Revealing the Truth about the Democratic Party...Share Away

by Frantz Emmanuel Kebreau on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 12:23pm

I have done extensive research on the subject because at one point, I was a Democrat. A few years ago, I was confronted with a fact that I knew to be false but after an investigation into the point, it turned out to be true. It was that Martin Luther King was a Republican.

This of course forced me to extend my research into other areas. What else could this Political Science Major be unaware of? The Truth became stranger than fiction. The list is quite long so here we go.

President Kennedy had little intention of enacting a Comprehensive Civil Rights Law during his 2 years in office. Tensions in society were running so high due to the riots and such that by the 1963 State of the Union address he had no other choice but to enact some kind of Law. Mind you, for the previous 100 years, it had only been the Republican Party who had supported any Civil Rights Legislations (I was not aware of these facts until I was 35 years old);

13th Amendment: 100% Republican Support Abolished Slavery

23% Democratic Support

14th Amendment 94% Republican Support Slaves to be Citizens

0% Democratic Support

15th Amendment 100% Republican Support Right to Vote for All

0% Democratic Support

CRA 1866 Enacted by the Republican Party Equal Rights

CRA 1871 Enacted by the Republican Party Anti-KKK

CRA 1875 99% Republican Support Anti-Discrimination

0% Democratic Support

-----------It took another 82 years until the next Civil Rights Act---------

-----------The Democratic Party blocked every attempt to equalize citizens of color-----

CRA 1957 Enacted by the Eisenhower (R) Administration

Then Senator Kennedy Voted against this Bill

Filibustered by Democrats

CRA 1960 Enacted by the Eisenhower (R) Administration

The final version was watered down by then Senator LBJ

Filibustered by the Democrats

CRA 1964 82% Republican Support

63% Democratic Support

CRA 1965 87% Republican Support

Voting Rights 75% Democratic Support

I do not want the “government” to treat me any differently than any other citizen. Therefore, I consider equality of opportunity and equal voting rights to be the summation of Civil Rights in America. If anything extra is afforded me or anyone else merely due to the color of their skin, I consider that to be an entitlement and patronizing.

Given my above statement, the Democratic Party, even if you sectionalize them by North and South, has never outvoted the Republican Party in any Civil Rights Law…Ever. The actual numbers play out like this;

Lifetime Republican Party support for Equal Rights for all Citizens: 94%

Lifetime Democratic Party Support for Equal rights for all Citizens: 35%

Now to the point of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was a proposal that the Republican Party, during the Eisenhower Administration attempted to put forth but alas, their efforts resulted in the first Civil Rights Law in the previous 82 years…The Civil Rights Act of 1957 formed a Commission on Civil Rights. The Plan of the Commission was to eventually enact the very Comprehensive Law of 1964. Remember, this was the Bill that Senator JFK voted against, for political aspirations I’m sure.

JFK had his Justice department write the original Bill in early 1963. The first version passed the House but stalled in the Senate. Everett McKinley Dirksen (R), the minority leader in the Senate took it upon himself to REWRITE the entire Bill. It took him 1 weekend and he had 2 helpers, 1 Democrat and another Republican.

The final version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was written by a Republican which means that since the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, every Civil Rights Law was written by a Republican with more Republican support than Democratic Party Support.

Due to Dirksen’s tenacity, a cloture vote was successful and the Senate passed the Bill. It then passed the Houses and became Law.

Some notes about its passage;

Robert Byrd (D) filibustered the Bill…the longest filibuster in American History

William Fulbright (D) voted against the Bill. He was Bill Clinton’s mentor.

Al Gore Sr. (D) voted against the Bill

Speaking to two Governors on Air Force One, then President LB Johnson was quoted saying, “"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." according Ronald Kessler's Book in relation to the Law.

So now let’s explore the Dixicrats. This has always been misrepresented. I wrote about it in my book, and I also made a video of it. Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdJsPsU55PM

The big question is, did the South really turn “Red” after the CRA of 1964? Well, I researched that also and found the following conclusions.

Presidential Elections (covering “The Solid South”)

The 11 Former Confederate States

Year Blue States Red States

1964 6 5

1968 6 (Segregationist Wallace took 5) 5

1972 Landslide

1976 Landslide

1980 Landslide

1984 Landslide

1988 Landslide

1992 4 7

1996 4 7

2000 0 11

2004 0 11

2008 3 8

At least in Presidential elections, the Solid South wasn’t so “solid” until at least the year 2000 or 36 years after the CRA of 1964.

Now let’s take a look at the Governorships.

Governorships since 1964

(The 11 former “Confederate States”)

State Blue Red Years until a “Red” Gov. was elected

Georgia 7 2 39 years

Mississippi 8 2 28 years

Alabama 9 3 23 years

Louisiana 6 4 16 years

Texas 5 4 15 years

South Carolina 5 5 11 years

Arkansas 9 3 9 years

North Carolina 7 2 9 years

Tennessee 5 4 7 years

Virginia 7 5 6 years

Florida 7 5 3 years

Total 75 39

That’s almost 2 to 1 Blue over Red. I looked at the facts and not the rhetoric. The facts point to a different conclusion all together. The South did not become “Solid Red” after the CRA of 1964.

After finding out that both Martin Luther King Sr. and Jr. were Republicans, I tend to deal only in facts and not with what I’ve been told.

Last Points

My former party, The Democratic Party says that they are for the “minority”. In this case, I’ll just say “blacks”. I believe in neither black nor minority but I defer to their thinking for this discussion. If that’s the case, then how could the following piece of history have been erased?

