http://www.liveleak.com/browse?channel_token=299_1302938237 Items in channel 'vicsemprini' Sat, 18 May 2013 10:23:55 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?channel_token=299_1302938237 Sat, 11 May 2013 14:02:35 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e30_1368295079 vicsemprini http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0 It's a clich'e, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration's response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it. On Friday, ABC News's Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.'s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It's striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans' criticism of the Administration's public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush. From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved." That's an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions "at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi" before the one in which four Americans were killed. That's not in the final version. Nor is this: " e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack." That was replaced by the more tepid "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty-which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl's reporting-that doesn't fully explain these changes away.) Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn't motivated by a desire to protect Obama's record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we've seen from Karl's report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government-C.I.A. and State-trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy. But the mere existence of the edits-whatever the motivation for them-seriously undermines the White House's credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate." Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said: The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from "consulate," because it was not a consulate, to "diplomatic post"... it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate. This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He's playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we've all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who's actually working the keyboard. It's not quite re-defining the word "is," or the phrase "sexual relations," but it's not all that far off, either. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e30_1368295079 vicsemprini New Yorker: Hey, maybe there's something smelly here after all Benghazi, Jay Carney, lies, scandal, Obama, Hillary, terrorist attack, YouTube, talking points, revisions, CIA Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:55:14 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=399_1364579402 vicsemprini Student 'advertised a mock rape sex fantasy on Craigslist then claimed to have been abducted and attacked' Police in Fargo received a call on March 25 about the brutal rape of North Dakota State University student Mary Kate Gullickson, 20. A student who advertised a sex fantasy on Craigslist involving a mock rape has been arrested after she later claimed to have been abducted and attacked. Police launched a search for an alleged attacker who wore a ski mask after Mary Kate Gullickson claimed she was the victim of a sexual assault. The 20-year-old psychology major told police in Fargo, North Dakota, that she had been forced into a vehicle and raped before being dropped back at a parking lot at the North Dakota State University. Campus police launched a hunt for the attacker while warning other female students to be on their guard. But when the 'attacker' heard about the assault and the fear that had spread among other students he went to police. The man told police he answered an advert placed on Craigslist by Gullickson who was seeking sex in a role play fantasy that involved her being kidnapped and raped. He said he was instructed to grab her off the street, bound her with duct tape, force her to have sex and then drop her off. Investigators tracked down Gullickson's Craigslist advert and uncovered the email and phone number associated with it. They also searched Gullickson's iPhone which contained so many responses to the advert the student was unable to say which response came from the man she eventually met. Guillickson also allegedly asked some of the responders to pay her $100 for the privilege of participating in the fantasy with her. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301119/North-Dakota-college-student-Mary-Kate-Gullickson-advertised-mock-rape-sex-fantasy-Craigslist-arrested.html#ixzz2Ox6f8hA5 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=399_1364579402 vicsemprini Craig's List Rape Fantasy Update rape, fanstasy, Craig's List, arrest, college student Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:30:49 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=908_1364358457 vicsemprini By GRAHAM TANAKA Posted 05:46 PM ET View Enlarged Image How do we know when government spending is too high or too low, or if fiscal policies are stimulative or restrictive? As President Obama and Congress work to shrink the $1 trillion federal budget deficit, it is important that they understand the fundamental inverse relationship between the size of government and jobs. Since 1970, all six instances when our government got larger as a percent of GDP, the unemployment rate went higher. All six times when government got smaller as a percent of GDP, our unemployment rate went lower. This relationship between the relative size