Sunday, July 31, 2011

For Sale

Spending 101

Friday, July 29, 2011

The Debt Ceiling Debate

The House has now passed two bills to address the debt issue. That body of Congress has legislated. What about the Senate and Executive branches? The President gives political speeches and offers no plan and absolutely no leadership. The Senate doesn't even allow a vote and uses parliamentary bull crap to kill the bills before they come up for a vote. Thanks Harry Reid.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

More of the Despicable Nancy Pelosi


Lack Of Leadership

Obama 'Unpresidential,' 'Petulant' 'Dividing Us': Langone

Published: Thursday, 28 Jul 2011 | 7:51 AM ET
Text Size
By: Jeff Cox Staff Writer
President Barack Obama's conduct during the debate over the debt ceiling has divided the country and will inflict damage that will last well after the battle is over, former New York Stock Exchange director and Wall Street stalwart Ken Langone said.
President Barack Obama
Photo by: Pete Souza

While he believes a debt deal will get done and in fact favors a plan closer to what the Democrats are proposing, Langone told CNBC that Obama's behavior has been "unpresidential."
"He is dividing us as a nation," Langone said. "He's not bringing us together. He's willfully dividing us. He's petulant."
The co-founder of Home Depot [HD  35.625    -0.765  (-2.1%)   ]sharply criticized the president for promoting class warfare through his repeated attacks against "fat cat" business executives and his targeting of tax loopholes.
In sum, the behavior is symptomatic of Obama's disrespect for the office he holds, Langone said.
"Ronald Reagan would never go into the Oval Office without his jacket on—that's how much he revered the presidency," he said. "This guy worked like hell to be president...Behave like a president. Let me look at you as a model to how we should behave. What does he say? Fat cats, jet airplanes. What is the purpose? Us versus them.
"The thing I fear the most about the future of America is...divide us, we all lose. This has got to stop."
Langone said people with his wealth should pay more taxes, but the debate shouldn't be framed as rich against poor.
"He is not acting presidential. He is behaving in a way designed in my opinion to divide us, to make us look at each other with skepticism, with suspicion. That is the end of America as we know it," he said. "The destruction he is inflicting by his behavior will carry on long after we settle the debt limit."

Monday, July 25, 2011

Obama's Approval Index History - Interesting

Obama's Approval Index History

FDR a Conservative?

FDR tripled taxes and doubled spending from 1933 to 1940. In fact, historians now agree that Franklin Roosevelt only ended the Great Depression – when he died.
But, our Ivy League educated president thinks he’s a fiscal conservative? Really?
CNS News reported, via Free Republic:
President Barack Obama said that Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) – the president best known for establishing a welfare and regulatory state in America – was “fiscally conservative,” in response to a question about how to keep the economy going.
Obama was referring to spending-cut measures Roosevelt took in the middle of the New Deal that lasted from 1933 to 1940.

“FDR comes in, he tries all these things with the New Deal; but FDR, contrary to myth, was pretty fiscally conservative,” the president said Friday during a town hall meeting on the campus of the University of Maryland.

“And so after the initial efforts of the New Deal and it looked like the economy was growing again, FDR then presented a very severe austerity budget,” Obama continued. “And suddenly, in 1937, the economy started going down again. And, ultimately, what really pulled America out of the Great Depression was World War II.”
Obama used this to illustrate why the political leaders should tread carefully in cutting the deficit.
And the liberal media wants you to believe that Obama is a moderate, too.
FDR’s a conservative and Obama’s a moderate.

Thursday, July 21, 2011


In life, the turtle wins the race. What does this mean?  Do not cut corners. Do things right. Do things honestly and ethically.  Follow this advice and you will win the race. The race to find happiness and fulfillment.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The Hottest College Affinity Credit Cards: Penn State, Boston College Win Big

Alumni associations do more than flood your mailbox with pleas for donations. They also flood your mailbox with pleas to get a credit card. And with good reason: last year colleges and universities made $73.3 million from the fees paid to them from affinity card issuers. Reflecting the overall trend of Americans charging less, that amount is actually 17% less than 2009, says Bill Hardekopf, Editor of, an independent credit card rating site. Bank of America division FIA Card Services is by far the biggest issuer of the cards emblazoned with school logos, managing 848 schools’ cards, he adds.

When the Federal Reserve isn’t busy trying to prop up the economy, it does other things like gather up information about the college affinity card market. In a recently released report,  the Fed detailed which schools make the most from these cards.

The most effective chargers? Boston College, whose 597 card-carrying alumni generated $1.1 million in revenues for the Jesuit university last year, or $1,843 per person (go Chargin’ Eagles!), far outpacing other schools.

Ben Affleck

Should Professors Be Tenured And Should They Teach More?

Academia's Crisis of Irrelevance

As more students question rising college costs, professors defend useless research and their lack of teaching.

By NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY'Crisis of Confidence Threatens College." So went a headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education this spring, describing a recent survey of the American public. "Public anxiety over college costs is at an all-time high," the report concluded. "And low-income college graduates or those burdened by student-loan debt are questioning the value of their degrees."

