I watched the Darrel Issa hearings yesterday. He had four State Dept people on the dock, two field guys who were on the ground in Libya and asked for re enforcements well BEFORE the legation was attacked and burned. The other two were Washington desk wienies who had denied the requests for reinforcements.
The field guys reluctantly admitted under direct questioning that Washington had not given them anything. The desk wienies claimed that they had given the field guys "full support".
Figure the State Dept bureaucracy will deal with these poor guys. The two field guys will be dumped on for confessing to embarrassing facts. The two desk wienies will be dumped on for not being more evasive under questioning. All four of them can kiss off any thought of promotion in the next 100 years.
The atmosphere was tense to the point of Chairman Issa offering his committee's protection to the two field guys against State Dept retaliation.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
What to Cut? Item 5 BATFE
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms and Explosives. These are the guys that brought us Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Fast and Furious. They are federal police, with arrest powers, badges, and guns and little discretion. When they cause a major mess (Ruby Ridge and Waco) they have to call in the FBI to bail them out. They have a history of harassing and entrapment of firearms dealers, gun show customers, and ordinary gun owners.
We would be better off without these feeders at the public trough. State and local police make the great majority of all criminal arrests. We don't need armed federal policemen to collect liquor and tobacco taxes from legitimate manufacturers. Smuggling and bootlegging untaxed cigarettes or liquor is a violation of state law and evasion of state taxes which state police forces are well motivated to pursue.
BATFE has a budget of $1.12 billion a year. Small compared to farm bills and transportation bills. But you know what they say, "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money."
More competent and better balanced agencies like the FBI and the IRS could handle the few legitimate duties now handled by BATFE.
We would be better off without these feeders at the public trough. State and local police make the great majority of all criminal arrests. We don't need armed federal policemen to collect liquor and tobacco taxes from legitimate manufacturers. Smuggling and bootlegging untaxed cigarettes or liquor is a violation of state law and evasion of state taxes which state police forces are well motivated to pursue.
BATFE has a budget of $1.12 billion a year. Small compared to farm bills and transportation bills. But you know what they say, "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money."
More competent and better balanced agencies like the FBI and the IRS could handle the few legitimate duties now handled by BATFE.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
What to cut? Item 4. CIA
The trouble with CIA is that it is all too often wrong. They told Eisenhower that Fidel Castro was an agrarian reformer. They failed to predict the breakup of the Soviet Union, even after the fall of the wall. They told George Bush and Colin Powell that Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons were a slam-dunk. In actual fact, Saddam didn't have a nuclear program, which we found out AFTER invading the country. They didn't have even a single agent on the ground inside Saddam's Iraq. CIA attempted to destabilize the Bush Administration by creating the Valerie Plame affair. CIA agents still work out of embassies, which is like hanging a "kick me" sign on the back of your trench coat. CIA announced the Iranians did NOT have a nuclear program, just in time to scuttle some proposed sanctions. CIA leaked the story about NSA listening into Osama bin Laden's satellite phone to the New York Times. It took CIA ten years to finger Osama bin Laden.
With a track record like this, who in their right mind would believe anything CIA reported?
Besides, America's best intelligence comes from NSA (who intercepts enemy communications) and the Air Force (who flies recon satellites).
CIA's budget is famously secret. CIA appropriations are disguised somewhere deep inside the federal budget, so we don't know just how much money they spend each year. But what ever they spend, it really ain't worth it, 'cause what ever CIA produces is suspect, 'cause it comes from an outfit with a long and well documented history of brain death.
With a track record like this, who in their right mind would believe anything CIA reported?
Besides, America's best intelligence comes from NSA (who intercepts enemy communications) and the Air Force (who flies recon satellites).
CIA's budget is famously secret. CIA appropriations are disguised somewhere deep inside the federal budget, so we don't know just how much money they spend each year. But what ever they spend, it really ain't worth it, 'cause what ever CIA produces is suspect, 'cause it comes from an outfit with a long and well documented history of brain death.
Monday, October 8, 2012
What to cut? Item 3. Ground the FBI's Air Force
This came to light in a Wall St Journal piece last month complaining about Dept of Justice officials taking joy rides in FBI aircraft. Apparently the FBI operates a fleet of executive jets for unspecified purposes.
Far as I am concerned, FBI agents ought to fly commercial, just like the rest of us. And put up with taking off their shoes, nudity scanners, and groping by TSA agents. If we citizens have to put up with this crap, so should they. After all, they work for us.
You can fly anywhere in the country for a few hundred bucks. Whereas a 10 seat executive jet costs $25 million to buy, and hundreds of dollars an hour to operate. We could fly the agents first class for less than that.
This is small change compared with farm bills and tranportation bills. I don't have real numbers, but if the FBI had a fleet of 10 aircraft, and flew each one 40 hours a week, at $200 an hour, we have $4.16 million a year for operating costs. Small change, but every little bit hurts.
Far as I am concerned, FBI agents ought to fly commercial, just like the rest of us. And put up with taking off their shoes, nudity scanners, and groping by TSA agents. If we citizens have to put up with this crap, so should they. After all, they work for us.
