Ted Cruz Wins Straw Poll

This story is from cnn.com




Ted Cruz finished in first place in the annual Republican Leadership Conference's presidential straw poll at 30.33%. Dr. Ben Carson, a Fox News commentator and conservative activist, finished in second with 29.38% while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, was third with 10.43%.


Fox News host and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Texas Governor Rick Perry rounded out the top five, at 5.06% and 4.90%, respectively.


Neither Carson nor Paul spoke at the conference, but their support was a show of confidence by the traditionally more conservative crowd. The annual meeting of activists features of who's who of big-name Republican politicians. It is an important appearance for potential presidential candidates to make.

Dream of U.S. energy independence was just revised away

                        

May 22, 2014, 1:58 p.m. EDT

Opinion: Most of the shale oil we were counting on doesn’t exist

This story contains no references to stocks or funds that can be associated with your Watchlist.

*Determined by how closely the stocks and other items in this story are associated with Watchlist. All feedback is welcome.

By Chris Martenson

Getty Images

Pump jacks in the Monterey shale formation.

The U.S. shale oil “miracle” took a major hit Wednesday, when the federal government announced a hefty downward revision of its estimate of the amount of recoverable oil in the No. 1 shale reserve in the U.S.: the Monterey formation in California.

A recently as this week, the much-publicized Monterey formation accounted for nearly two-thirds of all technically recoverable U.S. shale oil resources, standing at a world-class 13.7 billion barrels. But on Wednesday, that estimate was downgraded to a mere 600 million barrels, or 96% lower than the day before.
You read that right: 96% lower. This takes the Monterey from one of the world’s largest potential fields to a play that, if all 600 million barrels thought to be there were brought to the surface all at once, would supply the U.S.’s oil needs for a mere 33 days.
Yep. 33 days.
And along with that oil come tremendous water demands, environmental, and infrastructure damages.
The reasons for the downgrade are easy enough to understand. The initial estimates were mere guesses that relied on company statements and not actual results. Now with enough wells in play the Energy Information Agency can calculate the potential of the Monterey play and it’s obviously a lot less than originally thought.
With that, California’s dreams of 2.8 million new jobs from the Monterey shrank to 112,000 and the hoped for $24.6 billion in tax revenues withered to $984 million.
More importantly, the U.S. shale “miracle” turned into a pumpkin overnight with overall U.S. reserves shrinking from approximately 24 billion barrels to approximately 11 billion barrels.
This is not surprising at all to anybody following the shale story with a critical eye. We always knew that the best plays were being prosecuted first for obvious reasons; it’s human nature to go after the easy stuff first. And this is especially true for the folks in the oil patch.
The best plays were tapped first, not by some accident of technology or lucky holes plunged into the ground, but because they were cheapest to prosecute. The remaining shale deposits are less rich, more costly to explore, and the profitable pockets much harder to find.
Your main take-away is this: the U.S. has a lot less shale reserves on the books today than it did yesterday. Look for future downward revisions as the other remnant shale plays are poked and prodded and found to be wanting.
Investors need to be wary here too. The hype about shale prospects are wedded to a Wall Street cheap capital machine that is showing clear signs of over-heating.                                        

           

Up to now, shale companies, even those with the riskiest credit scores, have been finding no trouble raising gobs of capital from yield-starved investors. But those investors would do themselves a favor to run the numbers and think critically and carefully.
Taken as a whole, the independent petroleum producers in the U.S. will spend $1.50 drilling for every $1.00 of revenue they get back this year. That same spend-more-than-you-get dynamic has been in play since 2010. After four years of spending more than they get back, the free cash flows (FCF) of these companies have been quite negative.
How have they plugged the gap? With financing, of course, which is where Wall Street and the investors come into the story. But four years into the shale miracle is plenty of time to ask the obvious question: When will all these shale drilling efforts finally generate positive FCF?
For the U.S. as a whole, the Monterey write-down should squelch any talk of the U.S. needing to export any of its oil because we still import more than 7 million barrels per day, and it was unlikely that we’d ever entirely plug that gap. The ‘”loss” of the Monterey oil from our reserve count only makes the dream of oil independence that much less likely.
The larger context here, one that China is on top of with its magic checkbook diplomacy in high gear, is that global energy resources are getting harder and harder to procure. Our prediction is that this trend of ever-increasing oil prices has a very long way to run yet. Our observation is that very few seem to be aware of the implications, which we forecast will drive increasing geopolitical unrest as energy prices continue their march upwards from here.
Given how much hope and political posturing rested upon the shale oil miracle in the U.S., the Monterey write-down is one the biggest news developments on the wires right now.

A case study: The destruction of Trey Gowdy

House Republicans finally decided to create a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks. They appointed South Carolina Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy to lead the investigation.

Congressman Gowdy has shown a talent for tough questioning of administration officials. Perhaps, finally...Americans will find the truth out about the Benghazi attacks.

Hillary Clinton and those surrounding her think the deaths of 4 brave Americans makes no difference.
 "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!!!!"

Remember, those that dared to uncover the truth about the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton affair and Clinton's lies under oath about it? The Clinton's methodically destroyed the careers and reputations of those that dared to lead the impeachment proceedings.

Here are just a few examples of the attacks on Trey Gowdy so far by the Clinton apologists:
 

	>>>	Gowdy is a lunatic: Left-wing publication Mother Jones has called Gowdy a lunatic because he is a "tea-party true believer."
	>>>	Gowdy is politicizing Benghazi: Democrat Campaign chief, Congressman Steve Israel, and Nancy Pelosi are accusing Gowdy of politicizing Benghazi saying, "House Republicans are spending all their time trying to invent new ways to politicize the Benghazi tragedy."
	>>>	Gowdy is stupid and confused: Ranking Democrat member Elijah Cummings believes Trey Gowdy is stupid and confused saying, "I do not understand what the House Republicans are doing on Benghazi, and apparently they don't either."
	>>>	Gowdy's hair is unacceptable: MSNBC is attacking Gowdy's hair. That's right, far-left cable news outfit MSNBC is even attacking Gowdy's hair -- mocking his hair as "unkempt, multi-directional silver locks."

Invasive Federal Intrusion of Our Inalienable Rights

An ingenious new drone beer delivery service proposed by a Minnesota Micro Brewery to rush beer to thirsty ice fishermen across frozen lakes has had its wings clipped by the feds
.

Less than a week after the company posted a buzzy promotional YouTube video chronicling the first test flights across mid-sized lakes, the Federal Aviation Administration called Lakemaid Beer to immediately pull the unmanned beer from the skies.