Ninety-nine percent of the country does not know the name Hiram Rhodes Revels. Here is his story and why the Democrats are not for “black” people.

At the end of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was captured and subsequently imprisoned for 2 years. Prior to this time period, Mr. Davis was a Senator from the State of Mississippi. In 1870, the State of Mississippi filled the vacant post of Mr. Davis with one Hiram Rhodes Revels. The curious fact behind this exchange is that now Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels did not only replace the President of the Confederacy, but he was also the First Black Senator in U.S. History…and virtually nobody knows his name.

One last point to explain this lack of universal knowledge…Jefferson Davis, The President of the Confederacy was a Democrat and his replacement, Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels, was a Republican. Democratic leadership today will never share that history with their constituents of which I once was. That led me to believe that the Democratic Party is more interested in my vote than the Truth.

It gets bit deeper. 13 former slaves became members of Congress between 1870 and 1901. We as a nation killed our own citizens in a Civil War to FREE 4 Million slaves. 13 of those freed slaves became members of the U.S. Congress and the history books are silent to this fact. 640,000 Americans died in that war and the result was transformational yet, this groundbreaking and profound history is never taught in “left” leaning schools because it does not serve their agenda. All 13 of the former slaves were Republicans. I had to sift through the Library of Congress to reveal the following information…here it is for you in a video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5O2IVfz8a0

My belief is that the Party’s did not change. The tactics changed. They went from Pro-Slavery to Pro-Segregation to Pro-Entitlement, all of which results in nothing beneficial for the prosperity of an individual and is considered by many of my ilk, “Plantation Politics”.

All I want is the Truth and to be treated as an equal, no more and no less; as an equal. I do not need the Democratic Party telling me that I’m “black” or that I’m a minority who needs their assistance. I am not a color. I am Frantz Kebreau, an American Citizen.

For the Democratic Party, it has always been about “Control” over Freedom. Keeping the Truth from it’s constituents in order to maintain control over them is not what I want from my “Party”

Frantz Kebreau

CEO, Stolen History

Author of Stolen History

www.Frantzkebreau.com

If you would like more information, please take a look at the “Stolen History” Book and Audio versions at the link below.

http://frantzkebreau.mybigcommerce.com/index.php

“The Truth Shall Set You Free!!”

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER - Associated Press | AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.

The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.

Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.

"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, 'But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting,' which is also the case."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.

"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.

IRS Data Show Most Millionaires Pay Taxes at Higher Rate Than Middle Class

AP

President Obama gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington Sept. 19.

President Obama and his advisers are presenting the "Buffett Rule" as the cure for an epidemic of millionaire tax scofflaws, but national statistics show millionaires by and large are paying taxes at a much higher rate than middle-class families.

And their income taxes make up a significant portion of the federal budget pie.

Data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center show households pulling in more than $1 million pay about 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes. By contrast, households making between $50,000 and $75,000 pay about 15 percent.

The so-called Buffett Rule has become the political centerpiece of the president's deficit-reduction program. Named after Warren Buffett, the provision would ensure people making more than $1 million a year pay taxes at a higher rate than the middle class.

The president proposed the rule after Buffett complained he was paying taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. Democrats said he's not the only one -- according to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's office, 22,000 people who make over $1 million a year pay taxes at a rate of less than 15 percent. According to the IRS, nearly 1,500 households reporting more than $1 million in income paid no federal income taxes in 2009.

That's out of about 236,000 returns for income above $1 million, most of which belong to households paying taxes at a higher rate. And, as would be expected, they contribute a disproportionate share of tax toward federal coffers.

IRS statistics for tax year 2009 show the millionaires -- who make up a fraction of a percent of all taxpayers -- contributed more than 20 percent of total federal income tax revenue. That's about $180 billion in taxes from millionaires, according to number-crunching from the National Taxpayers Union.

The National Taxpayers Union also found that in 2008 the top 1 percent of American taxpayers paid 38 percent of collections for personal federal income tax while they represented 20 percent of all income.

For those wealthy Americans paying taxes at a seemingly low rate, it could be because they earn income overseas or because a large part of annual income is from investments. Though corporate profits are taxed at 35 percent, in the form of capital gains and dividends they are taxed at 15 percent. Senate testimony in May from the Tax Foundation also showed that for taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year, their salary income made up just 20 percent of national salary income. Much more came from business income.

In total, the Obama deficit-reduction package would seek to raise taxes, mostly on high-income households, by $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

About half of that is from letting the Bush tax cuts expire for households making more than $250,000. Other changes would strip tax breaks for oil and gas companies and other benefits.

The White House would not say how much might be raised from the Buffett Rule or how it would be implemented.

But the Buffett Rule quickly became the rallying cry for the president's plan. In an email to supporters sent Monday night, the campaign urged voters to get the president's back on the plan.

"This proposal makes sure millionaires and billionaires share the responsibility for reducing the deficit," the email said. "The other side is already saying it's 'class warfare' -- that's their rhetorical smokescreen for providing millionaires and billionaires special treatment."

But Republican Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels told Fox News the president's proposal appeared to be "purposely divisive."

"As a practical matter, it's a loser," he said, describing the plan as "hair-of-the-dog economics."

"You know people that have had way too much of something they shouldn't and there's always somebody who says have another one, it'll make you feel better -- it just doesn't work any better in this case," Daniels said.

Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal said the problem is spending and described the president's proposal as not serious.

"He doesn't get it," Jindal told Fox News.