You can fly anywhere in the country for a few hundred bucks. Whereas a 10 seat executive jet costs $25 million to buy, and hundreds of dollars an hour to operate. We could fly the agents first class for less than that.
This is small change compared with farm bills and tranportation bills. I don't have real numbers, but if the FBI had a fleet of 10 aircraft, and flew each one 40 hours a week, at $200 an hour, we have $4.16 million a year for operating costs. Small change, but every little bit hurts.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
What to cut. Item 2 Federal Transportation Bill
Used to be, streets and roads were built and maintained by cities and states. They did alright. They built the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the New Jersey Turnpike, the Merritt Parkway, the New York Thruway, the Connecticut Turnpike, and the Mass Pike, to name a few that I drive frequently.
Then back in Eisenhower's time we got the Interstate Highway Program. The Federal government put up 90% of the money, picked the routes and set the standards. That was a half century ago. And we got a magnificent highway system. Best highways on the planet. If you don't believe me, take a drive in Canada.
Anyhow, after 50 years of building, the Interstate system is complete. We have superb roads going everywhere in the country. Even way up here in the wilderness of northern NH, I have an interstate exit within walking distance of my front door. But, we keep spending federal highway money, whether we need it or not.
Back in June, Congress managed to pass a $227 billion-over-two-years highway bill. That's $100 plus billion a year, about as pricey as the farm bill they haven't passed yet. Put the saving from killing the transportation bill together with the savings from killing the farm bill, and we have better than $200 billion in savings to put against a $1 trillion federal deficit. Not too shabby, and we haven't touched Social Security or Medicare.
And this is politically do able. Granted all the contractor's in the country are in favor of federal highway spending (the Feds will spend on anything, the staties are thriftier). But there are more voters than contractors, and those voters ought to be worried about federal money printing turning their college savings, their retirement savings, and the value of their houses in to waste paper.
Then back in Eisenhower's time we got the Interstate Highway Program. The Federal government put up 90% of the money, picked the routes and set the standards. That was a half century ago. And we got a magnificent highway system. Best highways on the planet. If you don't believe me, take a drive in Canada.
Anyhow, after 50 years of building, the Interstate system is complete. We have superb roads going everywhere in the country. Even way up here in the wilderness of northern NH, I have an interstate exit within walking distance of my front door. But, we keep spending federal highway money, whether we need it or not.
Back in June, Congress managed to pass a $227 billion-over-two-years highway bill. That's $100 plus billion a year, about as pricey as the farm bill they haven't passed yet. Put the saving from killing the transportation bill together with the savings from killing the farm bill, and we have better than $200 billion in savings to put against a $1 trillion federal deficit. Not too shabby, and we haven't touched Social Security or Medicare.
And this is politically do able. Granted all the contractor's in the country are in favor of federal highway spending (the Feds will spend on anything, the staties are thriftier). But there are more voters than contractors, and those voters ought to be worried about federal money printing turning their college savings, their retirement savings, and the value of their houses in to waste paper.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
What to Cut? Item 1. Farm Subsidies
This election features Democrats calling for tax hikes and Republicans calling for spending cuts. Neither side has been specific about how bad the tax hike might be, or what might be cut. Both sides fear that specific proposals will just mobilize opposition, so they stick to vague generalities that mean nothing. So lets take a look at what we could cut.
Easy target Number 1 is farm subsidies. There is a $1 trillion over 10 years farm bill wandering around capitol hill right now. It hasn't passed yet but they are trying hard. Only farmers (less than 5% of the population) benefit. Most of us get taxed just to pass money to farmers. Most of whom are corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, not family farmers. Farming is just another business, like manufacturing or mining or trucking, or fast food. Why should farmers get a $100 billion a year government subsidy that no other industry gets?
We are talking about a lot of money here. The yearly US deficit is $1 trillion, so the farm bill is 10% of the entire deficit. Kill the farm bill and we have made a serious step toward balancing the US budget. While we are at it, we could close down the Agriculture Department and save even more.
Easy target Number 1 is farm subsidies. There is a $1 trillion over 10 years farm bill wandering around capitol hill right now. It hasn't passed yet but they are trying hard. Only farmers (less than 5% of the population) benefit. Most of us get taxed just to pass money to farmers. Most of whom are corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, not family farmers. Farming is just another business, like manufacturing or mining or trucking, or fast food. Why should farmers get a $100 billion a year government subsidy that no other industry gets?
We are talking about a lot of money here. The yearly US deficit is $1 trillion, so the farm bill is 10% of the entire deficit. Kill the farm bill and we have made a serious step toward balancing the US budget. While we are at it, we could close down the Agriculture Department and save even more.
7.8% unemployment, Hurrah
The Democrats and the newsies are talking this up like happy days are here again. Right. Does anyone really feel that Great Depression 2.0 is over? I don't think a few tenths of a percent change in "unemployment" makes much difference to the voters. Voters know that times are bad and jobs are hard to come by. Talk it up as much as you like, it doesn't really mean all that much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)