of government and unemployment can be described by a "Federal Spending-Unemployment Rate Rule" with a fairly high 0.80 correlation. Put simply, that means that changes in spending as a share of the economy explains 80% of the change in unemployment. The difficulty for our fiscal policymakers is that we are four years into this economic expansion and federal spending remains elevated at 24% of GDP. Unfortunately, our government is still too large and the private economy too small to support a Keynesian thesis that more federal spending will create more jobs. The public knows that excessively large government and big deficits inevitably mean higher taxes and more government debt. This is how bigger government squeezes out the job-creating private sector. Consumers and businesses become more cautious, leading to lower consumer spending, lower corporate investment - and fewer private sector jobs. In 2012, federal spending was 38% larger than 2006 pre-financial crisis level. At 24% of GDP, 2012 spending would suggest an 8.4% unemployment rate, based on the rule. Despite massive traditional and non-traditional monetary stimulus, the Federal Reserve last year could only nudge unemployment down to 8.1%, or 0.3% lower than my rule's prediction of 8.4%. It is fairly clear that much of the Fed's stimulus has been offset by restrictive fiscal policies. The Fed has its foot on the gas and Washington has its foot on the brakes, resulting in an economy in slow motion with a paucity of new jobs. How far do we need to reduce the size of government spending to move the needle on unemployment? The Fed recently announced a near term target unemployment rate of 6.5%, suggesting that federal spending needs to drop to about 21.4% of GDP, if my rule holds true. Assuming nominal GDP growth of 4%, Congress and the president need to reduce federal government spending by $137 billion over the next two years to get spending down to 21.4% of GDP by 2014. With cuts of $85 billion mandated by the sequester, Congress needs to cut spending by another $52 billion by 2014 to give the Fed a chance to grow the private economy and reach its 6.5% unemployment goal in two years. What is the gold standard for government spending? Our politicians would do well to look at the 1990s, when a popular Democratic president worked with a conservative Republican Congress and an accommodative Fed to engineer a record expansion. They did this by reducing the size of government, proactively shrinking federal spending from 22.8% of GDP in 1992 to 18.8% in 2000, yielding a decline in unemployment from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.0% by 2000. Dropping to 4% unemployment today would mean creating 5.8 million American jobs. The comparisons between the Obama and Clinton administrations will be unavoidable as both started with elevated federal spending. Clinton made the right choice and worked with a Gingrich-led Congress to end "the era of big government." Obama would do well to collaborate with the Boehner Congress to reduce spending and unemployment. By advocating more spending and higher taxes, he risks cementing a presidential legacy of sluggish growth and a jobless America. There will be a time when government spending as a percent of GDP drops below an equilibrium level consistent with a "healthy" unemployment rate. The Fed has identified a "long term normal rate of unemployment" of 5.2%-6.0%. This equates to federal spending of 19.7%-20.8% of GDP based on the Spending-Unemployment Rule. Unfortunately, today we are still on the wrong side of this federal spending-unemployment equilibrium, so our first national priority should be to reduce the relative size of government and create jobs. The sooner we do this, the sooner we will be able to pursue new initiatives. o Tanaka is president and chief economist of Tanaka Capital Management. He is also the author of "Digital Deflation." Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/032613-649412-data-link-more-government-spending-higher-unemployment.htm#ixzz2Oi9Y1qZu Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=908_1364358457 vicsemprini Clear Data: More Federal Dollars Push Up Unemployment Federal Spending, unemployment, stimulus, GDP Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:10:44 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f79_1321200214 vicsemprini If you're searching for a reason not to have sex with animals, add this to the list: It could give you penis cancer, according to a new study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. The authors found that men who have had sex with animals were twice as likely to develop penile cancer as those who stick with their own kind. Lead author Stenio de Cassio Zequi, a urologist in Sao Paulo, gave Live Science his theory explaining the increased risk. "We think that the intense and long-term SWA practice could produce micro-traumas in the human penile tissue," Zequi said. "The genital mucus membranes of animals could have different characteristics from human genitalia, and the animals' secretions are probably different from human fluids. Perhaps animal tissues are less soft than ours, and non-human secretions would be toxic for us." A female member of Equality For All, a pro-zoophilia group, told The Huffington Post that the results of the study should prompt people to take precautions, like using a condom, when having sex with animals, but she said it likely would not deter diehard zoophiles. "Expecting people who truly love animals to give up their sexuality and nature just because of some physical dangers would be as absurd