The president's plan was presented as a proposal to the bipartisan "super committee" trying to find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings by Thanksgiving.

The plan includes more than just tax hikes. It covers $580 billion in cuts to entitlement and other federal programs, including to Medicare and Medicaid. The president also claimed $1.1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- a claim that has been dismissed as a budgetary gimmick in the past. If the war savings are counted alongside interest savings and the cuts Congress enacted in August, the president's plan is worth than $4 trillion over the next decade.

While Republicans slammed the proposal as divisive and unworkable, some Democrats applauded the president for asking the wealthy to pay more while shielding Medicare seniors and other entitlement program beneficiaries from more severe cutbacks.

"With the wealthiest people in this country becoming wealthier and large corporations enjoying huge profits, it is time that we end tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations and have them pay their fair share," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a statement.

"We call on Congress to immediately pass the president's proposal for job-creating investments, to ask the wealthy to start paying their fair share, to focus on the true causes of our long-term deficits, to reject any cuts to Medicaid or Social Security or Medicare benefits, and to stop scapegoating federal and postal employees and retirees for problems they did not cause," AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Ghastly New 'Fees' Found in Obama Tax Plan

AP File

By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's not just millionaires who'd pay more under President Barack Obama's latest plan to combat the deficit.

Air travelers, federal workers, military retirees, wealthier Medicare beneficiaries and people taking out new mortgages are among those who would pay more than $130 billion in government revenues raised through new or increased fees.

Airline passengers would see their federal security fees double from $5 to $10 for a nonstop round-trip flight and triple to $15 by 2017, raising $25 billion over the coming decade. Federal workers would face an additional 1.2 percentage point deduction from their paychecks to contribute $21 billion more for their pensions over the same period. Military retirees would pay a $200 fee upon turning 65 to have the government pay their out-of-pocket Medicare expenses. They'd also pay more for non-generic prescription drugs.

And it'll cost corporate jet owners a new $100 fee for each flight.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

NASA

The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."

Solyndra Not Sole Firm to Hit Rock Bottom Despite Stimulus Funding

AP

In this May 26, 2010, file photo, President Obama, with Solyndra Chief Executive Officer Chris Gronet, looks at a solar panel during a tour of Solyndra, Inc., a solar panel manufacturing facility, in Fremont, Calif.

Solyndra, the solar panel company whose highly publicized failure and consequent investigation by federal authorities has flashed across headlines recently, isn't the only business to go belly up after benefiting from a piece of the $800 billion economic stimulus package passed in 2009.

At least four other companies have received stimulus funding only to later file for bankruptcy, and two of those were working on alternative energy.

Evergreen Solar Inc., indirectly received $5.3 million through a state grant to open a $450 million facility in 2007 that employed roughly 800 people. The company, once a rock star in the solar industry, filed for bankruptcy protection last month, saying it couldn't compete with Chinese rivals without reorganizing. The company intends to focus on building up its manufacturing facility in China.

SpectraWatt, based in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., is also a solar cell company that was spun out of Intel in 2008. In June 2009, SpectraWatt received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package. SpectraWatt was one of 13 companies to receive the money to help develop ways to improve solar cells without changing current manufacturing processes.

The company filed for bankruptcy last month, saying it could not compete with its Chinese competitors, which receive "considerable government and financial support."

On Tuesday, Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman wrote an editorial for "USA Today" in which he blamed China in part for the failure of U.S. solar energy manufacturers to compete.

"Winning will require substantial investments. Last year, for example, the China Development Bank offered more than $30 billion in financing to Chinese solar manufacturers, about 20 times more than U.S.-backed loans to solar manufacturers," Poneman wrote.

"Unfortunately, expanding production has coincided with short-term softening demand, a product of the banking crisis in Europe and its wider economic effects. The combination has had a dramatic effect on the price of solar cells, which has plummeted 42 percent in the past nine months. This has taken a serious toll on solar manufacturers everywhere, including the U.S," he continued.

On Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney noted that the U.S. is on track to double its renewable energy production in 2012, but it will require commitment in the U.S. to grow.

"We have a choice to make as a nation, because we will be buying renewable energy products, you know, whether it's wind, biofuel, solar, whether alternative -- rather, you know, advanced battery technology, we're going to be buying that stuff. Do we want to buy it with a stamp on it that says 'Made in America' or are we going to buy it from the Chinese or from other countries?" Carney asked.

"We have to be aggressive in competing in the global economy. And, you know, high-tech clean-energy industries are going to be key to winning this century economically."

But Republicans balk at claims that the Obama administration can decide which companies are winners or losers, and questioned a plan to approve $10 billion more in loans before the stimulus program expires.

"Solar panels have been subsidized by the federal government. States' governments are also subsidizing or giving taxpayers write-off on their tax return. And yet, these solar panels cannot make it in the competitive world without all these subsidies. And even with them, China is flooding the market with this cheap labor and the solar panels just don't make sense," House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns R-Fla., told Fox News.

"So I think the administration is on this fervent religion of green jobs and clinging to the idea that solar panel is the answer and it is not the answer," he said.

Another winner of stimulus who ultimately lost is Mountain Plaza Inc. Despite declaring bankruptcy in 2003, the company received $424,000 from the Tennessee Department of Transportation as part of a grant aimed at installing "truck stop electrification" systems that allow idling truckers to plug-in during extended stops and turn off their exhaust-belching, environment polluting diesel engines.

