Our Children are too Smart for Public Schooling
Interesting Facts on US the US Health Care system
The Sunset of the State
Iran – Next Target in the Never Ending US War Racket?
The motivations behind waging wars are always and everywhere the same. A war is always accompanied by an enormous transfer of money from taxpayers to government bureaucrats, government investors (a.k.a lobbyists), and thus of course government contractors.
Since the aggressors in wars generally conduct their operations abroad and in environments of brute force, confusion, and often times pure chaos, oversight by the people funding the effort, the taxpayers, can be kept at a convenient minimum.
But the icing on the cake, from the point of view of those benefiting, is of course the fact that all the brutal murders, aggression, and violence perpetrated during wars can be sold to the very people who are being ripped off as a heroic and necessary endeavor to (believe it or not) protect them from harm.
(As I pointed out before, such seriously and fundamentally twisted perceptions on the part of the taxpayers can only be held under a long term regime of irrational indoctrination via institutionalized public schooling, religion, and blind faith in the virtue of the family.)
Thus the profits that the different parties involved realize are enormous, the margins tend to reach levels that any entrepreneur operating on the free market can only dream of. In addition to that, ongoing costs arise for the treatment of veterans and long drawn out occupations, which in turn justify even more expenditures and raise the bar for government intrusion in the private sector.
A war is always and everywhere first and foremost an attack on the domestic population, with the objective to forcefully transfer money from the majority to the politically connected under minimum oversight. In short, war is a racket – made by government.
It is thus kind of funny to see, for example, modern day Republicans flaunt their supposed allegiance to the free market while at the same time being most supportive of all the efforts involved in waging war. But there is no more anti-free market program than war! It is precisely in war where you can see pure government in action.
Rothbard probably put it best when he said in War, Peace, and the State:
It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society. Society becomes a herd, seeking to kill its alleged enemies, rooting out and suppressing all dissent from the official war effort, happily betraying truth for the supposed public interest. Society becomes an armed camp, with the values and the morale – as Albert Jay Nock once phrased it – of an “army on the march.”
Or as the great libertarian peace activist Randolph Bourne once said “War is the Health of the State“.
That having been said, with public support for the imperialistic occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan waning, Washington bureaucrats sure are scrambling to find the next excuse for yet more of the same:
Rep. Charles Rangel may be in trouble because he is your standard corrupt district of criminals opportunist, but that has not killed his mandatory slavery bill. On July 15, Rangel introduced H.R. 5741, the Universal National Service Act, and it was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel on July 23. Even though the bill does not have co-sponsors, it is currently under debate.
“I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it permanent during time of war,” said Rep. Charles Rangel. “I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it permanent during time of war. It is H.R. 5741, and what this does is to make everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they’re men or women, whether they’re straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this great country whenever the president truly believes that our national security is threatened,” Rangel said from the floor of the House.
Rangel specifically said the legislation is designed to be used “during time of war.” On the day before Rangel’s slavery bill went to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Texas Rep. Louis Buller Gohmert introduced House Resolution 1553. It has since been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel,” Gohmert’s resolution states.
Language contained in the resolution condemns Iran “for its threats of annihilating the United States and the State of Israel” (threats Iran has never issued) and supports the use of “all means of persuading the Government of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons” (nuclear weapons Iran does not have and does not possess the capability to produce). Gohmert’s bill supports Israel’s “right” to use “all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran.”
In 2007, Mohamed El Baradei, at the time the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran did not have nuclear material and also stated that the country did not have a weaponization program.
Also in 2007, the National Intelligence Council, where U.S. mid-term and long-term strategic policy is formulated for the intelligence community, stated “with moderate-to-high confidence… Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.”
“There is no evidence that Iran has made a decision to produce nuclear weapons,” said Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov while speaking out against sanctions on Iran.
In July 21, the day before Gohmert introduced House Resolution 1553, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said the U.S. and Russia know that Iran does not have any nuclear weapons.