In the face of such anxiety, one might expect college faculty to re-examine the financial priorities of universities, or at least put up a reasonable front of listening and responding to their critics. Instead, academics have circled the wagons, viciously attacking any outsider who dares to disagree with them, and insisting that reformers are not sophisticated enough to understand the system.

In a book published last month, "The Faculty Lounges . . . And Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Paid For," I argue that our system of higher education is focused too much on research and not enough on teaching. In fact, one 2005 study in the Journal of Higher Education suggests an inverse relationship between the amount of time spent in the classroom and a professor's salary. It would seem that professors who spend their time writing are the ones most valued by our universities.

College teachers have responded as one might expect to a publishing-pays, teaching-does-not incentive. As a 2009 report from the American Enterprise Institute pointed out, over the past five decades the number of language and literature academic monographs has risen to 72,000 from 13,000 while the audience for such scholarship "has diminished, with unit sales for books now hovering around 300."

In 2008, according to the bibliography review "Year's Work in English Literature," more than 100 new scholarly books on Shakespeare were published in English world-wide. Those books, whatever brilliant new insights they provided, represent thousands of hours lost to undergraduates who really could use a good classroom course on Hamlet.
It doesn't take a lot of digging to see that much academic research is trivial. But academics will defend it to the hilt. When I wondered, in a blog post on the Chronicle of Higher Education website, why J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern was hosting demonstrations of sex toys in his class, and questioned the value of his subject generally, I was told by a commenter on the website that, "psychiatrists, police officers, and others who deal with rapists and other sex offenders probably could use a course on human sexuality."

When I wrote about a University of Texas professor's book, "Indian-Made: Navajo Culture in the Marketplace," an academic emailed to say that "[the project on] the commercialization of Indian crafts, actually has some profound things to say about the role of indigenous peoples in modern capitalism."

After I suggested in a number of pieces that tenure is the reason that academics—even the most radical, incompetent or lazy—cannot lose their jobs, a professor wrote to tell me that I should "pick up an employment law textbook" because I didn't understand that tenured professors can, under exigent circumstances, be fired. Thanks for the tip. And how often does that happen?

A senior professor of psychology recently asked me how, if he didn't have tenure, he would be able to write op-eds criticizing his department chair and his college administration while keeping his job. I asked him how the rest of the world gets by without regularly denouncing their bosses in a newspaper.

At a recent conference where I spoke on collective bargaining in higher education, one professor questioned (and others in the room also fussed about) my right to speak on the subject without—she was incredulous—a Ph.D.! I might ask why a degree in medieval literature or molecular biology would qualify one to discuss the growing unionization movement on college campuses.

When a recent report by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity suggested that many professors in the University of Texas system were not being very productive as teachers or researchers, three of them offered the Chronicle of Higher Education diaries purporting to document their labors. One professor wrote of spending hours looking into summer camp for her daughter so the professor could have time to work. Now there's a problem other working parents don't have.

Another said he was going to read six (!) new books about Shakespeare this summer to prepare for his classes in the fall because "in order to be current there's a tremendous amount more research that you need to be familiar with." And these are the people who wanted to defend their salaries.

There is nothing new in the observation that academics are removed from the real world. But professors should understand that their attitude won't offer much protection as budgets get tighter and students get madder.
Ms. Riley, a former Journal editor, writes frequently about post-secondary education.

Saturday, July 16, 2011

The President Insists on Tax Hikes

Barack Obama and Democrats also added over One Trillion Dollars to the Federal Budget in the last 4 years.

That’s at least a 30% increase in federal spending in just 3 years.

In his weekly address today Obama demanded new tax hikes to pay down the debt.

From the White House Website:
…The truth is, you can’t solve our deficit without cutting spending. But you also can’t solve it without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share – or without taking on loopholes that give special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class Americans don’t get.
It’s pretty simple. I don’t think oil companies should keep getting special tax breaks when they’re making tens of billions in profits. I don’t think hedge fund managers should pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. I don’t think it’s fair to ask nothing of someone like me when the average family has seen their income decline over the past decade – and when many of you are just trying to stretch every dollar as far it it’ll go.

We shouldn’t put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of folks who’ve already borne the brunt of the recession. It’s not reasonable and it’s not right. If we’re going to ask seniors, or students, or middle-class Americans to sacrifice, then we have to ask corporations and the wealthiest Americans to share in that sacrifice. We have to ask everyone to play their part. Because we are all part of the same country. We are all in this together.
So I’ve put things on the table that are important to me and to Democrats, and I expect Republican leaders to do the same. After all, we’ve worked together like that before. Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O’Neill and Democrats to cut spending, raise revenues, and reform Social Security. Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich and Republicans to balance the budget and create surpluses. Nobody ever got everything they wanted. But they worked together. And they moved this country forward.

That kind of cooperation should be the least you expect from us – not the most you expect from us. You work hard, you do what’s right, and you expect leaders who do the same. You sent us to Washington to do the tough things. The right things. Not just for some of us, but for all of us. Not just what’s enough to get through the next election – but what’s right for the next generation.
You expect us to get this right. To put America back on firm economic ground. To forge a healthy, growing economy. To create new jobs and rebuild the lives of the middle class. And that’s what I’m committed to doing.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Are You For A Balanced Budget Amendment? I Am!