as expecting gays to become straight because of AIDS," Sallie Graves wrote in an email. "They might become more cautious ... but they wouldn't change their nature. A true zoophile can't change their attraction and love just because of a higher or lower infection risk." Graves also emphasized that E.F.A. sees inter-species sex as benign. She also notes that she's against causing physical pain to animals and that those who insist sex with animals is inherently abusive are wrong. "How in the world can I be abusing my dog if I get on my hands and knees and he licks and humps me without me even having to ask for it?" Graves wrote. The left need to be neutered and bred out of humanity. That old slippery slope canard that "legalizing gay marriage will open the door to polygamy, incest, pedophilia and then animals" seems to be sorta true, no? http://tinyurl.com/7patlzz http://tinyurl.com/7ahnljv http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f79_1321200214 vicsemprini Deadly Threat To Jihadist Everywhere! bestiality, Islam, shepherds, Carnation WA, sex with animals, penile cancer, unnatural acts Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:18:13 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1319590432 vicsemprini But the navy still names a vessel after him. http://tinyurl.com/3pz5fwd FBI Saw Dark Side of Rep. John Murtha Agency Suspected Lawmaker in Scheme Funneling Funds to Benefit Friends, Ex-Staffers Neither Rep. John Murtha nor anybody from KSA Consulting was ever charged with a crime, and it is unclear what happened to the FBI's investigation. Last week's release of FBI documents finally put in writing what nobody had ever said on the record: The FBI suspected that former Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and lobbyists close to him were running a scheme to funnel earmarks to sham companies and nonprofits to benefit the lawmaker's friends and former staffers. Bits and pieces of this story were kicked around for years before Murtha died in February 2010. The Los Angeles Times, Roll Call, the Washington Post and others had documented the odd appearance of earmarks for tiny defense contractors that just happened to open an office in western Pennsylvania and just happened to hire one of the lobbying firms close to Murtha and just happened to begin making campaign donations to Murtha and other Members of Congress close to him. Reporters could do little but assemble the coincidences and couldn't prove there was anything wrong with the bigger picture. But it turns out the FBI was reading the stories and was very interested -- interested enough that the Justice Department had opened a criminal investigation into Murtha and some of the lobbyists in his orbit, a fact that never leaked while Murtha was alive. In part, the probe never leaked precisely because he was alive. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Justice Department files on Murtha and other Members of Congress. Its requests have been denied for the living Members on the grounds that they have a right to privacy, CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said last week. Murtha's death eliminated the privacy exemption, and the Justice Department handed over a heavily redacted bunch of files to CREW on Oct. 14. The files spell out for the first time a theory of the case that explains what Murtha's cronies may have been up to. In a memo dated June 19, 2009, FBI field agents requested the bureau "open a full public corruption investigation" regarding KSA Consulting, the lobbying firm that employed at various times the Congressman's longtime defense aide Carmen Scialabba and the Congressman's brother, Robert Murtha, widely known as Kit. The FBI field agents concluded that "the relationships between Congressman John Murtha ... and employees and partners of KSA Consulting provide for a potential Honest Services Fraud ... if Congressman Murtha influenced the awarding of contracts to KSA-controlled entities or clients, in exchange for some personal benefit to the Congressman. KSA principals may also have committed Honest Services Fraud by lobbying Murtha to direct earmarks to KSA clients who 'passed-thru' the funds to subcontractor firms that did little actual work and were owned by KSA principles." Neither Murtha nor anybody from KSA was ever charged with a crime, and it is unclear what happened to the investigation. A Nonprofit Called PAID The best place to understand the FBI's theory of the case is a defunct nonprofit called the Pennsylvania Association for Individuals with Disabilities, which had as its mission helping people with disabilities find employment. Murtha announced the creation of PAID on June 1, 2001, saying that Aeptec Microsystems Inc., a company that he helped bring to western Pennsylvania, would be opening a new headquarters and hiring two clients of the new organization. The company had just hired KSA Consulting as its lobbying firm. Murtha was the honorary chairman of PAID, and his longtime defense appropriations aide, Scialabba, was listed as the founder of the group. PAID's board of directors was a who's who of lobbyists connected to Murtha, as well as executives from firms that had received Murtha earmarks, including KSA founder Ken Stalder. In May 2002, David Fyock, CEO of MountainTop Technologies, a Johnstown firm that received many Murtha earmarks, testified before Congress in his capacity as the vice president of PAID. In an odd quirk of timing, the Justice Department inspector general released a report Monday concluding that while MountainTop had a federal grant to distribute resources to local police departments, Murtha's office actually made the decisions about which departments got funding, and MountainTop served simply as a "pass through." The IG report was first reported by the website Main Justice. Scialabba left Murtha's office at the end of 2002, according to Congressional pay records maintained by LegiStorm. By Dec. 1, 2002, he was registered as a lobbyist at KSA. Roll Call investigated PAID in 2007 and could find little evidence that the group was doing anything. