Posts
House Pencils in Millions for Jets the Air Force Did Not Request - Political News - FOXNews.com: "In the 2010 defense spending bill, the Air Force originally requested money for one C-37 and three C-40s as part of its effort to replace its aging fleet. But the House Appropriations Committee added an extra $132 million for two more C-37s and $200 million for two more C-40s, according to an aide to the panel. "
"Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, said members of Congress are abusing the military by using their jets too often for travel. He said that except for trips to war zones, members should fly commercial and expense it. He surmised the latest funding for more jets reflects members' personal interest in being able to fly in style."
"Though lawmakers killed additional funding for the F-22 fighter jet -- at President Obama's request -- they kept in funding for unrequested C-17 cargo jets, a controversial new presidential helicopter fleet and an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. They did cut funding in other areas.
Ellis Brachman, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said budgeting for such items is part of Congress' "normal oversight responsibility" to make sure the military has everything it needs."
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Senate Deal: Change a Few Names | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Senate Deal: Change a Few Names | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The proposed bill is forthright on still containing many of the worst aspects of ObamaCare. It would mandate that all Americans buy insurance — and not just any insurance, but a specific government-designed set of benefits, even if that package was more expensive or contained benefits that you didn't want."
"The compromise would have no specific mandate for employers to provide insurance. But any employer who failed to do so would have to pay the cost of all subsidies that the government provides his or her workers to help them pay for insurance on their own.
It is hard to see how this is different from any other employer mandate — except that it will hurt low-wage workers most."
"It will ultimately be the worker who pays the subsidy's cost. The government will be giving the worker a subsidy with one hand, and taking it back with the other. Does that make sense for any reason other than 'compromise?'"
"The compromise would have no specific mandate for employers to provide insurance. But any employer who failed to do so would have to pay the cost of all subsidies that the government provides his or her workers to help them pay for insurance on their own.
It is hard to see how this is different from any other employer mandate — except that it will hurt low-wage workers most."
"It will ultimately be the worker who pays the subsidy's cost. The government will be giving the worker a subsidy with one hand, and taking it back with the other. Does that make sense for any reason other than 'compromise?'"
Hate Crime Bill Goes against Constitution | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary
Hate Crime Bill Goes against Constitution | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Said McCain: 'Our legal system is based on identifying, capturing and punishing criminals, and not on using the power of government to try to divine biases.' In opposing what James Madison condemned as 'thought crimes,' McCain added: 'Crimes motivated by hate deserve vigorous prosecution, but so do crimes motivated by absolute wanton disregard for life of any kind.' No matter against whom.
Leahy's bill, like the counterpart 'hate crimes' measure of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., that passed in the House this past April, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection under the laws for individual Americans by setting up a special collective class of victims whose assailants, when convicted, will be given extra punishment for crimes perceived to be based on gender identity, sexual orientation or disability, among other biases. Those who attack the elderly, police or those of the poor who are not among the 'protected classes' would not get lengthier 'hate' sentences than the law provides for the ACT itself. Doesn't this make lesser citizens of their victims?"
"But the White House Web site points out that the House bill cites a hate crime is based on actual or PERCEIVED hate against a victim. Both bills include constitutional violations of double-jeopardy prosecutions by making it easier for the federal government to prosecute a defendant in a hate-crime case when the state says it cannot convict or chooses not to prosecute."
James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson: We have "extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind."
Leahy's bill, like the counterpart 'hate crimes' measure of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., that passed in the House this past April, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection under the laws for individual Americans by setting up a special collective class of victims whose assailants, when convicted, will be given extra punishment for crimes perceived to be based on gender identity, sexual orientation or disability, among other biases. Those who attack the elderly, police or those of the poor who are not among the 'protected classes' would not get lengthier 'hate' sentences than the law provides for the ACT itself. Doesn't this make lesser citizens of their victims?"
"But the White House Web site points out that the House bill cites a hate crime is based on actual or PERCEIVED hate against a victim. Both bills include constitutional violations of double-jeopardy prosecutions by making it easier for the federal government to prosecute a defendant in a hate-crime case when the state says it cannot convict or chooses not to prosecute."
James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson: We have "extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind."