Mountain Plaza had filed for bankruptcy protection again in June 2010. TDOT, which received a $2 million stimulus grant from the Environmental Protection Agency for the project, said it didn't learn about the bankruptcy until October, but it is closely monitoring the project.

Elsewhere, Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Co. also failed despite Olsen's Mills receiving $10 million to increase employment, add equipment and machinery, refinance existing debts and work capital for operations and acquire land. The payout -- part of a $64 million package to nine rural businesses in Wisconsin for economic development loan assistance -- was delivered in January 2010, after Olsen's Mills filed for bankruptcy protection for defaulting on a $60 million bank loan.

Another Obama Solar Company Files For Bankruptcy

The hits just keep on coming. Solar Trust files for bankruptcy


Associated Press

WILMINGTON, Del. — A California solar energy company that was unable to meet a deadline for an Energy Department loan guarantee last year has sought bankruptcy protection in Delaware.

Solar Trust of America’s Chapter 11 filing on Monday listed assets between $1 million and $10 million, and liabilities between $10 million and $50 million.

The filing comes amid the ongoing controversy surrounding Solyndra, a solar firm that received a half-billion dollar federal loan and was touted by the Obama administration before declaring bankruptcy last year.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and California Gov. Jerry Brown were on hand last June when Solar Trust broke ground on a 1,000-megawatt project in California. The project was touted as the world’s largest solar power plant and a keystone of the Obama administration’s efforts to promote solar energy

Ken Salazar and Jerry Brown at the groundbreaking last year saying "this is only the beginning" Flashback June 17, 2011

Fast and Furious update: 3 more murders tied to Gunwalker

By Michelle Malkin • September 14, 2011 09:18 PM

Bloodier and bloodier it gets.

America, please pay attention. This is the deadliest, most dangerous scandal of the scandal-plagued Obama administration. GOP investigators and House and Senate watchdogs are doing all they can. Whistleblowers inside ATF and gun shop dealers across the country have risked their lives and livelihoods to tell the truth. They need your attention, support, and outrage to force real accountability — not Kabuki shuffles — on the White House.

Read, share, act. Via CBS News:

Weapons linked to ATF’s controversial “Fast and Furious” operation have been tied to at least eight violent crimes in Mexico including three murders, four kidnappings and an attempted homicide.

According to a letter from U.S. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the disclosed incidents may be only a partial list of violent crimes linked to Fast and Furious weapons because “ATF has not conducted a comprehensive independent investigation.”

When added to the guns found at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in the U.S., the newly-revealed murders in Mexico bring the total number of deaths linked to Fast and Furious to four.

According to the Justice Department letter:

One AK-47 type assault rifle purchased by a Fast and Furious suspect was recovered Nov. 14, 2009 in Atoyac de Alvarez, Mexico after the Mexican military rescued a kidnap victim.

On July 1, 2010, two AK-47 type assault rifles purchased by Fast and Furious suspects were recovered in Sonora, Mexico after a shootout between cartels. Two murders were reported in the incident using the weapons.

Pay attention. The key phrase in the report is “AT LEAST.”

How much higher does the death toll need to reach before someone, anyone, gets FIRED?

Related: Power Line explains the coordinated smear campaign against Issa.

David Codrea keeps the spotlight on Tampa and Operation Castaway.

Plus: DOJ still stonewalling FOIA requests.

Check Sipsey Street Irregulars for all the latest.

Go ahead, Attack Watch. DARE you to mention Fast and Furious and smear these brave whistleblowers. Dare you.

CBO Sees Slower Growth, Continued Unemployment

Reuters

The U.S. economy will grow slower than anticipated and joblessness will stay high as the fallout of the deepest recession since the Great Depression takes its toll, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

In testimony to a ``super committee'' of Congress weighing deficit-reduction steps, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said the non-partisan agency sees economic growth of around 1.5 percent this year and 2.5 percent in 2012. That's down from CBO's August estimate of 2.3 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively.

The U.S. unemployment rate, CBO said, now at 9.1 percent, will remain ``close to 9 percent through the end of 2012,'' Elmendorf said. Last month, CBO estimated joblessness at 8.9 percent this year, falling to 8.5 percent in 2012.

U.S. claims bigger share of health coverage market

by Paige Winfield Cunningham

Published on September 13, 2011

Fewer people received insurance coverage through their employer in 2010 than in 2009, and the number of people covered through government insurance programs continued to rise, according to 2010 data reported Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

It's a trend that started a decade ago, as costs continue to rise and make it harder for employers to offer coverage to their workers. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that since 1999 family premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage have increased by 131 percent.

"Over the last 10 years, private health insurance has continuously decreased," said Brett O'Hara, chief of the Census Bureau's Health and Disability Statistics Branch. "The number of people covered by government programs has increased for the fourth consecutive year."

According to the data, employment-based coverage dropped by 1.5 million, while the number of people covered by government programs rose by 1.8 million and now stands at 31 percent of the population.

Census data also indicated that while the number of Americans without health insurance coverage rose to 49.9 million in 2010 from 49 million 2009, the percentage of uninsured remained steady at 16.3 percent. Similarly, the percentage and number of people covered by Medicaid — 15.9 percent and 48.6 million — did not change, despite the economic recession.

The census report covered health insurance, income and poverty.

The bureau found that the poverty rate has grown 2.6 percentage points since 2007, to reach 15.1 percent last year. It's the highest level since 1993.

It also marks the second-highest increase in poverty on record for a year after a recession ended, following the 1980 recession.

• Stephen Dinan contributed to this article.