Despite the fact there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program and no indication Iran plans to attack Israel, let alone the absurd notion it will attack the United States, Israel and the United States are preparing to attack Iran. The claim Iran plans to attack the United States is ironically reminiscent of the neocon accusation that Saddam Hussein planned to attack the U.S., one of several obvious falsehoods used as an excuse to invade.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel have been shuttling between Washington and Tel Aviv, pushing for crippling economic sanctions that even they concede will not change Iran’s nuclear policy. These sanctions are being put in place, both by the United States and its allies. The open prediction that they will fail is meant to indicate just one thing — military attacks are inevitable,” writes Muhammad Sahimi for PBS. “The rhetorical rationale for attacking Iran keeps coming out of Washington. Most astonishingly, there is a resolution before the U.S. Congress, signed by one-third of the Republican caucus, that urges support for Israeli military attacks on Iran…. The resolution, H. Res. 1553, represents a green light for a bombing campaign. It provides explicit support for military strikes.”
The bomb Iran consensus was underscored late last month when former CIA director Michael Hayden told CNN’s State of the Union that a military attack against Iran “seems inexorable.” Hayden added that in his “personal thinking, I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.” In other words, for Hayden, mass murder is preferable to diplomacy.
“The next step is tough sanctions, economic sanctions. Frankly it’s a last chance for Iran to avoid giving the rest of the world, including the United States, a hard choice between allowing Iran to go nuclear and using military power to stop them from doing that,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman in April.
“We have to contemplate the final option,” said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., “the use of force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”
“The administration needs to expand its approach and make clear to the Iranian regime and the American people: If diplomatic and economic pressures do not compel Iran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military has the capability and is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on Tehran’s nuclear and supporting military facilities,” former senator Charles S. Robb and retired general Charles Wald wrote for the Washington Post on July 9.
Slaughtering innocents is a “terrible thing,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., but “sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to develop a second time.”
Graham made this ludicrous statement regardless of the fact Iran has never threatened to attack Israel. It is based on a mistranslation of a speech delivered by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad published in the New York Times.
The Times played a big role in the Iraq invasion when Judith Miller published neocon lies about aluminum tubes and other such patently fallacious nonsense. Neocon lies ultimately resulted in the murder of more than a million Iraqis, a total approaching Nazi war crimes.
As should be expected, the neocons figure big in the Iran attack plot now unfolding. “If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion. The Iran government’s ability to wage conventional war against its neighbors and our troops in the region should not exist. They should not have one plane that can fly or one ship that can float.” Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute wrote earlier this year.
In other words, according to neocons over at the criminal organization largely responsible for mass murder in Iraq, Iran should be reduced to a parking lot in order to prevent it from responding to an attack.
Neocon Reuel Marc Gerecht explains how the United States will be sucked into an Israeli-launched attack against Iran. “What is important to understand about this campaign is that the aim of Gerecht and of the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is to support an attack by Israel so that the United States can be drawn into direct, full-scale war with Iran,” writes historian Gareth Porter.
That has long been the Israeli strategy for Iran, because Israel cannot fight a war with Iran without full U.S. involvement. Israel needs to know that the United States will finish the war that Israel wants to start.
Gerecht openly expresses the hope that any Iranian response to the Israeli attack would trigger full-scale U.S. war against Iran. “If Khamenei has a death-wish, he’ll let the Revolutionary Guards mine the strait, the entrance to the Persian Gulf,” writes Gerecht. “It might be the only thing that would push President Obama to strike Iran militarily….”
Self defense is not an option. If Iran responds to an attack — and its leadership has stated repeatedly it will — the U.S. will become directly involved.
“Gerecht’s argument for war relies on a fanciful nightmare scenario of Iran doling out nuclear weapons to Islamic extremists all over the Middle East. But the real concern of the Israelis and their lobbyists, as Gerecht’s past writing has explicitly stated, is to destroy Iran’s Islamic regime in a paroxysm of U.S. military violence,” writes Porter.
This “paroxysm of U.S. military violence” will undoubtedly call for adding a fresh crop of bullet-stoppers and that is where H.R. 5721 comes into play. As Rangel noted, his bill will provide under government imposed mandate that “everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they’re men or women, whether they’re straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this great country” from imaginary and trumped-up enemies.
Rangel’s bill may never make it out of committee. The attack on Iran, however, is all but a foregone conclusion.
And in case you care about the truth, here are Ahmadinejad’s actual statements which, as is completely predictable, the press and government officials immediately feel the instinctive urge to completely and shamelessly blow out of proportion.
This one is about him calling for the “annihilation of Israel”:
…But let’s take a closer look at what Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the ‘New York Times’ that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here’s an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:
“They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let’s take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.”
