White House Policy
10 Facts About the “Disappearing” Middle Class
The “middle class” will earn a featured role in the upcoming election season. You will hear rhetoric – almost certainly from both sides – that the middle class is disappearing and “the other guy” is to blame and/or will make it worse. They will present their own policies as the solution to the middle class dilemma.
But what do we really know about the middle class? I realized that I had never actually seen or heard an official definition of the middle class, and that got me thinking: without a definition, any statistics, accusations, and plans are baseless and arbitrary. So I set out to uncover the truth behind the claims that the middle class is disappearing. I share what I learned with you.
1. Most Americans think they are “middle class”
A CBS News poll (2007) and a USA Today poll (2006) both discovered that about 90% of Americans self-identify as belonging to the middle class. This data clearly reveals perception bias on both the lower and higher end of the income spectrum. Interestingly enough, this is not unique to the USA – the same bias has been observed in Argentina.
2. The “middle class” has no official definition
While researching for this article, I was surprised to discover that the government does not have an official definition of “middle class”. Considering how often politicians of all stripes cite statistics about the middle class to further their particular policies, I naturally assumed there was an official benchmark. Turns out there isn’t really even a generally-accepted definition.
I note with no small amount of incredulity the convenience of our ruling class being able to cite statistics based on arbitrary definitions to a population which largely self-identifies as belonging to the demographic in question. Perhaps the fact that there is no official definition of “middle class” is no accident?
So how can we even have a rational discussion about the middle class without being able to define its boundaries? Read on!
Rats Jumping Ship? Daley resigns as Obama’s Chief of Staff
This couldn’t be good news for Obama and his team. The LA Times is reporting that William Daley gave Obama his letter of resignation last week and will be replaced by Budget Director Jack Lew. Daley has only been Chief of Staff for one year. The change will take place by the end of this month and according to White House staffers….Daley’s resignation took Obama completely by surprise. Daley has stated publicly that he wanted to return to Chicago but would stay by Obama’s side until after his re-election.
So…why the sudden change of heart? Daley is a very smart man and a very seasoned politician so it stands to reason that he wants to jump ship before it sinks. I wouldn’t want my name associated with a losing team. I’m not buying the “I’ve just got to get back to Chicago… the city that I love.” If things were all hunky-dory in Washington then Daley would be all over Obama’s re-election campaign.
So why the extremely sudden departure?
In the middle of a very tough election year?
What do you guys think?
Bizarre House Bill Would Outlaw Diplomacy with Iran
WTH?
I just caught wind of this, and I’m still doing research. I want to know why this provision was tacked on to this bill at the last moment, and why they want an all-or-nothing vote.
Is Obama about to burnish his foreign policy “cred” once again by sending U.S. servicemen to die in yet another undeclared war?
In a bizarre and unprecedented move, the House of Representatives (the one that is allegedly controlled by Republicans) is jamming through a bill that would make it illegal for U.S. diplomats to have the kind of low-level contact with Iranian representatives that led to the release of those three American hikers who had been held by Iran.
This is from the Friends Committee on National Legislation:
The House is currently considering legislation which could dangerously undermine prospects for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program, increasing the threat of war. See the text of the most current available version of H.R. 1905 here.
Take Action: Urge your representative to oppose H.R. 1905 and to support–not sabotage–diplomatic engagement with Iran here.
The anti-Iran diplomacy provision in H.R. 1905 (section 601 c of H.R. 1905, ANS) would prohibit U.S. government employees in any “official or unofficial capacity” from contacting anyone who is affiliated with the Iranian government and who “presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations.” To waive this requirement, the President would have to certify 15 days in advance that not making this contact “would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States”. [...]
Bill Blasted by Former Ambassadors, Experts
This anti-diplomacy provision has been roundly condemned by a host of national security experts because of the chilling effect that it would have on diplomatic engagement with Iran.
Ambassadors Thomas Pickering and William Luers have called the bill “preposterous,” noting that it “raises serious constitutional issues over the separation of powers,” and that former top Middle East intelligence analyst Paul Pillar excoriated the bill, saying, “this legislation is another illustration of the tendency to think of diplomacy as some kind of reward for the other guy, rather than what it really is: a tool for our side.”