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Labor told Roll Call that PAID had received $650,000 in "earmark grants" sponsored by Murtha in 2003 and 2004, but the group's access to the funding was restricted because PAID had significant turnover and "did not have anyone qualified to make decisions or sign off on invoices." The FBI thought PAID may have been set up simply to provide a financial cushion for Scialabba, who was apparently having financial troubles. While the names in the documents obtained by CREW are redacted, the description matches Scialabba, and tax liens noted in the document match liens against Scialabba. "If PAID was set-up for the purpose of unjustly enriching , it appears that and Murtha may have engaged in a conspiracy that could potentially violate federal statutes," the FBI file reads. Federal tax forms filed by PAID do not indicate any salary for Scialabba, so it is not clear how the group might have benefited him. PAID is no longer in business. Its phone has been disconnected, and a receptionist in the building where the group had its office said that PAID moved out in February 2010 -- the same month Murtha died. Scialabba has never been charged in the case, and phone messages left on what appears to be his home phone were not returned. Criminal Convictions Aeptec and KSA were also at the center of the one Murtha earmark that resulted in criminal convictions. By 2004, Murtha had helped Aeptec secure millions in earmarks, and in April of that year, the Congressman announced the opening of a new building in Indiana, Pa., that Aeptec would occupy. At the time, Aeptec's lobbyists at KSA included Stalder, Scialabba and Kit Murtha. But later that year, someone discovered a problem with Aeptec. "They were outsourcing to Taiwan," Stalder told Roll Call in a June 2007 interview. A Murtha spokesman told Roll Call in 2009, "there was an import/export issue that had involved Aeptec, and when this was brought to light, they disappeared as a company." By the end of 2004, KSA had terminated its relationship with Aeptec, and in early 2005 -- with Murtha as ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense -- the House approved a supplemental defense spending bill with a technical amendment that stripped the firm's funding. The technical amendment directed the Pentagon to transfer $8.2 million from Aeptec projects to a program known as the "Mobile Common Data Link Gateway." That project was an earmark for Coherent Systems Inc., another KSA client. The Mobile Gateway earmark money ended up scattered among companies that had close ties to KSA. In 2009, the Justice Department filed charges against Coherent CEO Richard Ianieri, alleging that he had used money from the Mobile Gateway project to buy products unrelated to the contract from several companies, including KSA clients VidiaFusion and Gensym. VidiaFusion had no website, no telephone number and no email address. The address listed for VidiaFusion on the lobbying registration form submitted by KSA is a condominium building in West Palm Beach, Fla. The Florida secretary of state has no record of a company called VidiaFusion. The government charged that Ianieri paid VidiaFusion $274,660 for "software" that was unrelated to the Gateway project and was never used. Ianieri also transferred $300,000 to Gensym, another KSA client, which was passing funding through to a subcontractor called Applied Technology. The FBI described Applied Technology as "an example of a KSA-created business that acquired federal earmarks and has no legitimate purpose." The FBI records indicate two KSA lobbyists were on the Applied Technology payroll, though their names have been redacted. Ianieri pleaded guilty to filing false purchase orders and accepting a kickback from another company close to Murtha, Kuchera Defense Systems, and was sentenced to a fine and probation. Coherent did deliver to the Air Force a vehicle-based communications system envisioned in the original "Mobile Gateway" earmark. Mark O'Hair, an Air Force contracting official who oversaw the Gateway contracts, and contractor Richard Schaller, who was paid by Ianieri, both went to jail for their roles in the scheme, but nobody else was ever charged. There is no evidence that the FBI conducted a serious probe of who in Murtha's office might have known about the bogus earmarks. Roll Call reported in March 2010 that KSA had folded. Stalder and other KSA lobbyists appear to have created a new firm called Edge Solutions, but the phone number at that office is now disconnected and emails sent to Edge Solutions went unanswered. Potential Cases Not Pursued The FBI files uncovered by CREW offer a tantalizing array of hints of other possible malfeasance. Federal agents had begun investigating Murtha in 2007 upon hearing allegations that the PMA Group, a lobbying firm run by former defense appropriations staffer Paul Magliocchetti, had paid for Murtha to have a driver. The PMA Group was raided by the FBI in February 2008, and the firm shut down the following year. Magliocchetti is serving a 27-month prison sentence for running