Syria

Jesse Jackson and the Tea Party

By Katherine Connell, The National Review
Jesse Jackson has no doubt that on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, Republican opposition to President Obama’s policies is motivated by racial animus reminiscent of the Civil War-era South. “The tea party is the resurrection of the Confederacy, it’s the Fort Sumter tea party,” Jackson told Politico’s Glenn Thrush.
Jackson, who Thrush describes as the man “who more than anyone occupies the no man’s land between his mentor King and Obama,” is “absolutely” convinced that attempts to thwart the president’s agenda are motivated by his race.
The question “To what degree is the partisan gridlock that is frustrating his attempts to govern racially driven?” is one that President Obama himself is “begging to ask,” according to Pulitzer Prize–winning author Taylor Branch. The president can’t broach the topic, Branch said, because “the slightest mention of race could alienate the millions of white Americans who voted for him.”
The half-dozen aides Thrush interviewed for the article disagree with this assessment, saying that they have never heard Obama suggest that race is a factor in the opposition he faces from the GOP.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/27/unreal-jesse-jackson-says-tea-party-resurrection-confederacy%E2%80%99#ixzz2dD1Kehfw

Obama Flag Resurfaces at March on Washington

Yesterday a U.S Flag whose stars were replaced with a picture of President Obama resurfaced at the March On Washington.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/26/obama-flag-resurfaces-march-washington?cmpid=NL_foxnation#ixzz2dA3VfM55

Short Answers to Common Questions about Social Security

Published: May 2013

Developed to accompany
Social Security Finances: Findings of the 2013 Trustees Report
Social Security Brief #42, May 2013