Another source has noted that this provision would make it impossible to collect intelligence in some cases. And it seems to me, that with Iran, we need MORE intelligence, not less.
Another group I follow, DownsizeDC.org, has this to say:
“We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War we had links to the Soviet Union … If something happens it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right, that there will be miscalculations which would be extremely dangerous…” Admiral Mike Mullen, recently-retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
TOMORROW, Tuesday December 13, the House will vote on the “Iran Threat Reduction Act” (HR 1905) under a “suspend the rules and pass” vote — which means, with no amendments and no debate.
We at DownsizeDC.org believe there are many problems with the bill. Section 601, however, is particularly dangerous. So dangerous, in fact, that even if you believe Iran is a threat and deserves harsh sactions, it is important for your Representative to vote NO and force a debate.
HR 1905 must be defeated so that it can be amended to remove Section 601.
Section 601 outlaws any diplomatic contact between U.S. and Iranian officials — no matter how low level or incidental those interactions are. The President can waive this restriction only by notifying certain Congressional committees 15 days in advance.
As Stephen Zunes points out, “never in the history of this country has Congress ever restricted the right of the White House or State Department to meet with representatives of a foreign state, even in wartime.” (http://huff.to/vgSc5E)
Imagine, if this 15-day requirement applied to Cuba and the Soviet Union. How would the 13-day Cuban Missile Crisis have been resolved?
And, in the event of war, with whom can our diplomats negotiate a peace settlement, since all contact would be illegal?
If this bill was currently in force…
* The U.S. couldn’t have won Iranian cooperation in suppressing the Taliban.
* And couldn’t have won the freedom of three American hikers held in an Iranian prison.
In the event of a confrontation with Iran, should the Obama Administration have to wait more than two weeks before having any contact with any Iranian officials?
What could be behind this? Why now? Why no amendments? Why no discussion?
What’s really going on behind the scenes? Why have over 40 members of the Progressive Caucus signed on as co-sponsors of this bill?
The Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street with Bill Whittle
Thanks to Alert HillBuzz Reader Indy for the heads-up.
EXCELLENT video.
Iran’s Imaginary Nuke: Why It Doesn’t Matter
H/T LambdaChi.org
As a Ron Paul supporter, the questions I’m asked most, when it comes to his foreign policy positions, are about Iran and its quest for a nuclear bomb, and GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul’s goal of zeroing out all foreign aid.
These issues are interrelated–because the billions of dollars in aid we provide to Israel come with strings attached. The Obama Regime has treated Israel with nothing but contempt, interfered with Israel’s self-defense, and meddled in its internal affairs in ways that make Israel less secure…because Israel is on the American dole.
Even in the face of meddling from the United States, Israel has proven time and again that it will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran will never get a nuke as long as the Mullahs are in charge. Israel won’t let them. I have no doubt whatsoever that Israel knows exactly who’s working on the nuke, where, and how far along it is (if it exists at all).
I also have no doubt that Israel’s Mossad and assassination squads will continue to dispose of Iranian nuclear scientists like this one in 2007, this one in 2010, or this one in 2011.
There was also the Stuxnet virus, which was apparently developed specifically to target Iran’s nuclear program.
And if all else fails, Israel is prepared to launch strikes against any Iranian nuclear facility within minutes, according to The Sunday Times.
“”Officials believe that Israel could be required to hit more than a dozen targets, including moving convoys. The sites include Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges produce enriched uranium; Esfahan, where 250 tonnes of gas is stored in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water reactor produces plutonium.
The distance from Israel to at least one of the sites is more than 870 miles, a distance that the Israeli force practised covering in a training exercise last year that involved F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refuelling tankers.
The possible Israeli strike on Iran has drawn comparisons to its attack on the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981. That strike, which destroyed the facility in under 100 seconds, was completed without Israeli losses and checked Iraqi ambitions for a nuclear weapons programme.
“We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel’s willingness to act,” said another official from Israel’s intelligence community.”