"As much as they thought it was a funny idea, it was a violation of all sorts of codes," Lakemaid Beer Company President Jack Supple told ABC News, adding he's determined to keep pushing to get his idea off the ground.

 

"I understand why they had to shut it down, but I would like to do it for our fishermen," said Supple, lamenting the missed opportunities that the coming Super Bowl weekend could have brought for the business. "The fishermen are going to sit there from Friday 5 p.m. all the way through Sunday. That's a long time to be out there on a frozen lake."

Will the states pay back the tax payer dollars wasted?

Nevada’s health-care exchange is going dark, becoming the fourth state exchange so far to fail. The four terminated exchanges received $744.9 million in federal grants, much of which has already been spent.  The health-care-exchange board voted Tuesday to forgo the Silver State’s health-insurance exchange and use the federal Healthcare.gov website.

The four states that have called it quits — Nevada, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Maryland — have been awarded a total of $744.9 million in federal grants to help pay for their failed insurance exchanges, according to the latest count from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The high cost to taxpayers may not be recovered. It remains unclear whether the federal government will be able to claw back any of that cash.

What's 3/4 of a billion when it comes to the ACA?  Chump change.  Why is it that contractors always get paid regardless of contract performance?   Why is it government contracts  are so lacking in recovery terms, performance criteria?

Dem Congressman: ‘We’ve Proved That Communism Works’

10:12 AM 05/21/2014

 

Brendan Bordelon

Democratic Florida Rep. Joe Garcia — fresh off being caught eating his own earwax on camera — was caught red-handed (or is it yellow-fingered?) in another gaffe this week, claiming that low crime rates in border cities with lots of federal immigration workers is proof that “Communism works.”
Garcia made the comment during a Google hangout he convened last week to talk about comprehensive immigration reform with supporters. The Democrat attempted to point out how, for all their talk about limited government, many Republicans are fine spending loads of government money on border security.
“Let me give you an example, the kind of money we’ve poured in,” he said. “So the most dangerous — sorry, the safest city in America is El Paso, Texas. It happens to be across the border from the most dangerous city in the Americas, which is Juarez. Right?”
“And two of the safest cities in America, two of them are on the border with Mexico,” Garcia continued. “And of course, the reason is we’ve proved that Communism works. If you give everybody a good government job, there’s no crime.”
“But that isn’t what we should be doing on the border,” he continued. “The kind of money we’ve poured into it, and we’re having diminishing returns.”
The video was uploaded to YouTube by the America Rising PAC, a Republican PAC founded in 2013 and dedicated to opposition research. It’s also the same group that originally uploaded Garcia’s earwax snafu.
Garcia, who is of Cuban descent along with many of his south Florida constituents, told the Miami Herald he never meant to espouse Communism — and was instead taking a tongue-in-cheek shot at his GOP opponents.
“This is an absurdity, accusing the son of Cuban immigrants of believing in Communism is just ridiculous,” he declared.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/21/dem-congressman-weve-proved-that-communism-works/#ixzz32MjrBWX4

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?

"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?" - Francisco d'Anconia

The VA. No scandal here, just move on.

Yes, government run healthcare is what's needed today, LOL.

By John Fund

If our government has any obligation to fulfill its many promises on health care, it should be first and foremost to the men and women who served in our armed forces. But the scandal over hidden waiting lists at a growing number of veterans’ hospitals (seven so far) — wherein dozens of veterans died while waiting months for vital treatment, and the VA covered up the lengthy wait times — should make everyone wonder whether we can place our trust in a government-managed health-care system. The Dayton Daily News reported on Sunday that its investigation of a database of claims paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that the words “delay in treatment” were used 167 times. The VA paid out a total of $36.4 million to settle the claims. There could well be many more cases of “death by delay” at the VA that never came to light.
Are there lessons in the VA scandal for the rest of us if Obamacare survives and even expands?
You betcha. The first lesson is that as government expands taxpayer subsidies for health care, the demand will always outstrip supply.  Here is President Obama in a speech to disabled veterans in August 2013:

The last time I was with you, I pledged to cut the backlog, slash those wait times, deliver your benefits sooner. And I’m going to be honest with you; it has not moved as fast as I wanted. Part of it is all these new veterans in the system who came in — Agent Orange, PTSD. It means a lot more claims, and despite additional resources, it’s resulted in longer waits. And that’s been unacceptable — unacceptable to me, unacceptable to [Department of Veterans Affairs] Secretary [Eric] Shinseki.

A few weeks later, President Obama had to admit that he found the fiasco of the HealthCare.gov website also “unacceptable.” Last week, his aides told reporters he was “madder than hell” over the veteran waiting-list scandal.
There’s a lot to be mad about at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute notes that more than 344,000 claims for veterans’ care are backed up and waiting to be processed. It takes an average of 160 days for a veteran to be approved for health benefits, and the VA itself estimates that is has an error rate of at least 9 percent in processing claims. According to VA figures for 2012, as reported by the Washington Post, “a veteran who takes an appeal through all available administrative steps faces an average wait of 1,598 days.” That’s more than four years of waiting.
Obamacare will dramatically expand access to the health-care system at the same time that many surveys show doctors are likely to retire or cut back their hours. It is almost inevitable that we’ll see more waiting-list scandals as the need to ration care grows.
This is the record of many single-payer health-care systems, and both Obama and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, have said that establishing a single-payer system is their long-term goal. In 2003, Obama, then an Illinois state senator, told an AFL-CIO conference: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health-care program. . . . But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.” Similarly, Majority Leader Reid told a PBS interview show in Nevada, in October 2013: “What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever.” When he was asked by a panelist whether he meant that ultimately the country would need a health-care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely yes.”
But, if the experience of other countries is any guide, a single-payer health-care plan or even government-managed care brings all kinds of waiting lists with it. In 2012, it was discovered that more than 7,000 patients in just a few Scottish hospitals had been wrongly removed from waiting lists for surgery in order to pretend to meet government targets for treatment. One trick was offering to perform surgery on a date when hospital officials knew a patient would be away on holiday, then dropping the patient from the wait list for “refusing” the date.
Sarah Boyack, a member of the Scottish Parliament, called the figure of 7,000 “astonishing,” given that “an extra five million pounds [$8 million] has been pumped into the NHS [National Health Service] to help cut the waiting list” in the affected hospitals.
Not that NHS patients in hospitals without waiting-list scandals are that much better off. In all of the United Kingdom, NHS patients wait an average of about eight weeks for treatments that require admission to a hospital, four weeks for out-patient treatments, and two weeks for diagnostic tests. While NHS patients have a choice of hospitals, they cannot always choose their specialist.
The situation in Canada, a nation whose government-run health-care system has long been touted by liberal supporters of government in health care, is also dire. Last year, the respected Fraser Institute published a study on Canadian wait times for surgery. Among its finding are these:

In 2013, those requiring orthopaedic surgery were forced to endure waits of more than nine months (39.6 weeks) to receive treatment, while others had to wait for slightly more than four months (17.4 weeks) just to receive an appointment with a neurosurgeon. On the other hand, cancer patients in line for radiation therapy faced the shortest expected wait times for treatment after referral by a general practitioner (3.5 weeks).
Currently, one in 34 Canadians may be in pain, off work, or suffering from depression as they wait their turn for treatment.
The 2013 median waiting time of 18.2 weeks is about three days longer than 2012, and substantially longer than 1993 when it was just 9.3 weeks. 