a scheme to reimburse friends, family members and colleagues for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of campaign contributions to Murtha and other Members of Congress. The FBI investigation also suggested that a staff member in Murtha's office may have failed to disclose thousands of dollars in income and assets on her annual financial disclosure forms; that money from Murtha's campaign fund may have been used to buy guns for the personal use of another Murtha staffer; that Murtha may have steered contracts and earmarks to other family members; that staff members may have violated the one-year ban on lobbying Murtha's office after leaving his employ; and that KSA may have run a fraudulent political action committee. There is no evidence in the released documents that the FBI pursed any of these cases. Sloan of CREW said the FBI files prove a long-sought point: "It was as bad as we said it was. It wasn't nothing; it wasn't OK." Nevertheless, America's fighting men and women get to serve on a ship named after the dishonorable Mr Murtha. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1319590432 vicsemprini FBI investigated John Murtha for misuse of funds. John Murtha, corruption, patronage, FBI investigation, fraud, earmarks Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:03:54 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=50f_1318693247 vicsemprini Removing some of the zeroes makes it easier for some to understand. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=50f_1318693247 vicsemprini The S&P downgrade explained national debt, deficit, S&P downgrade, US credit rating, federal spending. Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:30:47 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ddc_1318357282 vicsemprini RomneyCare one of the main reasons Republicans are looking for a consistently conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney's landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney's own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as "Obamacare." The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show. "The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we'd done in Massachusetts," said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. "They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model." Romney has forcefully defended the Massachusetts law he signed, but says he is adamantly against a "one-size-fits-all national health-care system" imposed on all 50 states. "I will repeal Obamacare," he has said. "And on day one of my administration, I will grant a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states." Asked about the White House records, a Romney campaign spokeswoman responded by citing comments that Romney made last April after Obama suggested the White House had borrowed from his law in Massachusetts. "He does me the great favor of saying that I was the inspiration of his plan," Romney said of Obama. "If that's the case, why didn't you call me? ...Why didn't you ask what was wrong? Why didn't you ask if this was an experiment, what worked and what didn't. ... I would have told him, 'What you're doing, Mr. President, is going to bankrupt us.'" The White House visitor logs suggest that, if Obama officials didn't talk directly with Romney, senior presidential aides did consult with others - like Gruber - who played important roles in helping to craft and implement the Massachusetts law. Read the whole thing here . http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ddc_1318357282 vicsemprini Obama White House used Massachusetts' health care law as model for ObamaCare. Romney, Obama, ObamaCare, RomneyCare, heath care reform, Republican nomination, repeal Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:44:56 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=655_1316550964 vicsemprini We told you so: employers are going to drop health care benefits and toss employees into government exchanges. And remember the promise that ObamaCare would REDUCE the deficit? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) premised their ObamaCare score on the assumption that only 7 percent of employers would drop their employee health plans. If the percentage is closer to the 30 percent, as the McKinsey survey results predict, Obamacare's price tag would rise by almost $1 trillion. http://tinyurl.com/6gqln2t http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=655_1316550964 vicsemprini Howard Dean Confirms Obama Lied ObamaCare, Obama, Howard Dean, employer provided health insurance, health care, government exchanges Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:37:30 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f8d_1316470640 vicsemprini Hope & Change(TM) means you can change your mind and hope that enough people don't notice. Still waiting for someone to explain how sucking $1.5 trillion more out of the private sector helps the private sector create jobs. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f8d_1316470640 vicsemprini That Was Then... Obama, taxes, economy Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:31:59 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bd7_1315371918 vicsemprini Give a man a fish, and he'll riot for more free fish. THE POLITICS OF FREE STUFF The folks who are getting free stuff, Don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, Because the folks who are paying for the free stuff, Can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff. And, The folks who are paying for the free stuff, Want the free stuff to stop. And the folks who are getting the free stuff, Want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they're getting already. Now the people who are forcing people to pay for the free stuff, Have told the people who are receiving the free stuff, That the people who are paying for the free stuff, Are being mean, prejudiced and racist. So, the people who are getting the free stuff, Have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff because they are selfish. And they are promised more free stuff if they will vote for the people who force the people who pay for the free stuff to to give them even more free stuff. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bd7_1315371918 vicsemprini The American Entitlement Debate entitlements, welfare, redistribution, taxes, fair share, Atlas Shrugged Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:57:51 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=689_1314996302 vicsemprini Babysitting bill in Calif. Legislature How will parents react when they find out they will be expected to provide workers' compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time for...babysitters? Dinner and a movie night may soon become much more complicated. Assembly Bill 889 (authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will require these protections for all "domestic employees," including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers. The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature - and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor's desk. Under AB 889, household "employers" (aka "parents") who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck. Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers - from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.) Unfortunately, the unreasonable costs and risks contained in this bill will discourage folks from hiring housekeepers, nannies and babysitters and increase the use of institutionalized care rather than allowing children, the sick or elderly to be cared for in their homes. I can't help but wonder if that is the goal of AB 889 - a terrible bill that needs to be stopped. More information on the text and status of the bill can be accessed from my webpage at http://senate.ca.gov/lamalfa The text of the bill can be seen here . http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=689_1314996302 vicsemprini California Moonbats Move to Regulate Babysitting Out of Existence California, Democrats, San Francisco, regulation, masochism, babysitters, job killers, teenage jobs, unemployment Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:21:50 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=02a_1313639569 vicsemprini Obama takes Michael Moore's advice and goes Stalinist on S&P. Making an example of S&P could be part of a long term strategy of discouraging any institutions from making substantive or consequential criticisms of US debt levels. US Inquiry Eyes S&P Ratings of Mortgages By: Louise Story http://tinyurl.com/3wkg4nr The Justice Department is investigating whether the nation's largest credit ratings agency, Standard & Poor's, improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, according to two people interviewed by the government and another briefed on such interviews. The investigation began before Standard & Poor's cut the United States' AAA credit rating this month, but it is likely to add fuel to the political firestorm that has surrounded that action. Lawmakers and some administration officials have since questioned the agency's secretive process, its credibility and the competence of its analysts, claiming to have found an error in its debt calculations. In the mortgage inquiry, the Justice Department has been asking about instances in which the company's analysts wanted to award lower ratings on mortgage bonds but may have been overruled by other S.& P. business managers, according to the people with knowledge of the interviews. If the government finds enough evidence to support such a case, which is likely to be a civil case, it could undercut S.& P.'s longstanding claim that its analysts act independently from business concerns. It is unclear if the Justice Department investigation involves the other two ratings agencies, Moody's and Fitch, or only S&P. During the boom years, S.& P. and other ratings agencies reaped record profits as they bestowed their highest ratings on bundles of troubled mortgage loans, which made the mortgages appear less risky and thus more valuable. They failed to anticipate the deterioration that would come in the housing market and devastate the financial system. Since the crisis, the agencies' business practices and models have been criticized from many corners, including in Congressional hearings and reports that have raised questions about whether independent analysis was corrupted by the drive for profits. The Securities and Exchange Commission has also been investigating possible wrongdoing at S.& P., according to a person interviewed on that matter, and may be looking at the other two major agencies, Moody's and Fitch Ratings. Ed Sweeney, a spokesman for S.& P., said in an e-mail: "S.& P. has received several requests from different government agencies over the last few years. We continue to cooperate with these requests. We do not prevent such agencies from speaking with current or former employees." S.& P. is a unit of the McGraw-Hill Companies, which is under pressure from some investors and has been considering whether to spin off businesses or make other strategic changes this summer. The people with knowledge of the investigation said it had picked up steam early this summer, well before the debt rating issue reached a high pitch in Washington. Now members of Congress are investigating why S.