(source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of ‘Iranian Students News Agency’ (ISNA) — insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets — passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)It’s becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran’s President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein’s dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.
Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a ‘regime’ into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy.
And this one is about his supposed denial of the holocaust:
What is this assertion based on? In substance it is based on dispatches of 2 days – 2005-12-14 and 2006-02-11.
“The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and the Western states and has denied the Holocaust. Instead of making Israel’s attacks against Palestine a subject of discussion ‘the Western states devote their energy to the fairy-tale of the massacre against the Jews’, Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday in a speech at Zahedan in the south-east of Iran which was broadcasted directly by the news-channel Khabar. That day he stated that if the Western states really believe in the assassination of six million Jews in W.W. II they should put a piece of land in Europe, in the USA, Canada or Alaska at Israel’s disposal.” – dispatch of the German press agency DPA, 2005-12-14.
The German TV-station n24 spreads the following on 2006-12-14 using the title ‘Iran’s President calls the Holocaust a myth’: “The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and called the Holocaust a ‘myth’ used as a pretext by the Europeans to found a Jewish state in the center of the Islamic world . ‘In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets‘ the Iranian head of state said.”
The Iranian press agency IRNA renders Ahmadinejad on 2005-12-14 as follows: “‘If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II – which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions.’ [...] ‘If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there.’ [...] Ahmadinejad said some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets [...] The president further said, ‘If your civilization consists of aggression, displacing the oppressed nations, suppressing justice-seeking voices and spreading injustice and poverty for the majority of people on the earth, then we say it out loud that we despise your hollow civilization.’”
There again we find the quotation already rendered by n24: “In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth.” We can see that this is completely different from what is published by e.g. the DPA – the massacre against the Jews is a fairy-tale. What Ahmadinejad does is not denying the Holocaust. No! It is dealing out criticism against the mendacity of the imperialistic powers who use the Holocaust to muzzle critical voices and to achieve advantages concerning the legitimization of a planned war. This is criticism against the exploitation of the Holocaust.
CNN (2005-12-15) renders as follows: “If you have burned the Jews why don’t you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?”
The Washingtonian ”Middle East Media Research Institute’ (MEMRI) renders Ahmadinejad’s statements from 2005-12-14 as follows: “…we ask you: if you indeed committed this great crime, why should the oppressed people of Palestine be punished for it? * [...] If you committed a crime, you yourselves should pay for it. Our offer was and remains as follows: If you committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at their disposal – a piece of Europe, of America, of Canada, or of Alaska – so they can establish their own state. Rest assured that if you do so, the Iranian people will voice no objection.”
The MEMRI-rendering uses the relieving translation ‘great crime’ and misappropriates the following sentence at the * marked passage: “Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions.” This sentence has obviously been left out deliberately because it would intimate why the Israeli state could have forfeited the right to establish itself in Palestine – videlicet because of its aggressive expansionist policy against the people of Palestine, ignoring any law of nations and disobeying all UN-resolutions.
In spite of the variability referring to the rendering of the statements of Iran’s President we should nevertheless note down: the reproach of denying the Holocaust cannot be sustained if Ahmadinejad speaks of a great and huge crime that has been done to the Jews.
Two great examples of how, unsurprisingly, the government and the media continue to lie to us to do their part in keeping up the war racket, that beautifully lucrative and highly profitable money printing machine.
WikiLeaks on Afghan War – The Government’s Moral Bankruptcy Exposed
The Afghan war efforts led by the US armed forces are, as I have pointed out many times, nothing but your average and predictable war racket. Now over 90,000 (!!) classified reports have leaked.
Of course they will expose a boatload of knowledge that the government kept hidden and lied about, etc. Nothing surprising or newsworthy as far as that part is concerned.
I myself have unfortunately not yet made it through all those 90,000 reports, but apparently someone else has:
The documents are “not particularly new or illuminating,” Morrell said. The most recent “is at least six months old” and doesn’t reflect the current U.S.-Pakistan “partnership that is so vital to our success in Afghanistan.” This relationship “has been trending in the right direction for months, if not a couple of years now,” he said.
(That’s the government’s honesty and curiosity in action right there.)