Bacchus Barua, the Fraser Institute’s senior health-policy analyst and the report’s lead author, writes: “Simply putting someone on a list is not the same as providing necessary medical attention in a timely manner.”
The veterans’ hospital scandals now in the news in the United States show just how bad things can get when the pressure of patient demand and waiting lists affects bureaucratic behavior. As many as 40 veterans reportedly died at a Phoenix veterans’ facility because they couldn’t get the care they needed. VA administrators there and at other hospitals apparently covered it up by establishing secret waiting lists and falsifying reports.
No one is suggesting that such scandals are widespread in the general health-care system. But they should serve as a warning sign of what could happen as the pressure to ration, inherent in all government-managed health care, is applied to the general population.

How University Presidents Profit from rising Student Debt and Low Wage Faculty Labor

Alexis Hauk

State universities have come under increasing criticism for excessive executive pay, soaring student debt, and low-wage faculty labor. In the public debate, these issues are often treated separately. Our study examines what happened to student debt and faculty labor at the 25 public universities with the highest executive pay (hereafter “the top 25”) from fall 2005 to summer 2012 (FY 2006 – FY 2012). Our findings suggest these issues are closely related and should be addressed together in the future.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, executive pay at “the top 25” (see Appendix 2) has risen dramatically to far exceed pre-crisis levels. Over the same period, low-wage faculty labor and student debt at these institutions rose faster than national averages. In short, a top-heavy, “1% recovery” occurred at major state universities across the country, largely at the expense of students and faculty.

 The student debt crisis is worse at state schools with the highest-paid presidents. The sharpest rise in student debt at the top 25 occurred when executive compensation soared the highest.

 As students went deeper in debt, administrative spending outstripped scholarship spending by more than 2 to 1 at state schools with the highest-paid presidents.

 As presidents’ pay at the top 25 skyrocketed after 2008, part-time adjunct faculty increased more than twice as fast as the national average at all universities.

 At state schools with the highest-paid presidents, permanent faculty declined dramatically as a percentage of all faculty. By fall 2012, part-time and contingent faculty at the top 25 outnumbered permanent faculty for the first time.

 

 Average executive pay at the top 25 rose to nearly $1 million by 2012– increasing  more than twice as fast as the national average at public research universities

 

Executive Pay at the Top Rises, Falls, then Comes Roaring Back

Like executives in the corporate and banking sectors, public university presidents weathered the immediate aftermath of the fall 2008 financial crisis with minimal or no reductions in total compensation. From fall 2005 to summer 2009, average executive compensation at public research universities nationwide rose in 2012 dollars from $422,447 to $475,966 – an increase of 13%. During the top-heavy recovery from fall 2009 through summer 2012, average executive compensation at public research universities nationwide rose only slightly faster – increasing 14% to $544,554.

By comparison, public universities that already paid their presidents higher than average before the crisis increased executive pay drastically during the top-heavy recovery. From FY 2009 to FY 2012, average annual compensation for presidents at the top 25 rose in 2012 dollars from $727,002 to $974,006 – increasing more than twice as fast as the national average at public research universities.

During this period, the gap in average executive pay between the top 25 and public research institutions nationwide grew from $251,036 to $429,452. By 2012, average executive pay at the top 25 stood near double the national average at public research universities.

Early indications on executive compensation at the top 25 since 2012 suggest this acceleration for the “1%” of public university presidents continues.3

As presidents’ pay at the top 25 skyrocketed after 2008, part-time adjunct faculty increased more than twice as fast as the national average at all universities. At state schools with the highest-paid presidents, permanent faculty declined dramatically as a percentage of all faculty. By fall 2012, part-time and contingent faculty at the top 25 outnumbered permanent faculty for the first time. Average executive pay at the top 25 rose to nearly $1 million by 2012– increasing  more than twice as fast as the national average at public research universities

Who Decides What University Presidents Make?

Boards of Trustees set the compensation packages of university presidents. Boards are commonly made up of private-sector executives from business, law, finance, real estate, and other industries with a significant presence in a given state. Managers of wealthy philanthropic societies may also sit on some boards. Board members are elected by governors, alumni, other trustees, and various business or professional associations with an interest in the university. Given that private-sector executive compensation has soared to astronomical levels (see IPS Executive Excess report), trustees are increasingly out of touch with notions of reasonable compensation. When determining a president’s salary, trustees may face a conflict between the cultural norms of their for-profit peer group and the public interest. Increasingly, boards are deferring to the former and offering dubious justifications in defense of their decisions.

“Fair Market Value”?

A common justification given by boards is so-called “fair market value.” In February 2014, for instance, Penn State’s Board of Trustees hired Eric J. Barron as the university’s next president, awarding him annual compensation in excess of $1 million. A university representative defended the sum, claiming the Board’s Committee on Compensation had studied the salaries of peer institutions and had determined the package to be “competitive and reasonable.” Given our analysis, such justifications are spurious at best. Between FY 2006 and FY 2012, national average annual compensation of four-year public university presidents ranged from $370,939 to $544,554 (nominal dollars). During that same period, however, boards of trustees at the top 25 consistently awarded compensation far in excess of this amount. This was particularly true during the “1% recovery” (FY 2010 – FY 2012) when average annual compensation at the top 25 rose to $974,006 – nearly double the national average for public research university presidents. Another argument often given in support of the “fair market value” justification is that presidents of large public research universities can legitimately “demand” much higher compensation than the national average at other four-year public universities. This argument is also dubious. In FY 2012, for instance, the presidents of some of the nation’s largest, most respected public research universities – the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst – each made less than $500,000 in annual total compensation. From FY 2008 to FY 2012, Ohio State University’s Board of Trustees awarded President E. Gordon Gee $8.9 million in total compensation. Gee’s average yearly compensation was more than three times the national average for four-year public university presidents over the same period. Our analysis suggests that executive compensation packages awarded between FY 2006 and FY 2012 in excess of $600,000 per year (nominal or 2012 dollars) were inflated well above “market value.” There was no “fair market value” compelling trustees to offer presidents of large public research universities far more than the national average for four-year public university presidents. Rather, deliberate decisions by individual boards (whose members often make extraordinary private-sector salaries) determined excessive compensation at the top 25.