U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

The U.S. poverty rate rose to the highest level in almost two decades and household income fell in 2010, underscoring the lingering impact of the worst economic slump in seven decades.

Data released by the Census Bureau today showed the proportion of people living in poverty climbed to 15.1 percent last year from 14.3 percent in 2009, and median household income declined 2.3 percent. The number of Americans living in poverty was the highest in the 52 years since the U.S. Census Bureau began gathering that statistic. Those figures may have worsened in recent months as the economy weakened.

“Families are struggling to put food on the table, and they don’t have the purchasing power to help the economy recover,” said Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Stagnating incomes and rising poverty will be at the heart of the 2012 presidential campaign that’s focusing on joblessness and will give added urgency to debates in Washington and statehouses across the U.S. over budget cuts to programs designed to protect families from hardship.

The ranks of people in poverty increased to 46.2 million from 43.6 million. The last time the poverty rate reached 15.1 percent was in 1993. It climbed to 15.2 percent in 1983. Median household income in 2010 was $49,445, down from $50,599 the year before.

Health Coverage

The number of those lacking health insurance increased to 49.9 million from 49 million, or about 16.3 percent of the population, a change the bureau said wasn’t statistically significant.

The income figures declined even as the U.S. economy expanded 3 percent in 2010. Growth has slowed this year to an annual rate of less than 1 percent, sparking concern that the financial struggles of families will continue to worsen and hamper the recovery.

U.S. households have little to cheer about as job creation stagnated last month and hourly wages retreated. The unemployment rate has hovered at or above 9 percent for more than two years. Consumer confidence fell to the second-lowest level this year for the week that ended Sept. 4.

“We would have hoped to have begun to climb out by now in terms of income and poverty rates, and that doesn’t seem to be happening,” said Sawhill, who was associate director of the White House budget office under President Bill Clinton.

Third Straight Increase

It was the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate, a trend that won’t reverse itself without “concerted action” on the part of policy makers, said Melissa Boteach, who leads a campaign to reduce poverty at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based research group with ties to the Obama administration.

“The numbers should be a wake-up call to our elected officials that we need to act immediately to invest in job creation and protect vulnerable families,” she said.

Since the low point in the labor market downturn in February 2010, nonfarm payrolls have increased by 1.9 million, showing that without stronger growth, it will take years to recoup about 8.7 million jobs lost as a result of the recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.

The jobless rate rose to 9.6 percent in 2010 from 9.3 percent in 2009. Long-term unemployment, the percent of those without a job for 27 weeks or longer, increased to 43 percent from 31 percent, according to the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute.

Impact on Families

The figures “tell us how the changing economic conditions have really impacted the American family.” said Robert Groves, director of the U.S. Census Bureau, on a conference call with reporters.

President Barack Obama has proposed a $447 billion jobs bill. Yesterday he urged Congress to act on the proposal, which includes a cut in payroll taxes, spending to improve the nation’s infrastructure and aid to states to keep teachers and emergency workers employed.

The 2010 figures are part of an annual report on income, poverty and health insurance released by the Census Bureau. The data are based on a survey of about 100,000 addresses that’s used as the primary source of figures about the nation’s labor force.

Struggling to Make Ends Meet

The data show that in 2010, a year when corporate profits were soaring and the economy was pulling out of recession, middle-class Americans continued to see their fortunes decline. The earnings of women who worked full time were about 77 percent of those of men, about the same gap as in 2009.

“Even in good economic times, the number of Americans who were struggling to make ends meet and had declining income was going in the wrong direction,” said Boteach. “People are right to have some frustration that the economic gains of the last decade, when they were happening, weren’t shared.”

Since 2007, the year before the recession, median household income has fallen 6.4 percent, the census bureau said.

The growing poverty rate is likely to become an element of budget fights in Washington as a special committee of lawmakers looks to trim $1.5 trillion from the U.S. deficit during the next decade, and it may give momentum to calls from Democrats to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

“Some in Congress have proposed cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid, which were effective in keeping millions of people insured and above the poverty line at a time of widespread job loss,” said Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.

Worsening Problem

“The data suggest that thoughtless budget-cutting could make problems of rising poverty and uninsurance significantly worse,” he said.

As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2010 was $22,314.

Adding to the woes is the number of Americans without health insurance.

About 256.2 million people had public or private health coverage last year, up from 255.3 million in 2009. The overall percentage of people with insurance didn’t change; the percent with private insurance, rather than coverage by public programs such as Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for the poor, declined a half-percentage point to 64 percent.

Health-Care Fight

The Obama administration took early steps to enact an expansion of health-insurance coverage that Congress passed in March 2010. Republicans want to repeal the measure and have made it a central issue in the presidential campaign.

The health-care overhaul requires most Americans to obtain insurance, and promises coverage either through subsidized private plans or the government’s Medicaid program for people who can’t get insurance at work. The new coverage options won’t be available until 2014.

The number of Americans with private insurance was 195.9 million, unchanged from 2009, the census said. The number enrolled in public programs including Medicaid and Medicare increased to 31 percent, or 95 million, from 93.2 million in 2009.

Medicaid enrolled about 48.6 million people last year, the bureau said, or 15.9 percent of the population. The figures were little changed from 2009.

“The distress the consumers are feeling now is historic in its scope,” said Mark Cole, chief operating officer at CredAbility, a provider of non-profit credit counseling.

An index that tracks the financial condition of the average household published by Atlanta-based CredAbility hit a low in the fourth quarter of 2009. Out of the 31 years CredAbility has measured consumer distress, the worst rankings have occurred in the last 13 quarters.