1. Who are Social Security’s trustees and why do they issue an annual report? Social Security has six trustees: the Secretaries of the Treasury, of Labor, of Health and Human Services; the Social Security Commissioner; and two public trustees, who by law must be from different political parties, are appointed by the President, and must be confirmed by the Senate. They issue an annual report on Social Security’s finances to give Congress and the public ample time to consider any changes that may be warranted to keep the program’s income and outgo in balance over the entire 75-year period for which Social Security’s financial estimates are made.
2. How can the trustees know what’s going to happen 75 years from now? They can’t; no one can. Still, they provide essential guidance to policymakers responsible for ensuring that Social Security can pay all scheduled benefits. So the trustees make three long-range financial forecasts — high-cost, low-cost, and intermediate — and use the intermediate estimate as the basis for projecting income, outgo, and possible imbalances. The one sure thing is that the trustees’ 75-year estimates can never be precisely accurate and will change from year to year.
3. The trustees talk about a projected 75-year shortfall as a “percent of payroll.” What do they mean? Why not just talk about dollars? Workers’ earnings — employers’ payrolls — are the main source of Social Security financing. Calculating program costs as a percentage of the payrolls covered by Social Security avoids the complications that would arise from using dollar figures to measure the cost of one set of benefits in one time period versus another set of benefits in another time period when the value of a dollar is different.
4. Last year the trustees projected that the 75-year shortfall would average 2.67 percent of payroll. This year they’re projecting 2.72 percent of payroll. Why the difference? The main reason for the change is the one-year advance in the 75-year projection period, which is now 2013-2087. The substitution of a relatively high-cost year (2087) for a lower-cost year (2012) inevitably increases the projected shortfall somewhat, unless offset by other factors. The trustees noted that the projected date when Social Security’s reserves will be depleted (if Congress takes no action in the meantime) remains unchanged: 2033.
5. How have the Great Recession and slow recovery affected Social Security? Because of high unemployment and stagnant wages, income from workers’ earnings has been somewhat lower than expected. And because many laid-off workers find themselves forced to claim Social Security as soon as they can, outgo for benefits has been somewhat higher than expected.
6. So do economic downturns doom Social Security? On the contrary, Social Security’s long-term financing enables the program to ride out even sustained downturns in a volatile market economy, just as it was designed to do. During rough times Social Security functions as a giant economic shock absorber. In 2012 Social Security pumped nearly $775 billion into the economy in the form of benefit payments that maintained the purchasing power of more than 56 million beneficiaries and their families.
7. But isn’t Social Security contributing to the national debt? Social Security cannot contribute to the debt because by law it cannot borrow money. Since 1935 Social Security has collected $16.3 trillion and paid out $13.6 trillion, leaving a balance of $2.7 trillion in the trust funds at the end of 2012.
8. But last year the program spent more on benefits than it collected in payroll taxes. So is it going broke? No. Social Security has three sources of income: payroll taxes, income taxes on benefits paid to higher-income recipients, and interest earned on its reserves. Social Security is still accumulating reserves through interest earned on the money in its trust funds. The reserves are projected to increase from $2.7 trillion at the end of 2012 to $2.9 trillion at the end of 2020. After that, if Congress has not acted in the meantime to increase revenues or lower benefits, the reserves would start to be drawn down to help pay benefits.
9. But the media sometimes refer to Social Security’s “cash-flow imbalance.” Is it running out of cash? No. The term “cash flow” as used in the unified federal budget refers to the program’s annual income and outgo without counting interest earned by the trust fund reserves. If interest is ignored, income was less than outgo in 2012. But interest is part of Social Security’s total income, and the U.S. Treasury is firmly obligated to pay the interest due to the trust funds – an obligation just as firm as the commitment of the United States to any other holder of U.S. Treasury bonds. With interest income included, Social Security had a $54 billion surplus in 2012.
10. If the reserves are used up to help pay benefits, will Social Security be bankrupt? No. “Bankruptcy” means having no funds. Although the trustees estimate that the reserves will be depleted in 2033 (but only if Congress has not acted in the meantime), revenue continuing to come into Social Security from payroll taxes and income taxes on benefits paid to higher-income recipients would cover about 75% of scheduled benefits. It is this shortfall — not bankruptcy — that lawmakers need to address.
11. Are there ways to fix Social Security’s shortfall without cutting benefits? Yes. Many public opinion surveys, including a recent NASI study,[1] have found that most Americans would rather pay somewhat more to keep Social Security strong than cut benefits for current or future beneficiaries. For example, gradually increasing the contribution rate from 6.2% to 7.2% and gradually removing the cap on earnings taxable for Social Security could address the shortfall and pay for modest benefit improvements.
12. Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund will soon be depleted. What can be done? Social Security pays benefits from two legally separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI). Of the 6.2% of earnings that workers and employers each pay to Social Security, 5.3% goes to OASI and 0.9% goes to DI. Policymakers could keep DI in balance for the next 75 years by raising the DI rate from 0.9% to 1.1%. Alternatively, they could temporarily reallocate part of the OASI tax rate to the DI fund to equalize the two funds over the next 20 years. Congress has reallocated the tax rate between DI and OASI many times in the past without controversy and could do so again.[2]
13. Will the retirement of the baby boomers overwhelm Social Security? No. The baby boomers’ retirement did not catch Social Security by surprise. Benefit reductions that were enacted 30 years ago, including gradually raising the age of eligibility for full benefits from 65 to 67, are still phasing in and have slowed spending for future benefits. In addition, the boomers’ tax contributions throughout their working years have helped cover the cost of their retirement.
14. Some commentators claim that Social Security is simply unaffordable. Is this true? A widely accepted way to evaluate the affordability of Social Security — or other major systems such as health care, education, or defense — is as a share of the entire economy, or gross domestic product (GDP). Social Security was 5.0% of GDP in 2012 and is expected to increase to 6.2% of GDP by 2035, when all of the baby boomers will have retired; then it is expected to decline slightly and level off at 6.0% to 6.2% thereafter. By way of comparison, the projected increase until 2035 is smaller than the increase in national spending for public education when the baby boomers were children. Social Security is affordable, and surveys show that Americans are willing to pay for it.

Could Syria Spark WWIII?