As Presidents Cash In, Students Go Deeper in the Hole

At the top 25 public universities with the highest executive pay, student debt increased much faster than the national average during the 1% recovery.

The Student Debt Crisis

The student debt crisis in America has reached staggering heights. In 2012, it was widely reported that student loan debt reached $1.2 trillion, surpassing Americans’ total credit card debt for the first time. According to the Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS), two-thirds of college students now graduating have some level of debt. TICAS estimates that 71% of college seniors who graduated last year had student loan debt, with an average of $29,400 per borrower.

Student Debt Accelerates During the 1% Recovery

Though it has been rising everywhere, average student debt of graduates in the top 25 public universities with the highest executive pay increased 5 percentage points more or 13% faster than the national average from summer 2006 to summer 2012. The rise was most pronounced when executive compensation soared during the 1% recovery. From summer 2010 to summer 2011 alone, student debt in the top 25 rose by 10%, increasing 43% faster than the national average. We also found that throughout our study period student debt rose faster in the top 25 whenever executive compensation increased and slowed when compensation fell briefly after the 2008 financial crisis. This differed from the national trend, where student debt increased sharply after the financial crisis and continued growing at a steadier rate through 2012.

More Spending on Administration, Less Money for Scholarships

Spending on non-academic administration has risen dramatically nationwide. Non-academic administrative expenditures include executive direction and planning, general university administration, legal and fiscal operations, public relations and development. This category does not include administrative expenditures on services that provide a direct benefit to students such as academic advising, career guidance, library services, and computing. At public universities with the highest executive pay, increased spending on non-academic administration came at the expense of scholarships. Between FY 2006 and FY 2012, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities increased spending on non-academic administration by 125% while decreasing spending on scholarships by 36%. From FY 2006 to FY 2012, spending on non-academic administration rose 65%, much faster than spending on scholarships in the top 25. As tuition and fees rose 61%, spending on scholarships did not keep pace, rising just 46%. Overall, spending on non-academic administration outstripped spending on scholarships by more than 2 to 1. At the top 25, the majority of growth in expenditures on non-academic administration occurred during the 1% recovery. Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, spending on scholarships was rising faster than spending on non-academic administration. After the financial crisis, however, spending on scholarships slowed while spending on non-academic administration accelerated. From FY 2009 to FY 2012 expenditures on non-academic administration rose 106% faster than spending on scholarships. A recent report on inflated administrator salaries at the University of Michigan – which paid out $5.7 million in executive compensation from FY 2006 to FY 2012 – suggests excessive spending on non-academic administrator salaries continues to soar at schools in the top 25. Mimicking common arguments in defense of presidential compensation, a spokesperson for the university defended the salaries, claiming they were “at market and very competitive.” The report found that salaries and unreported bonuses at the University of Michigan were 27 to 41 percent higher than those at peer institutions such as the University of Virginia and the University of Texas at Austin

The Explosion of Low-Wage Faculty Labor

The top 25 public universities with highest executive pay increased low-wage and contingent faculty labor much faster than the national average during the 1% recovery. According to a recent report by Adjunct Action at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), two-thirds of all faculty in U.S. higher education work on a contingent basis – facing low pay, little or no benefits, and no job security. The Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW) found that the median adjunct pay per course was $2,700. Because adjuncts work at piece rate, their annual pay depends on the number of courses taught. The U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce recently estimated that the median adjunct pay per year was $22,041 – below the federal poverty line for a family of four.

Low-Wage Faculty Labor During the 1% Recovery

As in universities everywhere, hiring of adjunct and contingent faculty far outstripped permanent faculty hiring at the 25 public universities with the highest executive pay. However, we found that adjunct (part-time) and contingent (temporary) faculty grew much faster than the national average when executive compensation soared at the top 25. From fall 2005 to fall 2009, adjunct faculty labor at the top 25 increased at roughly the same rate as the national average for all universities. During the 1% recovery, however, adjunct faculty labor increased drastically. From fall 2009 to fall 2011, the ranks of adjunct faculty at the 25 public universities with the highest executive pay increased 17%, rising more than twice as fast as the national average. Not all schools in the top 25 relied on more adjunct labor. Those that did not increased full-time contingent faculty instead. A number of schools increased both adjuncts and contingents. Though usually paid more than adjuncts, full-time contingent faculty work on temporary contracts that end after 1 or 2 years. Since permanent faculty hires remain flat nationwide, full-time contingents are likely to fall into the ranks of adjuncts later.

Where Have All the Professors Gone

 As SEIU’s report points out: “Being a university professor, once the quintessential middle-class job, has become a low-wage one.” Even as university presidents’ pay skyrocketed at the top 25, permanent faculty declined dramatically as a percentage of all teaching faculty. During the 1% recovery, permanent faculty hiring at the top 25 fell below the national average for all universities. Between fall 2009 and fall 2011, permanent faculty at the top 25 grew by only 1 percentage point compared to 2 percentage points nationwide. Before the 1% recovery, total permanent faculty at the top 25 outnumbered total contingent and part-time faculty by a margin of 35,597 to 30,508 – 54% to 46%. By fall 2012, total contingent and part-time faculty at the top 25 outnumbered total permanent faculty by a margin of 36,815 to 36,000 – 51% to 49%.

Inequality in the University Undermines Education and Opportunity

The decline of university professors in favor of part-time and contingent faculty labor mirrors the shift in the broader economy from a secure, permanent workforce to a part-time, low-wage and contingent one. This shift has long-term consequences for the quality of higher education. Because adjuncts have to teach as many classes as possible to pay the bills, they do not have adequate time for class preparation or student mentorship. A recent survey revealed that 98% of adjuncts felt they were “missing opportunities to better serve their students because of the demands of their schedule.” Additionally, adjuncts do not receive support for research or professional development. Our research on the 25 public universities with the highest executive pay suggests that soaring compensation for college presidents has come at a familiar price: worsening inequality. In the public university, economic inequality in turn has adverse effects on the quality of higher education. Such effects worsen opportunities for poor and middle-class students to improve their condition creating a feedback loop that entrenches inequality in the broader economy.