While many families are cutting back to live within their means, in households that have been hit with job losses “things are not getting better,” Cole said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Catherine Dodge in Washington at cdodge1@bloomberg.net

22 percent of American children lived in poverty last year

More than a fifth of Americans under the age of 18 lived in poverty last year, new U.S. Census figures show.

The poverty rate for children rose from 20.7 percent in 2009 to 22 percent last year, making kids more likely than any other age group to be poor. For children under the age of 6, the picture is even bleaker--25.3 percent of them lived in poverty last year. Overall, 15 percent of Americans were poor last year, the highest rate since 1993. (The poverty line is $22,314 pre-tax income for a family of four, not including non-cash benefits, like food stamps.)

Number of poor hit record 46 million in 2010

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON | Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:36pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans living below the poverty line rose to a record 46 million last year, the government said on Tuesday, underscoring the challenges facing President Barack Obama and Congress as they try to tackle high unemployment and a moribund economy.

The Census Bureau's annual report on income, poverty and health insurance coverage said the national poverty rate climbed for a third consecutive year to 15.1 percent in 2010 as the economy struggled to recover from the recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.

That marked a 0.8 percent increase from 2009, when there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty.

The number of poor Americans in 2010 was the largest in the 52 years that the Census Bureau has been publishing poverty estimates, the report said, while the poverty rate was the highest since 1993.

The specter of economic deterioration also afflicted working Americans who saw their median income decline 2.3 percent to an annual $49,445.

About 1.5 million fewer Americans were covered by employer-sponsored health insurance plans, while the number of people covered by government health insurance increased by nearly 2 million.

All told, the number of Americans with no health insurance hovered at 49.9 million, up slightly from 49 million in 2010.

The economic deterioration depicted by the figures is likely to have continued into 2011 as economic growth diminished, unemployment remained stuck above 9 percent and fears grew of a possible double-dip recession.

The report of rising poverty coincides with Obama's push for a $450 billion job creation package, and deliberations by a congressional "super committee" tasked with cutting at least $1.2 trillion from the budget deficit over 10 years.

Faced with deteriorating job approval ratings, the president is trying to convince Republicans in Congress to support his package.

Analysts said poverty-related issues have relatively little hold on politicians in Washington but hoped the new figures would encourage the bipartisan super committee to avoid deficit cuts that would hurt the poor.

The United States has long had one of the highest poverty rates in the developed world. Among 34 countries tracked by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only Chile, Israel and Mexico have higher rates of poverty.

‘We’re Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn’t Work’

William Beach

January 14, 2009 at 7:28 pm

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

Sound like, oh, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio or some other exasperated Republican stalwart lamenting proposals to spend our way out of the recession?

Listen again:

“I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.”

Sound more like a liberal Democrat pushing job creation — say, Harlem’s Rep. Charlie Rangel?

What about this:

“I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”

Surely this must be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or another leading Democrat denouncing President Bush’s economic policies.

Wrong. Wrong. And wrong again.

The words are those of none other than Henry Morgenthau Jr. — close friend, lunch companion, loyal secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt — and key architect of FDR’s New Deal.

The date: May 9, 1939. The setting: Morgenthau’s appearance in Washington before less influential Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Morgenthau made this “startling confession,” as historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. calls it, during the seventh year of FDR’s New Deal programs to combat the rampant unemployment of the Great Depression.

“In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover,” Folsom writes in his new book, “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.”

Indeed, with those words, Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today: The New Deal was failed public policy. Massive spending on public works programs didn’t erase historic unemployment. It didn’t produce a recovery.

And neither will a “new” New Deal.

Some of the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill about this hard truth. It’s an important truth, nevertheless, especially because the same characters insist that Barack Obama must push through a “bold” economic stimulus that depends on hundreds of billions in new government spending to create or “save” jobs.

Budget and financial experts here at The Heritage Foundation are among cooler heads cautioning that President Obama ought not to repeat President Roosevelt’s mistakes. In one such effort, Heritage last week distributed a chart showing that FDR’s programs didn’t succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.

Some observers — not just hysterical big government junkies but also dispassionate policymakers and news editors — took issue with the unemployment data used by Heritage because they’d seen different numbers elsewhere.

One commentator, Media Matters senior editor Terry Krepel, warns the numbers “appear to be significantly inflated.”

“Leading FDR slanderers,” David Sirota hyperventilates on Huffington Post, “base their claims that unemployment during the New Deal didn’t go below 20 percent by counting government workers as unemployed.”

Sirota, who calls himself a “political journalist,” adds: “And those claims are being echoed by right-wing rags like the National Review and fringe think tanks like The Heritage Foundation.”

If Heritage and our conservative principles are “fringe,” then FDR’s trusted Treasury secretary was what — a duplicitous traitor?

What are we to make of a “journalist” who seriously holds that folks on public assistance must be considered employed — much less “government workers”?

In fact, Heritage plotted New Deal unemployment using widely accepted Census Bureau data, the only “official” numbers compiled at the time. (See page 6 of PDF, Series D, column 10.)

They didn’t count Civilian Conservation Corps workers, prisoners or anyone else who got only “three hots and a cot” as a government employee. Neither does Heritage.

This reasoning remains standard practice today, as George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok blogs, since “people who are on workfare, the modern version of work relief, are also counted as unemployed.”

“[I]f we counted people on work relief as employed,” Tabarrok adds, “then eliminating unemployment would be very easy — just require everyone on any kind of unemployment relief to lick stamps.