So, I have to ask myself, given all this data, do I care that Ron Paul doesn’t want to drop the 101st Airborne into Iran to keep them from getting a nuke? No, not really. Israel has the situation well in hand.
Just ask yourself, if you worry about foreign policy–could Ron Paul’s foreign policy be any worse than Barack Hussein Obama’s?
Fast and Furious: It’s D day for Holder
The headline should really read “It’s T day for Holder” because today is the day that our lying and devious attorney general goes before the congressional committee to testify (once again) about Fast and Furious. Remember when he last testified before the committee, back in May, he told everyone that he had only heard about Fast and Furious a “couple of weeks” before but information discovered since his testimony suggests that he knew about it way before that. According to sources close to the investigation, the committee doesn’t exactly have a “smoking gun” piece of evidence that says that Holder is behind the whole thing but they do have a mountain of circumstantial evidence and conflicting testimony from other witnesses that points to the fact that Holder is either lying through his teeth (and thus committing perjury) about whether he knew about this scandal or he is the absolute most incompetent Attorney General ever for not knowing what his underlings were doing down on our border with Mexico. Either way…many on Capitol Hill think he should go.
The Daily Caller obtained an advanced transcript of Holder’s testimony and as predicted by many…he’s going to push for tighter gun control measures in the US because of Fast and Furious and he’s going to blame the local authorities for cooking up the misguided scheme.
Here’s a little preview of what he is supposed to say today…
“Today, I would like to correct some of the inaccurate — and irresponsible — accusations surrounding Fast and Furious,” Holder’s prepared testimony reads. “Some of the overheated rhetoric might lead you to believe that this local, Arizona-based operation was somehow the cause of the epidemic of gun violence in Mexico. In fact, Fast and Furious was a flawed response to, not the cause of, the flow of illegal guns from the United States into Mexico.”
In his testimony, Holder also advocates for new gun-control laws that he says would have halted, or at least prevented, Operation Fast and Furious. Holder echoes California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s comments from last week, when she argued that stricter gun laws would have stopped law enforcement agents from facilitating the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels.
Wait a minute….is he actually going to say that we need tighter gun control laws so that the ATF can’t pull off another debacle like Fast and Furious? In other words, we need to revise our 2nd amendment to protect ourselves from our own ATF?
Holy cow!
Will the insanity ever stop?
Fast and Furious and the Alabama immigration law
I knew that someday soon, the illegal immigrants would use the “fear” card as a reason for staying in the US. That day has come. As the new and tough immigration law kicks into action in Alabama, many illegal immigrants are claiming that they can’t go back to Mexico because they are scared of the escalating violence among the Mexican drug cartels. Illegal parents are signing powers of attorney to legal US citizens …giving them temporary custody of their children…should they get deported. Instead of keeping the family intact, they are willing to give up custody of their children (who, of course, were born here illegally so they could be US citizens) to acquaintances.
(AP) Cristian Gonzalez, 28, said she has informally asked the manager of the rental property where she lives to take care of her 10-year-old daughter should she and her husband be arrested because they are illegal immigrants. The girl, a U.S. citizen who has medals for making good grades, needs to finish school in America and is deeply rooted in Alabama, she said.
Gonzalez said their other three kids are too young to remain and will go back to Mexico with her and her husband even though they are U.S. citizens.
“We’re afraid to go back to Mexico because of the drugs, the cartels and the killings,” Gonzalez said. “And we are afraid to stay here because of the law.”
Mexican authorities have struggled in the fight against drug cartels known for carrying out brutal killings as they try to tighten control over territory. Authorities say that country’s drug war has claimed thousands of lives.
Hmmmm…it’s convenient that Mexican drug lords are now so well armed with US assault weapons. Of course the illegals are scared to go back to Mexico. It’s a bloody mess south of the border thanks to Eric Holder and his crew. He’s created a nightmare scenario so that….
1. He can justify pushing for the elimination of our 2nd amendment right and…
2. Illegal immigrants can seek asylum here in the US for fear of falling victim to Mexican drug cartels.
It’s called killing 2 Obama birds with one assault rifle.