"Fix the Debt" CEOs Enjoy Taxpayer-Subsidized Pay

By Sarah Anderson, Scott Klinger, Javier Rojo

A new report by IPS and Campaign for America's Future shows that America’s top CEOs are pocketing massive taxpayer subsidies at the same time they’re pushing austerity cutbacks in government programs that benefit ordinary citizens.

REPORT KEY FINDINGS
Thanks to a “performance pay” tax loophole, large corporations in the United States today are routinely deducting enormous executive payouts from their income taxes. In effect, these companies are exploiting the U.S. tax code to send taxpayers the bill for the huge rewards they’re doling out to their top executives.

• During the three-year period 2009-2011, the 90 publicly held corporate members of the austerity-focused “Fix the Debt” lobby group shoveled out $6.3 billion in pay to their CEOs and next three highest-paid executives.

• These 90 Fix the Debt member firms raked in at least $953 million — and as much as $1.6 billion — from the “performance pay” loophole between 2009-2011. The exact full value of corporate windfalls from this loophole will remain impossible to compute until we have more complete mandated disclosure for executive compensation.

• Top executives at these same Fix the Debt companies are aggressively advocating cuts to government programs that benefit the ordinary American taxpayers subsidizing their compensation. Many of these executives have also added to America’s debt and deficit by using tax havens and other accounting tricks to have their corporations avoid paying their fair tax share.

• Health insurance giant UnitedHealth Group enjoyed the biggest taxpayer subsidy for its CEO pay largesse. The nation’s largest HMO paid CEO Stephen Hemsley $199 million in total compensation between 2009 and 2011. Of this, at least $194 million went for fully deductible “performance pay.” That works out to a $68 million taxpayer subsidy to UnitedHealth Group – just for one individual CEO’s pay. A just-released proxy reveals that Hemsley pocketed another $28 million in “performance pay” in 2012, which computes into a tax break for UnitedHealth of nearly $10 million.

• Discovery Communications stood next in line for a government handout. Between 2009 and 2011, CEO David Zaslav pocketed $114 million, $105 million of this in exercised stock options and other fully deductible “performance pay.” That translates into a $37 million taxpayer subsidy for Discovery and its lavish executive pay policies. In 2012, Zaslav hauled in enough additional “performance pay” to generate a tax break worth $9 million.

Even big losers win with the “performance pay” loophole. Gambling titan Caesars Entertainment has hemorrhaged money in recent years, driving CEO Gary Loveman’s stock options underwater. Loveman managed, even so, to take home $9.6 million in cash bonuses between 2009-2011, a windfall that’s generating taxpayer subsidies the firm can cash in to lower its taxes over years to come.

The need for a new labor/management model. Why the UAW doesn't fit that model

hthttp://www.tennessean.com/story/money/cars/2014/04/21/uaw-exploring-options-chattanooga-vw-plant/7960531/

CHATTANOOGA -- The United Auto Workers will "look into other options" to get recognized at the Chattanooga Volkswagen plant after dropping its challenge Monday to an election it narrowly lost in February, said Gary Casteel, the UAW's district director.
The union abruptly ended its objection to the vote just before a hearing before a National Labor Relations Board judge was to begin in Chattanooga to consider the challenge.
Related: UAW withdraws VW union vote appeal
"There are still options other than elections and card checks, and we can prove we had a majority" of workers favoring UAW representation "prior to the election," Casteel said. "And we came up just 44 votes short of winning."
Hourly workers voted 712-626 against joining the UAW in the Feb. 12-14 election, which the union subsequently challenged claiming unfair outside influence from anti-union groups and Republican politicians, including U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Gov. Bill Haslam.
Although the union has an agreement with Volkswagen that it won't call another election through the NLRB for at least a year, Casteel said Volkswagen could agree to a private election and choose to accept the UAW on its own.
"The board doesn't have to certify anything," he said. "Volkswagen could give us voluntary recognition. There is no adversarial relationship between the UAW and Volkswagen, and we're still having discussions."
But Casteel also said he doesn't believe "it's in anybody's best interest to try another election anytime soon."
Social media: Reaction to UAW decision
The focus now should be on getting the state to approve a tax-incentive plan to allow Volkswagen to put production of a new SUV at the Chattanooga plant, something that had been on hold while the union was trying to get the election voided and a new vote ordered.
"The ball is in the state's court now," Casteel said. "Those employees deserve a new product, and the plant needs it."
Casteel said the union decided to drop its appeal because it felt it was "unfair to keep Volkswagen mired down in the appeals process, which could take years to complete."
He cited a recent NLRB decision in a North Carolina case in which the union had cited unfair activities in an election it lost.
"We won the right to have a new election, but it took six years," he said.
"Our next step is to call on the state to give VW the incentives," Casteel said. "We want to see the new SUV in the Chattanooga plant. This is not a ploy to set up another election."
Opponents to the UAW's Chattanooga organizing drive said they aren't backing off on their efforts to keep the union out.
As for the union dropping the appeal, "This was good news," said Matt Patterson, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Worker Freedom, which had taken a lead role in fighting the UAW's challenge to the election.
"But everyone should recognize that the union is not going to go back to Detroit with its tail tucked between its legs," Patterson said. "Assuming that Volkswagen doesn't find a way to get them in there anyway, the union will try again as soon as it legally and possibly can."
UAW President Bob King has said that organizing at least some of the foreign-transplant auto plants in the South is vital to the survival of the union, and Volkswagen had appeared to be the easiest target because the union had the cooperation of Volkswagen's German management.
The union also is trying to organize at Nissan plants in Tennessee and Mississippi, and a Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama – although both of those automakers have resisted the UAW's attempts, which have so far been unsuccessful.

Obama is using Miley Cyrus to destroy America

Remember when the Miley Cyrus twerk incident that everybody would not shut up about back in the summer of 2013?
Korn frontman Jonathan Davis thinks that is just one example of how President Barack Obama is using Cyrus, and other celebrities, to become a dictator.
Davis explained the meaning behind the band's new song and video, Spike in my Veins, to TMZ.  The singer says:

"I think that our government uses those people to distract from what's really going on...the thing with Miley Cyrus at the VMAs, when that went down, I think Barack Obama passed a law that he is basically a dictator, he can imprison whoever he wants, he doesn't have to charge them, he can hold them as long as he wants."

Obama Admin frees 36,000 murders rapists violent offenders.

It's like he wants them to go out and start a massive crime wave so he can implement gun control

http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/release-of-36000-criminal-illegals-impeachable-offense/

As a bonus these are all illegal aliens. Trespassers. Tax dodgers. Sucking on America's teat.

Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage

By Emily Smith

May 12, 2014 | 9:06pm

Modal Trigger

Republican strategist Karl Rove suggested at a conference that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wasn't right in the head. Photo: AP

Karl Rove stunned a conference when he suggested Hillary Clinton may have brain damage.
Onstage with Robert Gibbs and CBS correspondent and “Spies Against Armageddon” co-author Dan Raviv, Rove said Republicans should keep the Benghazi issue alive.
He said if Clinton runs for president, voters must be told what happened when she suffered a fall in December 2012.
The official diagnosis was a blood clot. Rove told the conference near LA Thursday, “Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.”
Rove repeated the claim a number of times to the audience. Clinton’s rep said, “Please assure Dr. Rove she’s 100 percent.”
Despite Rove’s claims, then-Secretary of State Clinton was discharged from New York Presbyterian Hospital after spending three days undergoing treatment for a potentially life-threatening blood clot.

She was seen walking out of the Manhattan hospital for another series of tests but returned to the hospital shortly thereafter. She needed more tests related to her condition, the AP reported, citing unnamed officials.

Clinton, weakened by a stomach virus, fell in her Washington, DC, home in December 2012 and sustained a concussion. Her doctors said a blood clot had formed behind her right ear in the space between her brain and skull.
A spokesperson for Clinton added, “Karl Rove has deceived the country for years, but there are no words for this level of lying.”
As for her health, “She is 100 percent. Period.”

NFIP here's a good bi-partisan issue

Hell and High Water
Michael Grunwald @MikeGrunwald  May 8, 2014

Two years ago, lawmakers fixed our broken flood insurance system. Then they broke it all over again.

Here’s a rainy-season parable about cooperation in American politics: In July 2012, Republicans and Democrats came together during a bitter campaign season to enact sweeping reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program, phasing out subsidies for hundreds of thousands of property owners in flood-prone areas, dragging a debt-ridden program toward fiscal and ecological sustainability. The reforms attracted a genuine bipartisan coalition, with groups like the Heritage Foundation on the right and the Nature Conservancy on the left joining forces with Realtors, bankers and insurers. The simple notion that insurance rates should reflect risk was so compelling that the usually polarized House passed the reforms by a 406-to-22 vote. “Everyone was like, Wow,” says David Conrad, a consultant for the Association of State Floodplain Managers. “We had been talking about reform for 15 years, and rationality finally caught up to Congress.”
It was a rare moment of unity, and in March 2014, the two parties came together for another festival of bipartisanship. This time, they gutted the reforms they had passed less than two years before.Representative Maxine Waters, a liberal California Democrat who co-sponsored the original bill, worked with House majority leader Eric Cantor, a conservative Virginia Republican, to make sure most subsidized homeowners in floodplains could keep their taxpayer subsidies. Beneficiaries whose premiums had increased because of the reforms were promised refunds. And now, even after a storm swamped northern Florida and southern Alabama with 22 inches of rain in April, Congress no longer has a plan to address the program’s escalating debt.
This is the story of a dysfunctional federal program, Washington’s unlikely efforts to cross party lines to fix it and Capitol Hill’s mad scramble to undo the fix after homeowners started griping. Ultimately, the notion that insurance rates should reflect real risk proved less compelling than the notion that squeaky wheels should get grease. The story is a reminder that it’s easier for politicians to attack government subsidies in the abstract than to take them away in real life. Given the inability of Congress to stand behind its bipartisan reforms to a program just about everyone agreed was broken, it’s hard to imagine our leaders’ ever making progress on much tougher tax or entitlement reforms.
“We had an amazing coalition to improve the program. Too bad it wasn’t sustainable,” says Mark Calabria, who pushed for reform as a senior aide to Republican Senator Richard Shelby and is now at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Once the politics got ugly, people lost their religion.”
“It’s Plain Ridiculous”
Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968, a few years after America’s first billion-dollar storm, Hurricane Betsy, clobbered New Orleans. Private insurers weren’t writing policies in areas vulnerable to floods, so the program offered taxpayer-assisted protection for existing structures. At the same time, it aimed to limit construction in floodplains by charging risk-based rates for new homes and by requiring some buildings to be constructed in more resilient ways to qualify for insurance.
Robert Hunter, the program’s first administrator, says it worked well for a while. But over time, it became less rigorous about risk and more generous about rates. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency drew its flood maps after discarding “outliers,” which meant the most damaging storms were omitted from its calculations. “It was a fantastic idea, but it’s plain ridiculous to have a program that just encourages people to live in high-risk areas,” says Hunter, who is now 77 and oversees insurance issues for the Consumer Federation of America.