Vote No on Sonia Sotomayor | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
Vote No on Sonia Sotomayor | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "In trying to assess how Justice Sotomayor would behave, we should consider the president's expectations. Then-Sen. Obama, who voted against both John Roberts and Samuel Alito, emphasized the 'quality of empathy.' While most cases can be decided on the basis of case law and precedent, said Sen. Obama, there remain five percent which 'can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world words, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.' Alas, this latter category, however few in number, accounts for most of the important issues about which we most care and which most divide us."
'She also believes that judges are to change the law. For instance, she complained: "The public expects the law to be static and unpredictable. The law, however, is uncertain and responds to changing circumstances." Of course, changing the law cannot be left to legislators: "Our society would be straightjacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial, and political conditions."
Indeed, "A given judge (or judges) may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction."
After all, she contends: "change — sometimes radical change — can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes. It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive civilized but always evolving society." As she declared in a videotaped talk, the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made" and where "the law is percolating."'
'No one would disagree that as society changes, so must laws and practices. That is why the Constitution allows amendments and legislatures exist. Our political system leaves most decisions on "change" up to the legislative and executive branches. Turning a group of nine jurists, irrespective of how diverse and empathetic, into a continuing constitutional convention puts all liberties at risk.'
'The issue is not whether one believes abortion should be legal. But Roe does not deserve to be called constitutional law. Rather, it is an act of judicial usurpation, unsupported by constitutional purpose, original intent, and legal precedent. For a nominee for the high court to embrace Roe suggests that they will not carry out their duty to faithfully interpret and apply the Constitution.'
'She also believes that judges are to change the law. For instance, she complained: "The public expects the law to be static and unpredictable. The law, however, is uncertain and responds to changing circumstances." Of course, changing the law cannot be left to legislators: "Our society would be straightjacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial, and political conditions."
Indeed, "A given judge (or judges) may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction."
After all, she contends: "change — sometimes radical change — can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes. It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive civilized but always evolving society." As she declared in a videotaped talk, the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made" and where "the law is percolating."'
'No one would disagree that as society changes, so must laws and practices. That is why the Constitution allows amendments and legislatures exist. Our political system leaves most decisions on "change" up to the legislative and executive branches. Turning a group of nine jurists, irrespective of how diverse and empathetic, into a continuing constitutional convention puts all liberties at risk.'
'The issue is not whether one believes abortion should be legal. But Roe does not deserve to be called constitutional law. Rather, it is an act of judicial usurpation, unsupported by constitutional purpose, original intent, and legal precedent. For a nominee for the high court to embrace Roe suggests that they will not carry out their duty to faithfully interpret and apply the Constitution.'
WORLD Magazine | Bureaucracy mountain | Jacob Parrish | Jul 31, 09
WORLD Magazine | Bureaucracy mountain | Jacob Parrish | Jul 31, 09: "The Yucca Mountain project, which is 25 years and $13.5 billion in the making, was on track to begin safely storing at least 77,000 tons of radioactive nuclear waste. But now experts say 155,000 tons of spent radioactive fuel rods will instead remain in already crowded temporary storage facilities beneath nuclear power plants across the country."
"Since the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, energy companies and consumers have been required to pay over $29 billion into a fund that the government promised to use to construct and operate a permanent nuclear waste repository by 1997. Energy companies already have grown weary of government delays and are threatening to stop their payments. By burying the site that was supposed to bury nuclear waste, the government would be in complete default of its 1982 agreement."
What? The government takes money for a project and then goes back on its word? No way!
"One alternative to storing spent fuel rods is to recycle them, as France and Japan do, using them a second time to create nuclear energy. Experts say this would cut 155,000 tons of waste to only about 5,000 tons needing to be stored, however, the waste would then be 50 times more radioactive."f
"Since the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, energy companies and consumers have been required to pay over $29 billion into a fund that the government promised to use to construct and operate a permanent nuclear waste repository by 1997. Energy companies already have grown weary of government delays and are threatening to stop their payments. By burying the site that was supposed to bury nuclear waste, the government would be in complete default of its 1982 agreement."
What? The government takes money for a project and then goes back on its word? No way!
"One alternative to storing spent fuel rods is to recycle them, as France and Japan do, using them a second time to create nuclear energy. Experts say this would cut 155,000 tons of waste to only about 5,000 tons needing to be stored, however, the waste would then be 50 times more radioactive."f
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)