By Alan Caruba

Who recalls that one of the reasons Americans approved the invasions of Iraq was the fact that Saddam Hussein had used poison gas to kill Kurds?

Now we are told that Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s strongman, has used poison gas to defeat the rebels trying to overthrow him, but the attack killed civilians and came in the wake of news that Assad has been steadily gaining ground over the rebels.

The war has seen the slaughter of an estimated 100,000 Syrians. Why use poison gas at this point?

The U.S. was drawn into the Vietnam War with the false assertion that forces of the north had fired on U.S. naval ships, but it later came out that the attack was minor and hardly constituted a reason to make the huge commitment that led to the long war; one that it lost. Lyndon B. Johnson got the nation into that war with what is widely acknowledged to have been, at best, an exaggeration of the incident.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, while America was still engaged in Afghanistan, was yet another ill-fated decision. Indeed, it can be argued that after driving al Qaeda out of Afghanistan following 9/11 there was no reason for American military to remain. The U.S. began to depart Iraq in 2011 and it has returned to chaos as the Sunni-Shiite conflict grinds on.

Was the poison attack a “false flag” incident intended to draw the U.S. into yet another Middle East war?

Is there any reason to believe that U.S. military involvement in Syria would have a better outcome than Iraq or Afghanistan?

Naturally, though, observers will speculate who might have initiated the attack, but most certainly one can rule out Russia and Iran, allies of Assad. The Israelis have no reason to want to see an expanded war in Syria. Israel has had a de facto peace with the Assad father and son dictators since the 1967 war.

Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, would surely want to see a quick end to the Syrian civil war because all are trying to deal with a humanitarian disaster involving over a million refugees that have fled the conflict, but there is little reason to attribute a false flag operation to them.

Would the rebels—an assortment of Syrian freedom fighters augmented by al Qaeda groups—use poison gas to draw the U.S. and the West into the conflict? The answer to that is yes.

The most striking attribute of the Obama administration has been its failure to make any good judgments about the Middle East other than to get out or “lead from behind.” Much of this is attributable to the foreign policy advisors he has gathered around him; high level appointees of his national security council and in the CIA have a very Islam-friendly attitude that led them to believe that the U.S. could encourage democracy in a region that has no democratic history to build upon. His latest appointment, the new United Nations ambassador is missing in action; no one seems to know where she is.

The fact is that U.S. presidents have been making bad judgments when it comes to war since LBJ. Clearly, the decisions by Bush41 and Bush43 have not been met with success and, just as clearly, Americans do not want to see our military committed to another conflict in the Middle East.

Obama’s decision to support the ouster of Mubarak, the former Egyptian dictator, led to a short term in office by a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood that, in turn, led to massive demonstrations against him and his removal by the Egyptian military. By then the nation was suffering an economic breakdown with hundreds of thousands facing starvation. Only humanitarian support from Saudi Arabia has prevented this. The U.S. continues to dither over aid to the Egyptian military that has been a reliable ally for decades.

Even Turkey that has had a secular government elected an Islamist who has become unhinged by events. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan went from being Obama’s touted friend and partner to an offensive anti-Semite claiming Israel was behind Syria’s civil war. Obama has consistently misjudged who to support in the region.

As this is being written, American navel assets are being moved closer to Syria and American military have set up a command post in Jordan in the event an intervention is deemed necessary.

Writing in The Washington Times, Judson Phillips says, “This is Obama’s perfect war. It is perfect because there are no American interests involved, no reason for America to be involved, and no matter who wins the Syrian civil war, America loses.”
Most certainly, whether he decides to get in or stay out, it would come at a time when the Obama administration has forfeited any claim to leadership in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. At this point, that is likely to be seen as Obama’s greatest legacy.