Reform did not come right away. The program’s normal five-year funding did not expire until 2008. Although its supporters in coastal and riverine communities no longer had the votes for another long-term renewal without major changes, over the next four years they pushed 18 short-term funding renewals through Congress. But it wasn’t as easy as it used to be, and the program temporarily lapsed several times, wreaking havoc on real estate markets in waterfront communities. The National Association of Realtors calculated that the lapses delayed or scuttled 1,300 home closings per day, because flood insurance is required for mortgages in the 100-year floodplain.
The program’s critics on the right (who hated the taxpayer subsidies) and left (who hated its incentives for building in floodplains) formed a coalition called Americans for Smart Natural Catastrophe Policy to push reform, and lawmakers like Senator Shelby threatened to let the program die unless it shifted toward actuarially sound rates. The NFIP’s defenders–especially the powerful National Association of Realtors, which had members in every congressional district–were so desperate for a long-term solution that they eventually agreed to go along.
In 2012 the stars aligned for a reform bill sponsored by Judy Biggert, a suburban Illinois Republican, and Representative Waters of South Central Los Angeles, the ranking Democrat. Biggert-Waters renewed the NFIP for five years but slowly phased out subsidies for second homes, commercial buildings and properties with repetitive losses. It launched a much faster phaseout for properties where updated maps showed more-severe risks, and it modernized the flood maps so that damaging storms could no longer be ignored. And it immediately ended subsidies for properties once they were sold. Overall, it pushed a broken program toward its original goal–providing insurance in communities that private firms avoided while minimizing costly subsidies that created perverse incentives for dangerous development.
Not everyone liked the new austerity. Senator Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, warned that it would punish her coastal constituents in the fishing and drilling industries. But the measure was tucked into a must-pass transportation bill, along with a must-pass provision for Louisiana that steered fines from the BP oil spill to the Gulf Coast states. In a letter, the Realtors urged lawmakers to “SUPPORT the Conference Report and OPPOSE any point of order to strike flood reform, in part or whole.” They did. Landrieu thought the reforms were too harsh–”I am certain we will be back here after the elections, fixing some provisions that should have been fixed,” she said on the Senate floor–but even she voted yes.
After President Obama signed the bill in July, the reform coalition gathered for a happy hour at a rooftop bar near the Capitol. It was a very happy hour. Over margaritas and beer, the budget hawks and eco-activists brainstormed about a follow-up campaign to reform disaster aid. “Everyone was thrilled with what we achieved,” recalls Conrad, the consultant for the floodplain managers. “We didn’t see the political tsunami coming.”
Coastal Erosion
Michael Hecht, the CEO of the economic-development group Greater New Orleans Inc., got a text from a board member last spring, warning that the NFIP changes would be a problem for coastal Louisiana. “I didn’t even know what NFIP stood for,” Hecht recalls. But he soon spoke to a Plaquemines Parish insurance agent whose premiums on his own home were about to soar from $633 a year to nearly $18,000. A Belle Chasse hotel owned by a state legislator was in line for a 7,000% rate increase. Hecht soon organized a Washington trip for 14 parish presidents, who lobbied Louisiana’s congressional delegation to undo the reforms. “They were done with the best of intentions,” Hecht said. “But the rate increases were just brutal. They were going to destroy communities.”
Landrieu began pushing an amendment briefly delaying some reforms. Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy, who was running for Landrieu’s Senate seat, pushed a similar amendment in the House. Superstorm Sandy had driven the NFIP’s debt up to $24 billion, but the steep rate increases–for ordinary homeowners, including many Sandy victims, not just millionaires with beachfront mansions–were killing any enthusiasm for addressing that shortfall.
A new Coalition for Sustainable Flood Insurance quickly brought together 250 groups in 35 states to attack the reforms as an assault on middle-class pocketbooks. The Realtors, whose support had been vital to passing the reforms, now began clamoring to repeal them or weaken them, warning that they would paralyze the market in affected communities. “It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican–nobody wants a big increase in their insurance rates,” says National Association of Realtors president Steve Brown. “This was a threat to the American Dream.”
Initially, it looked as if the new lower-the-rates “flood caucus” would face an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled House. Speaker John Boehner suggested publicly that he saw no need to revisit the reforms. And Jeb Hensarling, the Tea Party–friendly chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, thought the push to restore subsidies smacked of Big Government liberalism. “Finally we had gotten something done,” says one Republican congressional aide. “It made no sense to undo it.”
But if it made no sense on the merits, it made plenty of political sense for lawmakers with angry constituents. Landrieu began pushing to delay reform for four years, almost tantamount to repeal, since the program would have to be renewed before then. She told Senate majority leader Harry Reid the bill was vital to her re-election in 2014, and Reid told the Democratic caucus that Landrieu’s re-election was vital to keeping the Senate majority. After the Senate approved the delay, Waters and Congressman Michael Grimm, a Republican whose Staten Island, N.Y., district was battered by Sandy, rounded up enough co-sponsors to pass a similar bill in the House.
The House Republican leadership didn’t want to pass a “Landrieu bill” that would boost her campaign at Congressman Cassidy’s expense. But it didn’t want to ignore the clamor for relief from homeowners and Realtors, either. On a campaign trip to Florida, Cantor saw that Democrat Alex Sink was attacking Republican David Jolly over flood-insurance premiums in their special election for a House seat. A local Chamber of Commerce, for example, was facing a rate increase of more than 600%. “We were ground zero for the flood-insurance crisis,” Jolly says. “I told the majority leader, If you’re going to provide relief, do it now!”Neither party wanted to pay the political price of reform. Republicans had hailed the initial reforms as a victory for fiscal conservatism, but at a contentious Republicans-only meeting, Cantor sided with the flood caucus, rejecting Hensarling’s limited-government arguments. Geography trumped ideology; Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise, head of the GOP’s conservative caucus, was a leading voice for restoring the subsidies. With March approaching, Cantor and Waters then negotiated a final deal that repealed the key Biggert-Waters reforms, preserving subsidies for properties that were remapped or sold. The negotiations were so pleasant that Cantor told Waters his wife wanted to know if she still considered him a “demon,” as she had said in a stemwinder at her state convention; Waters said no, that was just politics. Most Republican committee chairmen voted against the deal, a rare protest against the House leadership for rolling Hensarling, but it still received almost as much support as the original reforms.
The White House initially warned that eroding the Biggert-Waters reforms would endanger the entire flood-insurance program, but it caved to politics as well. Landrieu confronted President Obama at a Senate Democratic retreat, and he promised he wouldn’t veto a bipartisan fix. Not only did he sign the final measure worked out by Cantor and Waters, but the White House gave Landrieu an early heads-up so she could announce the news.
Former Congressman Barney Frank, who helped pass the reforms as the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, says it’s too easy to blame finger-in-the-wind politicians for their repeal. He argues that voters like reform better in theory than in reality. That’s why he doubts Washington can pass bipartisan tax reform. Americans complain about Big Government but recoil when their benefits are threatened. Frank recalls a chat he had long ago with Freddie Langone, a cigar-smoking Boston city councilor. Langone’s constituents had demanded a swimming pool–and once it was being built, they were demanding relief from the construction noise. “Hey, kid, ain’t ya heard the news?” Langone told Frank. “Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.”
Everyone wants a stable flood-insurance program too, but nobody wants to pay for it. In fact, Jolly, who won his special election in March and is now a freshman House Republican, is now pushing to repeal most of what’s left of the Biggert-Waters reforms, the slow phaseout of subsidies for second homes and commercial buildings. He says he’s normally a free-market guy but many snowbirds who winter in his district are facing unaffordable rate increases.

Which means in an era of steadily rising seas and increasing coastal development, reformers are more or less back where they started. “It breaks my heart,” says Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, a liberal Democrat who has pushed to fix the NFIP for over a decade. “We’ll keep trying, but I don’t know if we’ll have another opportunity like this.”

Bond v. United States

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case of domestic violence using poison chemicals which could determine the United State's ability to make and keep treaties. As unlikely as this sounds it is true.


http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/treaty-power-before-the-court-in-plain-english/

Western Civilization is evolving

Obama congratulates Michael Sam, first openly gay player drafted by NFL

What the tea party wants but will not get

Kay Hagan's seat in the senate. Tea party favorite Dr Greg Brannon was thoroughly trounced by establishment Republican, Thom Tillis the speaker of the NC house in last weeks Republican primary. Tillis and Hagan will have quite a race, but the tea party is out.

Contempt of Congress

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.
The House voted 231-187 for a resolution holding Lerner in contempt. All Republicans voted yes, along with six Democrats.

Lerner’s case will now be sent to the Justice Department, which then must decide whether to essentially prosecute Lerner in the case.