But what’s really quite amazing to me is the following statement:
Pentagon Probe
The U.S. military has opened “a very robust investigation” with a team working “round the clock” to find “who’s responsible for breaking the law here and leaking this classified information,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said today on the CBS “Early Morning” show.
You see, these people are so enormously concerned about transparency and about their screw ups and errors and the millions upon millions of people murdered in its futile wars, that what they are really passionate and motivated about is to work “round the clock” to find who’s responsible for handing over a some pieces of paper with reports that could potentially – can you believe it – have documented what’s actually going on in this thing called reality.
Note how the focus is on finding who’s responsible for “breaking the law here”. No attempt to an argument from morality, not even one from effect. Just a plain and bland invocation of the code of law. This is how you lose the battle of ideas.
There couldn’t be a better and more recent example for the moral bankruptcy of the concepts of statism, the belief that a government is a good and necessary institution.
As the idea of statism dies out and as voluntaryism captures the hearts and minds of the majority, we will see more and more such plain, boring, and uninspiring “arguments” advanced by the those trying to hold together the foundations of the crumbling structure of aggression, irrationality, and indoctrination, in short – the government.
Past 8 Presidents Since 1970 ALL Promised Big Change on Energy Policy
Here’s a beautiful display of the government’s complete and utter incapability to affect positive change, from yesterday’s Daily Show:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| An Energy-Independent Future | ||||
|
||||
This whole clip is funny and of course sad at the same time.
It’s of course completely predictable that when a government official promises big and positive change on the energy front, the exact opposite will happen, namely EVEN MORE dependence on foreign oil NOW compared to THEN. This is one of the very consistent threads you can observe when it comes to state propaganda and there’s no need to act surprised about such inevitabilities.
But what’s so tragically funny on top of all this is that you will continue to see people complain about these problems while at the same time running again and again to the government for solutions.
Look out for John Stuart sucking up to Al Gore yet again when he’s on his show next time, talking about how we need the government to solve our energy challenges and environmental problems and how “NOW’s the time!”.
This stuff is unfortunately a bit too serious in my opinion to continue to mess around with it. This oil spill along with all the corollary problems that pertain to the US’ energy dependence was and continues to be brought to you by Uncle Sam, until you realize that you need to walk away from this abusive Uncle, and look for serious solutions.
Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission Needs More Deficits in Order to Stay in Operation
Hotair notes Deficit commission out of money?
Today’s Someone Left the Irony On Award goes to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, better known as the Deficit Commission. Barack Obama created the panel ostensibly to reach some kind of bipartisan consensus on reducing the federal deficit; a better title may have been the Accountability Avoidance Commission, since it owes its existence to the need for Obama to avoid political blame for the massive tax hikes he needs to fund his nanny-state agenda. Even before they get to that stage, however, they have already proven that government naturally inclines towards unthinking growth and irresponsibility, as the Tax Prof discovered at Tax Analysts:
Saddled with a tight deadline and great expectations, members of President Obama’s deficit reduction commission say they may not have the resources necessary to meet their task.
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which the president created through an executive order in February, is charged with developing a plan by December 1 that would stabilize the budget deficit by 2015 and reduce the federal debt over the long term. The group is widely expected to consider a combination of tax reforms and spending cuts.
But despite the weighty demands, the panel has only a fraction of the staff and budget of standing congressional committees. The panel’s own cochairs and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have criticized the meager resources and called for more support. …
According to fiscal commission staffers, there are 10 to 15 people who work for the commission, including two full-time employees, interns, employees “borrowed” from other agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Treasury Department, and special government employees, who are expected to work no more than 130 days in a calendar year. The number of workers will likely grow to around 20 by midsummer.
The White House has set aside the resources to provide the equivalent of four full-time salaries and $500,000 in operating costs for the commission, fiscal commission Executive Director Bruce Reed told Tax Analysts.
The commission has as many as 15 employees, two full-time, for their work. Congress has allocated $500,000 in operating costs apart from the four full-time employees for the life of the panel, which produces its report on December 1. That is about $50,000 per month to analyze the federal budget and develop proposals for cuts, based on having an unpaid commission full of supposed experts in this field. I ran a call center of 45 people with a budget just over four times that much, which included the salaries and a lot of costs that the Deficit Commission won’t have to address, such as phone lines, rent, capital depreciation, and so on.