A century ago in 1913, neither Europeans, nor Americans could have imagined that World War I would begin the following year. The situation in Syria reeks of the same uncertainties and outcome.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

NSA

(IBD) CSI ObamaCare: Affordable Care Act To Have Own Police - You Have The Right To Remain Silent

Police State: The administration is building a detective  squad that will target consumers and companies that don't follow ObamaCare's  rules. The game of "good cop, bad cop" has arrived in American health care.
It was bad enough to know that an Internal Revenue Service that targets the  political opponents of the Obama administration between partying on the taxpayer  dime would be in charge of monitoring compliance with ObamaCare's individual  mandate via our tax returns.
Now, the Daily Mail, which lodged a Freedom of Information Act with Health  and Human Services, reports that the agency has hired a bevy of criminal  investigators as we continue to learn what is in the Orwellian-named Affordable  Care Act.
Never did we imagine that buying insurance and going to the doctor or  providing coverage to employees would come under the full-time purview of  federal criminal investigators.
On the day in 2010 that President Obama signed the bill into law, HHS got  authority from the Office of Personnel Management to make as many as 1,814 new  hires under an emergency "Direct Hiring Authority" order.
The agency was authorized to hire 50 criminal investigators to ensure  compliance with mandatory provisions and regulations. But as is typical with an  administration with no respect for the Constitution and the law, HHS  unilaterally upped that number to 86.
Of course these investigators won't be digging into the Obama  administration's lack of compliance with its own law. A president doesn't have  the legal authority to decide what parts of the law he wants to obey; the  Constitution does not grant him that authority.
But that's exactly what Obama is doing with Obama-Care.

Rush Limbaugh Inks New 3-Year Deal, Contract 'Really Never in Doubt'

Calling himself America's "Doctor of Democracy" and "America's Truth Detector," conservative talk superstar Rush Limbaugh announced a new three-year deal on Friday with Cumulus Media, which includes a move from WABC to WOR in New York.

"The bottom line is, no change for you," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Wherever you're listening to this radio show today, you're gonna be able to hear it on Jan. 2, 3, whenever I get back from the traditional Christmas break. There will be no interruption to you. There will be no change. The radio program is as strong or stronger than ever. It will be everywhere you are used to listening to it now."

Politico reported last month that Cumulus Media would not renew "The Rush Limbaugh Show" after negotiations with Premiere Networks, the division of Clear Channel that distributes the program.

"The last month, if you read Politico or anything that linked to Politico or CNN or ABC or anywhere else, you were reading that it was over for me. That I was bad news for broadcast stations," Limbaugh told listeners. "They could not sell advertising and all of this was because of me and the controversy I engender and therefore I wasn't gonna be gone overnight, but three to four years, and that's it. Fini, totala completa, out of there, gone. Once and for all the left would be rid of me."

On Friday, Limbaugh said that the yearlong negotiations ended this week with a new deal, and that "it was really never in doubt, but I don't want to do my own version of negotiating here."

He compared his situation to President Obama's promise that Americans could keep their health insurance.

"If you like this station, you get to keep this station," he said. "I'm not gonna take this station away from you and force you to go to a new one, as Obama's doing with your healthcare. He said if you like your doctor, you like your plan, you get to keep it. No, you don't. You're gonna lose your doctor; you're gonna lose your plan."

Then he dubbed himself the "Doctor of Democracy" and "America's Truth Detector." He attributed the move from WABC in the highly coveted New York market to the fact that WOR is owned by his syndication partner, Clear Channel Communications.

He added, "And as the Doctor of Democracy, the deal you have with your doctor isn't changing. You get to keep your doctor. You get to keep your plan. You get to keep your station. Nothing's changing, and it really never was gonna change," he explained. "These were just public negotiations, which normally don't occur in public. But the media got involved.

"So the point is, the past month in the drive-by media I was over, it was finished," he said. "You better listen while you can because I was gone, I was ineffective, I was a has-been, it was old news, whatever happened on this program."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rush-Limbaugh-Inks-New-3-Year-Deal-Contract-%27Really-Never-in-Doubt-/2013/08/23/id/522035?s=al&promo_code=14A20-1#ixzz2ctcRgIOJ
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!