Minutes after the Lerner vote, the House passed a separate resolution asking the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to probe the IRS over the scandal, by a vote of 250-168.

House Speaker John Boehner issued a statement following the vote saying, "It’s time for Lois Lerner to account for her actions, and if she won’t then the full force of the law should be brought to bear."

Lerner's attorney William M. Taylor III slammed the contempt vote as a partisan exercise. "Today's vote has nothing to do with the facts or the law. Its only purpose is to keep the baseless IRS 'conspiracy' alive through the mid-term elections," he said in a statement. "Ms. Lerner has not committed contempt of Congress."   Fox News

Big Brother is Coming To Your Brokerage Account

In the midst of the financial crisis, our “leaders” had a choice. They could’ve done what most Americans wanted, which was allow failing firms to fail and permit the chips to fall where they may. In contrast, our “leaders” settled on trillion dollar bailouts with zero strings attached for the criminals who destroyed the nation’s economy. At that point, the American people would’ve been at least somewhat satisfied if the rule of law was applied to the banksters, and those who deserved to go to jail were locked up. As we all know by now, the Justice Department decided to create a special “Too Big To Jail” untouchable class, and nobody was held accountable for anything. Once again, our “leadership” could’ve look at the situation honestly and responded appropriately. Rather, they doubled down on corruption and criminality and now nobody trusts anything. We don’t trust the Presidency, the Congress, the intelligence agencies, the banks, the financial system, the courts, the Federal Reserve, or any institutions at all. We certainly don’t trust Democrats and Republicans. In fact, millennials in particular have given up all trust in everything. They don’t even trust Jay-z anymore, which I suppose is what happens when you prance around with Warren Buffett and flash illuminati signs 24/7. This is how society breaks down.

Moving along, with confidence in “the system” already in the gutter by summer 2013, Edward Snowden released a bombshell of information on illegal government spying. It confirmed what so many of us had been saying for years, but had been dismissed pejoratively by the mainstream as “conspiracy theorists.” Once again, our “leaders” had a choice. Take the difficult steps and offer real reform, or merely pretend nothing really happened and defend the practices at all costs. Once again, they chose the latter. Just as no bankers were jailed for the financial crisis, no intelligence operatives were jailed for illegal spying. In fact, nothing at all has happened toJames Clapper for perjuring himself in front of Congress.

 Once again, rather than reforming the system, the status quo is doubling down. I have recently highlighted several such efforts with regard to the internet, which can be read below:

Say Goodbye to “Net Neutrality” – New FCC Proposal Will Permit Discrimination of Web Content

Obama Administration Launches Plan to Make an “Internet ID” a Reality

It now appears the status quo is moving to destroy any last semblance of privacy with regard to your personal brokerage accounts. Yep, in the name of “stopping fraud” and the practices of unscrupulous brokers, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) wants to launch a program called Cards, or the Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System. This electronic system sounds a lot like the so-called metadata the NSA is collecting on everyone’s internet usage. This “robocop” would collect a weekly “record of activity at all of the more than 4,100 brokerage firms nationwide.”

For your own good of course. Oh, and yeah, to stop terrorists or something…

From the Wall Street Journal:

In December, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which oversees how investments are sold, proposed what it calls Cards, an electronic system that would regularly collect data on balances and transactions in brokerage accounts.

If adopted, Cards would revolutionize how regulators do their jobs and could make it harder for unscrupulous brokers to bilk customers.

Give me a fucking break. The last thing the establishment cares about is stopping fraud. Fraud is the number one driver of American GDP at the moment. It is institutionalized, protected and endorsed. This is about nothing more than destroying your financial privacy.

Under Cards (which stands for Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System), Finra would collect—probably weekly—a record of activity at all of the more than 4,100 brokerage firms nationwide.

Finra would scour the data continuously, looking for any hints that a firm or a broker might be taking advantage of a client: excessive trading or commissions,switching from one mutual fund to another, overcharging for bond trades, overconcentrating in risky or illiquid securities, and so on.

The nanny brokerage state. Was this Michael Bloomberg’s idea or what? Better make sure there isn’t too much salt or sugary drinks in your portfolio.

Social Security numbers and other personal details won’t be included in Cards, so Finra won’t be able to identify which investor an account belongs to or to match any investor’s holdings across firms. Nor will the data give anyone access to cash or securities.

It’s just metadata, nothing to see here serfs!

That, Mr. Ketchum argues, would enable the regulator to stop at least some misdeeds before too much damage is done. And the sense that a regulatory RoboCop is watching their every move could deter some brokers from doing anything wrong in the first place.

“The good that will come from the dramatically increased ability to reduce fraud will way overwhelm that extraordinarily remote risk,” Mr. Joachim adds.

Mr. Ketchum says he hopes that Cards will go to the Securities and Exchange Commission for final approval by next year, after further refinements and input from brokerage firms and the public.

The battle is on and the system is doubling down. What are you going to do about it?

Full article here.

Report: Obama Spent $770 Million in Taxpayer Funds to Rebuild and Renovate Mosques Overseas

A CBS news investigation found that the Obama State Department is sending millions of dollars to save mosques overseas — outraging taxpayer advocates and raising enormous questions about aid to potentially terror-supporting groups with U.S. foreign aid.

Millions more dollars have been sent to places like Cyprus. The State Department displays before and after pictures of mosques refurbished with U.S. tax dollars.

“I think it is very hard to explain to the American taxpayer right now whose having an extraordinary time paying bills and making ends meet that this is why we took this out of your paycheck, so we can fund this,” said Thomas.

The State Department declined a CBS Atlanta News request for an interview. Anchor Justin Farmer wanted to ask why are we using tax dollars to refurbish religious buildings overseas. The State Department did send CBS Atlanta News an e-mail saying that they are “fighting Islamic extremism by building relationships with Islamic leaders”.

Egyptian-American human rights activist Nonie Darwish told Farmer that trying to buy respect in the Middle East only shows our weakness.

“This part of the world has a lot of respect for power and America is not showing its power, it’s showing its appeasement. They are laughing all the way to the bank,” said Darwish.

Darwish was born in Egypt and is now a former Muslim. Darwish told Farmer that she moved to America and has written several books critical of radical Islam. Darwish said that most of the mosques in Egypt are run by extremists who have ordered former Muslims like herself to be killed.

“We are rebuilding mosques to support the radicals, not to support the moderates. We are building mosques to issue fatwas of death against people like me,” said Darwish.

Your tax dollars also fund computers and mosques in places like Tajikistan and Mali. At an ancient mud brick mosque in Mali, the State Department has provided Internet service and computer equipment to local imams.