“[D]id the fiscal stimulus work to restore the economy and get people back to work? Well, we can’t answer that question using unemployment statistics if we count people on work relief as employed.”

So why the different sets of numbers out there?

Over the years, economists and academics working in good faith calculated “alternative series” of unemployment statistics for the Great Depression years in hopes of painting a more accurate picture. All begin with census data. The alternative numbers, generally showing somewhat lower levels of unemployment, are available on the Web site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Such restatements of unemployment — including a change by BLS that didn’t count “discouraged” job seekers amid President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs of the mid-1960s — tend to lower the jobless rate by shrinking the size of the work force.

During the Depression, though, if you were an able-bodied man you were assumed to be looking for work.

In any case, the statistics preferred by such New Deal acolytes as University of California historian Eric Rauchway reveal that FDR’s policies didn’t drive pre-World War II unemployment below 17 percent in any year except 1937 (estimate: 14.3 percent).

This “new series” of estimates (developed by economist Stanley Lebergott) show joblessness peaking at 24.9 percent in 1933, dropping over the next four years and — under New Deal, Part 2 — shooting back up to 19 percent in 1938. Unemployment then decreased to 14.6 percent in 1940 at the advent of a wartime economy and to 9.9 percent with America’s entry into World War II the following year.

The point is, as the chart above shows, all these trends track the Census Bureau estimates. It was still the worst unemployment our nation has seen. It didn’t get better until the war was on.

We shouldn’t dumb down reality by suggesting suffering and hardship during the Great Depression weren’t so great. Those photographs of long lines outside soup kitchens and desperate men huddled around fires don’t lie. There is no “alternative series” of photos.

So stop bellyaching about the numbers. The New Deal was a failed government policy that emphasized “creating jobs” by spending unjustifiable amounts of taxpayer dollars on infrastructure projects.

Don’t listen to Heritage if you don’t want to. Listen to Henry Morgenthau.

“We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

Ken McIntyre co-wrote this post with Bill Beach.

Tax bills for 5 corporate giants

Wal-Mart Stores: $7.1 billion

U.S. federal: $5.3 billion

U.S. state and local: $677 million

International: $1.1 billion

Before taxes, the world's largest retailer banked $22.1 billion in profit. After deductions and factoring in its international operations, the company still paid just under a third of that back in taxes to various governments.

The federal tax rate for corporations is 35%. Wal-Mart's effective income tax rate came in just under that, at 32.4%

It works the same way for individuals. Just as a person can lower his or her tax rate through deductions and credits, so too can major corporations, said Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation.

But remember, income taxes aren't the only payments major companies make to the IRS. "Wal-Mart probably collects and pays more sales taxes than any other company on earth," Hodge said.

---

Exxon Mobil: $15.1 billion

U.S. federal: -$156 million

U.S. state and local: $110 million

International: $15.2 billion

Exxon paid the most taxes last year of any U.S. company, by far -- but not a cent went to the IRS for income taxes. That's because the oil giant does business in some of the mostly highly taxed countries in the world. Want to extract petroleum in Nigeria? Be prepared to fork over up to 85% of your profit in tax payments.

Exxon doled out more than $15 billion in income tax payments to foreign countries last year. U.S. tax codes allow companies to take massive deductions in light of those international charges, which knocked Exxon's federal income-tax bill down into negative territory.

That said, Uncle Sam gets his money in other ways. Including sales taxes and duties, Exxon recorded $7.7 billion in U.S. tax costs last year, and paid even more overseas.

Its grand total in global taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years.

---

Chevron: $8 billion

U.S. federal: -$19 million

U.S. state and local: $230 million

International: $7.8 billion

Some businesses save money on taxes by logging their biggest profits in low-tax countries. But like Exxon, Chevron has little choice about where it can extract oil. Thanks to the billions it sends overseas, Chevron faced an effective income tax rate of 43% last year.

It's perfectly reasonable, under the tax code, for a company with multinational operations to reduce its U.S. tax bill to $0, said Eric Toder, an institute fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

"In order to avoid having profits taxed in two locations, the host country gets the first bite of the profits," he said.

Think U.S. companies should be paying the U.S. government first? Take it up with lawmakers, not the oil companies.

"There are not as many loopholes in the corporate tax code as people think, and there are legitimate reasons for which these companies pay as much or as little as they do," said Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. "If anybody complains, they should not blame the companies, they should blame Congress -- they wrote the tax code.

---

General Electric: -$1.1 billion

• GE: 7,000 tax returns, $0 U.S. tax bill

GE doesn't break out taxes at the federal, state and international levels.

General Electric didn't have to pay the IRS a dime of income tax in 2009. That's because the company's financial services division lost a boatload of money, giving GE a tax break it used to offset income from its other business lines.

"This is the first time in at least decades that GE has reported negative U.S. pretax income, and it reflects the worst economy since the Great Depression," said Anne Eisele, GE's director of financial communications.

GE also books most of its profit overseas, where it can defer taxes indefinitely. The unusual combination of a U.S. loss and postponed international taxes left GE with a $1.1 billion benefit to its bottom line from taxes -- and an effective tax rate of negative 10.5%, a nice break from the 5.3% tax rate it recorded in 2008.

---

Bank of America: -$1.9 billion

U.S. federal: -$2.8 billion

U.S. state and local: -$65 million

International: $933 million

Like GE, Bank of America also didn't owe income taxes last year-- but that's because it had no earnings at all.