This is a microcosm of the very problem that the commission is supposed to fix, and the reaction from Washington pols is priceless for understanding it. The gripe from Harry Reid is that the staffing doesn’t match that of Congressional panels, such as the House Ways and Means Committee. That panel employs 90 staffers and spent over $8 million in FY2009. Ninety staffers equals more than 20% of the entire Congress. Maybe the problem isn’t that the NCFRR doesn’t have enough people, but that Ways and Means spends way beyond our means. In fact, the entire federal government spends way beyond our means, and we can thank the Democrats who added over a trillion dollars in annual federal spending in just three short years for that, increasing the budget by 40% during their control of Congress.
Meanwhile, let’s just savor the irony of a deficit commission that couldn’t get halfway to its goal without running its own deficits.
Earlier this year I already posted another absurdity in regards to the then to be Congressional task force:
This task force will have plenty of time to sit around and do nothing while the taxpayer will continue to be pillaged. In the end, all I expect them to come up with is some superficial and immaterial spending reductions (to make it look good), and massive tax increases.
The highlighted part above is actually quite funny: Over the past 100 years there have been two parties in Congress that continuously ran up government spending and deficits. In particular over the past 10 years the Republican Bush administration ran up until then never before seen deficits. Then the Democratic Obama administration picked up on that an ran up even higher deficits.
Now, the solution to the problem is supposed to be a bipartisan task force, comprised of Republicans and Democrats to solve the structural deficits brought about be Republicans and Democrats.
If one is capable of understanding the hypocrisy behind these policies, the following is of course completely predictable and unsurprising:
First, however, the plan would have to pass the Senate on Tuesday, where a vote has already been scheduled. Moderate Democrats want to attach the deficit task force plan to legislation to permit the government to continue borrowing money to pay for its operations.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you … the Government of the United States!
Ladies and Gents … just when you were worried the President’s own commission couldn’t match such hypocrisy, here they are, not only matching it, but stepping it up, always ready to deliver on my unceasing expectations of complete and unconditional lunacy! Applause!!
NY Municipalities Borrow Money from Pension Fund in Order to Contribute … to That Pension Fund
Gov. David A. Paterson and legislative leaders have tentatively agreed to allow the state and municipalities to borrow nearly $6 billion to help them make their required annual payments to the state pension fund.
And, in classic budgetary sleight-of-hand, they will borrow the money to make the payments to the pension fund — from the same pension fund.
… mmmmmh the sweet taste of utterly deranged insanity. You gotta love it … :)
US Government Spending 1902 – 2010; Depressions & Government Spending Go Hand in Hand
I found a neat site for data about US Government spending. I have posted spending charts before, but never really found data that goes this far back.
This is a chart I generated from data that I pulled from that site:
In particular I found it quite amusing the other day when someone told me that Hoover’s policies of cutting government spending from 1929 through 1933 have obviously shown how reducing government spending can result in a depression.
Well, of course this is just completely uninformed nonsense since government spending under Hoover rose from $3.81 billion to $5.1 billion on the federal level, from $11.7 billion to $12.6 billion in total, and from 12% to 22% (!!) of GDP in only 4 years.
Please, people! Check your facts before you go on the record with such foolish nonsense!
I understand that facts can be annoying when they contradict the tripe you’ve been indoctrinated with from childhood on. But I would strongly and passionately urge you to get off this delusion, to sincerely pursue the facts out there. The stakes are way too high to take this stuff lightly …
San Carlos Considers Outsourcing Police Duties
Cash strapped and troubled with shortfalls, the city of San Carlos is considering outsourcing its police force:
The city of San Carlos, facing a multimillion-dollar budget deficit brought on by the recession and rising employee costs, is considering a money-saving measure that is all but unheard of in the Bay Area – dissolving its Police Department and outsourcing the job of law enforcement.
After 85 years of having its own police force, supporters of the idea say, it’s time for San Carlos to hand the job either to the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office or to neighboring Redwood City to eliminate nearly two-thirds of next year’s $3.5 million deficit.
But critics say having an outside agency handle local law enforcement would cost “the city of good living” control over its affairs. Dissolving the 32-member force, they maintain, would be a rickety fix for years of bad budget decisions.
San Carlos is not a high-intensity policing assignment. The number of violent crimes in an average year is 27, and there have been only three homicides in the city of 28,000 over the past decade.