& P. removed the nation's AAA rating, which is highly important to financial markets. Representatives of the Justice Department and the S.E.C. declined to comment, as is customary for those departments, on whether they are investigating the ratings agencies. Even though the Justice Department has the power to bring criminal charges, witnesses who have been interviewed have been told by investigators that they are pursuing a civil case. The government has brought relatively few cases against large financial concerns for their roles in the housing blowup, and it has closed investigations into Washington Mutual and Countrywide, among others, without taking action. The cases that have been brought are mainly civil matters. In the spring, the Justice Department filed a civil suit against Deutsche Bank and one of its units, which the government said had misrepresented the quality of mortgage loans to obtain government insurance on them. Another common thread -- in that case and several others -- is that no bank executives were named. Despite the public scrutiny and outcry over the ratings agencies' failures in the financial crisis, many investors still rely heavily on ratings from the three main agencies for their purchases of sovereign and corporate debt, as well as other complex financial products. Companies and some countries -- but not the United States -- pay the agencies to receive a rating, the financial market's version of a seal of approval. For decades, the government issued rules that banks, mutual funds and others could rely on a AAA stamp for investing decisions -- which bolstered the agencies' power. A successful case or settlement against a giant like S.& P. could accelerate the shift away from the traditional ratings system. The financial reform overhaul known as Dodd-Frank sought to decrease the emphasis on ratings in the way banks and mutual funds invest their assets. But bank regulators have been slow to spell out how that would work. A government case that showed problems beyond ineptitude might spur greater reforms, financial historians said. In particular, Professor Sylla said that the ratings agencies could be forced to stop making their money off the entities they rate and instead charge investors who use the ratings. The current business model, critics say, is riddled with conflicts of interest, since ratings agencies might make their grades more positive to please their customers. Before the financial crisis, banks shopped around to make sure rating agencies would award favorable ratings before agreeing to work with them. These banks paid upward of $100,000 for ratings on mortgage bond deals, according to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, and several hundreds of thousands of dollars for the more complex structures known as collateralized debt obligations. Ratings experts also said that a successful case could hamper the agencies' ability to argue that they were not liable for ratings that turned out to be wrong. "Their story is that they should be protected by full First Amendment protections, and that would be harder to make in the public arena, in Congress and in the courts," said Lawrence J. White, another professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, who has testified alongside ratings executives before Congress. "If they mixed business and the ratings, it would certainly make their story harder to tell." The ratings agencies lost a bit of ground on their First Amendment protections in the recent financial reform bill, which put the ratings firms on the same legal liability level as accounting firms, Professor White said. But that has yet to be tested in court. People with knowledge of the Justice Department investigation of S.& P. said investigators had made references to several individuals, though it was unclear if anyone would be named in any potential case. Investigators have been asking about a remark supposedly made by David Tesher about mortgage security ratings, two people said. The investigators have asked witnesses if they heard Mr. Tesher say: "Don't kill the golden goose," in reference to mortgage securities. S.& P. declined to provide a comment for Mr. Tesher. Several of the people who oversaw S.& P.'s mortgage-related ratings went on to different jobs at McGraw-Hill, including Joanne Rose, the former head of structured finance; Vickie Tillman, the former head of ratings; and Susan Barnes, former head of residential mortgage bond ratings. Investigators have told witnesses that they are looking for former employees and that has proved difficult because so many crucial people still work at the company. One former executive who has been mentioned in investigators' interviews is Richard Gugliada, who helped oversee ratings of collateralized debt obligations. Calls to his home were not returned. "I think it would have a major impact if there was a successful fraud case that would suggest there would be momentum for legislation that would force them to change their business model," said Richard Sylla, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business who has studied the history of ratings firms. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=02a_1313639569 vicsemprini Release the hounds, Smithers: Obama sets Justice Department on S&P after downgrade Obama, Stalinism, Justice Department, Eric Holder, abuse of power, retribution, national debt, credit rating, downgrade