While the company reported net income of $6.3 billion, once you factor in dividends to preferred shareholders and costs from the bank's $45 billion repayment of government bailout funds, Bank of America actually lost $2.2 billion.

Because the company lost money, it owed no taxes.

"We're in a recession, and corporate profits are way down," said Eric Toder, an institute fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "Since taxes are based on corporate earnings, if there aren't any profits being earned, there isn't any tax liability."

Credits for low income housing investments and losses at its foreign businesses turned Bank of America's tax liability into a benefit, and gave it an effective tax rate of negative 44% -- a big change from the 9.5% tax rate it faced a year earlier.

Saturday open thread: Palin, Solyndra, and public-private partnerships

By Michelle Malkin • September 3, 2011 01:32 PM

*Sarah Palin is set to speak in Iowa shortly (estimated time – 2:15pm ET). You can watch live here on C-SPAN. She is reportedly going to tackle crony capitalism. The timing couldn’t be better.

*It’s not news to readers of this blog that green jobs are a hemorrhaging taxpayer-funded slush fund for unions and eco-elites. More than a year ago, David Freddoso spotlighted the shady Solyndra/Obama deal. He featured the corporate welfare redistribution scam in his book, Gangster Government. And as he noted, the chapter reads even better now that Solyndra is bankrupt.

GOP House investigators are now on the case. The stench of the culture of corruption is strong.

House investigators said they have uncovered evidence that White House officials became personally involved in an Energy Department review of a hot-button $535 million loan guarantee to the now-failed California solar company Solyndra.

The allegation surfaced in a letter House Energy Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) sent to the White House Thursday night, saying he planned to accelerate efforts to understand an investment deal that may have left taxpayers out half a billion dollars.

“We have learned from our investigation that White House officials monitored Solyndra’s application and communicated with [Department of Energy] and Office of Management and Budget officials during the course of their review,” the letter says.

Thursday’s letter, which calls on the White House to turn over correspondence between administration officials, Solyndra and its investors, presents the most pointed suggestion that the White House had direct involvement in the financing.

“How did this company, without maybe the best economic plan, all of a sudden get to the head of the line?” Upton told ABC News in an interview this week. “We want to know who made this decision … and we’re not going to stop until we get those answers.”

As I have said repeatedly about “public-private partnerships” pushed by politicians in both parties and their crony pals:

While the White House pushes for a bonanza of new “public-private partnerships,” let me refresh your memories of some of the Democrats’ great ideas of “public-private partnerships”…

…taxpayer-funded black hole FANNIE MAE;

…Chicago’s shady Shorebank and its crony-supported successor, Urban Partnership Bank;

…the failed Chicago Olympics wealth distribution boondoggle;

…and the failed Richard Daley/Valerie Jarrett Chicago low-income housing boondoggle.

This isn’t about letting the best ideas and businesses thrive. It’s about picking winners and losers. It’s about “managing” competition and engineering political outcomes under the guise of stimulating the economy. As I noted last April when the command-and-controller-in-chief lectured businesses that “at some point you have made enough money,” we are dealing with a president who presumes to know when you have earned “enough,” who believes that only those who provide what he deems “good” products and services should “keep on making it,” and who has determined that the role of American entrepreneurs is not to pursue their own self-interest, but to fulfill their “core” responsibility as dutiful growers of the collective economy.

What’s in it for the statist businesses that go along for the ride with Obama and his team of corruptocrats?

Like they say in the Windy City: It’s all about the boodle.

In Chicago politics, there’s an old term for the publicly-subsidized pay-offs meted out to the corruptocrats’ friends and special interests: Boodle.

In the age of Obama, “reform” is all about the boodle. So it was with the stimulus. And the massive national service expansion. And the health care bill. And so it is with the financial “reform” bill…In front of the cameras, the Democrats will lambaste the greedy, Wall Street money. Behind the scenes, they’re pocketing Wall Street campaign donations and working out deals.

Goo-goo “reform” has always entailed wealth redistribution under the guise of public service (or “social justice” or “media justice” or “innovation” or whatever the euphemism of the day is). The goodies can take the form of exclusive union-only contracts or p.c. bailouts or waivers for favors.

When businesses get in the government handout line, it’s not a “public-private partnership.”

It’s corporate welfare — and it stinks as much under Democrat administrations as it does under Republican ones.

It goes without saying that American entrepreneurs should be beware of White House business-bashers bearing gifts.

But so, too, should taxpayers beware of Washington business-boosters wearing false free-market facades.

Black unemployment: Highest in 27 years

Black unemployment: Highest in 27 years

Black unemployment rises to 16.7% in August, the highest since 1984. The rate has been over 10% for 4 straight years, experts predict the rate will remain over 10% for four more


CNN Money

NEW YORK -- The August jobs report was dismal for plenty of reasons, but perhaps most striking was the picture it painted of racial inequality in the job market.

Black unemployment surged to 16.7% in August, its highest level since 1984, while the unemployment rate for whites fell slightly to 8%, the Labor Department reported.

Black unemployment has been roughly double that of whites since the government started tracking the figures in 1972.

Economists blame a variety of factors. The black workforce is younger than the white workforce, lower numbers of blacks get a college degree and many live in areas of the country that were harder hit by the recession -- all things that could lead to a higher unemployment rate.

But even excluding those factors, blacks still are hit with higher joblessness.

Overall, black men have it the worst, with joblessness at a staggeringly high 19.1%, compared to 14.5% for black women.

Black unemployment has now remained above 10% for four straight years, and the given current economic sluggishness, some experts say it's safe to predict the rate will remain above 10% for four more years