Still, “we certainly do have issues that are of concern to local residents who are hoping to maintain their quality of life and the property values here,” City Manager Mark Weiss said.
“We certainly recognize that and respect that,” Weiss said. “And yet the fact of the matter is, the city does not have adequate revenue to maintain the current business model to provide municipal service.”
Deputies as copsThere’s plenty of precedent in the Bay Area for outside agencies policing small cities. Dublin’s police officers are Alameda County sheriff’s deputies. In Contra Costa County, the sheriff patrols Danville, Lafayette, Oakley and Orinda. Santa Clara County sheriff’s deputies handle crime in Cupertino, Los Altos Hills and Saratoga.
However, none of those cities ever had its own police force. Locally, only Sonoma, which dissolved its police department in 2004 and turned to the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department to save money, has ever done what San Carlos is considering.
“There’s no question in my mind that this is the wave of the future,” said Redwood City Mayor Jeff Ira. “We all want to have our domain and protect our own domain, and that’s what really kept us from doing a lot of these things many years ago. Unfortunately, it’s the crisis that brought us here.”
In May, the San Carlos City Council held a special session to review policing proposals by the sheriff’s office and Redwood City police. The city is expected to decide this month whether to disband the force and select one of the agencies.
“We have two attractive offers from two professional organizations,” said Mayor Randy Royce, who believes the city should scrap its force. “I am just elated to have two great proposals. We can’t go wrong either way.”
Raising funds proposedBut Ken Castle, who leads San Carlos’ largest neighborhood watch group, said having an outside agency police the city in a “work-for-hire arrangement really abrogates that kind of localized control.”
He said San Carlos should consider charging fees for recreational use and installing parking meters downtown to help raise the $2 million a year that outsourcing police services could save the city.
The sheriff’s department and Redwood City are also experiencing budget cuts, and choosing either would be like “jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire,” Castle said. “Tossing this over the fence in a bidding war, I think, is absolutely the wrong way to do this.”
Competing suitorsThe San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office already patrols Woodside and Portola Valley. Sheriff Greg Munks noted that his agency’s SWAT team, Office of Emergency Services and air squadron are based in San Carlos.
San Carlos and Redwood City police routinely work side-by-side, said Redwood City police Officer Mike Reynolds, president of that city’s Police Officers Association. San Carlos officers are part of the Redwood City SWAT team.
“Criminals don’t care where jurisdictional boundaries are,” Reynolds said. “They’re not going to stop at a line drawn across El Camino Real because it says San Carlos.”
San Carlos, which has cut its budget for 11 years in a row, is also considering outsourcing its fire and parks maintenance services. Police and fire now make up 60 percent of the city’s $26 million budget.
The San Carlos Police Officers Association objects to any outsourcing and is blaming city officials for failing to manage budget challenges.
“It’s a bad idea, because they’re losing their department. It will never be the same as being policed by your own department,” said Officer Gilbert Granado, president of the San Carlos police union.
All San Carlos officers would also be offered full-time, higher-paying jobs with the sheriff’s office, which now has 462 deputies, officials said. There is no such guarantee if San Carlos chooses to go with the 87-member Redwood City force.
Keeping the city’s identityRegardless of which agency would handle San Carlos police services, the officers would keep the city’s identity by driving the same San Carlos police cars and wearing the same uniforms. Indemnity agreements would hold either the county or Redwood City liable.
San Carlos City Councilman Matt Grocott said he supports the idea of a joint powers authority under which the city would maintain its police force but partner with another agency.
Munks, however, said he didn’t believe a regional approach would be feasible. “That would be way too confusing,” the sheriff said.
I say: Better yet – disband the entire police force, cut local fees and taxes accordingly, and let the people vote with their dollars whom to purchase protective services from!
Community Activity- Kent Neal became a registered member September 3, 2010
- Cory Shelton wrote a new blog post: Welcome to my new blog! September 3, 2010
- Frederick Lawson wrote a new blog post: Whelan eager to make up for World Cup misery September 2, 2010
- Frederick Lawson wrote a new blog post: Cunningham fitness boost for Saints September 2, 2010
- Frederick Lawson wrote a new blog post: News Roundup: 'Glee' Promo Teases Relationship Drama, 'Buffy' Star ... September 2, 2010
Recommended Books
-
