are able to spend virtually nothing on defense because the United States is doing it for them. What is it that the U.S. is getting in return though, other than an excuse to spend that much money on the military?

Justin Logan of the CATO Institute worded it best:

“America’s alliances are no longer considered responses to security challenges. Instead, they have become ends in themselves. In an era of record-breaking budget deficits and serious economic problems at home, the billions of dollars Uncle Sam pays each year to baby-sit Europe and East Asia ought to be coming in for scrutiny, not perpetual affirmation.”

Sources:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10954
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/George.Washington.Quote.2D30
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-C4B3E460-5AD5C2A3/natolive/index.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Oh I would not want to be in Harry Reid’s shoes right now…

Nevermind his prospects in the 2010 election, the Nevada Democrat is now charged with two unenviable tasks. First Reid must successfully combine the Senate’s two committee bills into one final version, a task that is proving to be not so easy. Then the Senate Majority Leader must find a way to combine the Senate’s final draft with the drastically different House bill.

Among the differences he will have to work around include a last-minute abortion amendment that likely gave the House bill enough support with moderate Democrats to pass. The House bill passed 220-215 on Saturday after 219 Democrats and one Republican (bi-partisanship?) voted in favor.

Getting a bill passed in the Senate will be harder as well. In the Senate 60 votes are needed for passage, as opposed to the simple majority required in the House. While Democrats do hold the coveted “super-majority” (filibuster-proof 60-vote majority) in the Senate, it’s not clear if the left will be able to keep rank with all of its members (something that will probably be needed as all 40 Republican Senators will likely vote in opposition).

“If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” Sen. Joe Lieberman told Fox News on Sunday.

Joe Lieberman refusing to work with Democrats is nothing new, but Lieberman isn’t the only one standing in opposition of the bill.

“If it isn’t clear that government money is not to be used to fund abortions — whether it’s subsidies or direct payments or tax credits or something like that — I will not support it,” said Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. “If it doesn’t make it clear that it does not pay for abortion, you can be sure I will vote against it.”

Quotes like these demonstrate the tricky task that Harry Reid is faced with as health care legislation makes its way through Congress.

Right now Reid’s strategy is to include a public insurance plan that states would have the option (but would not have to) of signing up for. To pay for the measure the Senate is planning on taxing high-value insurance plans and making companies face tax-penalties for not providing insurance to their employees. Congressional Budget Office cost projections for the Senate bill will likely be released in the next couple days.

Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125779914376639381.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-health-bill-major-hurdles/story?id=9030942
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125765850379236569.html