Brian Darling

Obama Is Against A Balanced Budget Amendment

President Barack Obama declared in a press conference today that he is against the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution (BBA).  Obama said that a BBA is not needed for Congress and the President to balance the budget. The facts contradict the President’s statement and tell a different story.

If it is so easy for Congress and the President to balance the budget, why are they running a $1.5 trillion debt or more this year? Ironically, the President submitted a budget to Congress for next year that was nowhere near balanced.

The President’s $3.7 trillion budget for Fiscal Year 2012 was dead on arrival in Congress.  The Senate voted unanimously, 97-0, to reject the President’s budget.  Why?

The President’s FY 2012 budget contains 43 tax hikes.  Curtis Dubay writes for The Heritage Foundation that his budget would raise taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next decade:
In what is becoming an annual tradition, President Barack Obama’s newest budget proposes a host of unnecessary tax hikes that will slow economic growth. His fiscal year 2012 budget contains 43 tax hikes that will needlessly confiscate an additional $1.5 trillion from Americans over the next decade. That works out to $12,000 per household over that time.
The President’s FY 2012 budget contains $13 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years.  Brian Riedl wrote for The Heritage Foundation that budget gimmicks have bee used to hide the true cost of President Obama ’s blueprint for spending:
The White House’s mid-session budget review recently forecast that President Barack Obama’s budget would create $9 trillion in budget deficits over the next decade–more debt than America accumulated from 1789 through 2008 combined. Yet even that figure likely understates the 10-year budget deficit by nearly $4 trillion. It completely excludes the proposed new health care entitlement, underestimates other costs, and fails to include the full price of major legislation that the President has endorsed.
According to the Associated Press, the Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.3 trillion debt next year as a result of the President’s budget:
The Obama administration is set to report Friday that the federal budget deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the second straight year, providing critics of government spending with fresh ammunition ahead of the midterm congressional elections. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year that ended Sept. 30 will total $1.29 trillion. That’s down by $125 billion from the $1.4 trillion in 2009 – the highest deficit on record. Soaring deficits have become a problem for Democrats in an election year focused on the weak economy.
The fact that the President did not submit a balanced budget to Congress speaks to the fact that, without a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, Congress can’t balance the budget.  The President has proven that he is incapable of balancing the budget.  Congress and the President need the constitutional mandate that the President balance the budget, or it will not be done.

The House and Senate have differing versions of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, yet they are similar in that they both force the President to balance the budget, cap spending, force Congress to pass increased taxes with a supermajority and make it harder to raise the debt ceiling.
Both versions do the following:
  1. Force the President to submit a balanced budget every year the United States is not at “war” or engaged in “military conflict,” subject to waiver provisions;
  2. Cap spending at 18% of the economic output of the United States;
  3. Only allow Congress to increase taxes by a supermajority vote of both chambers (this is waived in the House version when in times of “war” or “military conflict); and,
  4. Only allow Congress to increase the debt ceiling by a supermajority vote of both chambers of Congress.
For an excellent history of the BBA, please read Considering a Balanced Budget Amendment: Lessons from History by The Honorable Ernest Istook, Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.  The time is now for Congress to discuss and debate ideas that will balance the budget.  Despite the President’s comments today, current law and current leadership have proven insufficient to get the job done.

This Grade Inflation Does Not Happen In My Classes!

43% of College Grades Are A's

Inside Higher Ed, Easy A:
Two critics of grade inflation have published a new analysis finding that the most common grade at four-year colleges and universities is the A (43% of all grades) -- and that Ds and Fs are few and far between. [Where A Is Ordinary: The Evolution of American College and University Grading, 1940–2009, by Stuart Rojstaczer (Duke) & Christopher Healy (Furman).]
Further, by comparing historical data to contemporary figures, the authors charge that there has been an increase of 28 percentage points since 1960 and 12 percentage points since 1988 in the percentage of As awarded in higher education. The study was published Wednesday [and collects] historical data from 200 four-year colleges and universities and contemporary data from 135.
Grade Distribution by Sector and Region
Sector/Region Average SAT % As % Bs %Cs % Ds % Fs
By sector            
Private, nonprofit university 1245 48.2 35.8 11.4 2.2 2.3
Private, nonprofit college 1192 47.7 36.6 11.3 2.4 1.9
Public flagship university 1172 42.3 34.5 15.5 4.1 3.6
Public satellite university 1056 41.7 32.0 16.0 4.8 5.4
Public commuter university 1017 39.0 31.8 17.5 5.4 6.3
By region            
Midwest 1135 45.0 34.0 14.0 3.7 3.3
Northeast 1153 45.1 35.7 13.0 3.1 3.1
West 1079 44.6 33.0 14.4 3.7 4.2
South 1102 39.7 33.1 16.7 5.1 5.4
Total 1115 43.0 33.8 14.9 4.1 4.2

Really Mr. President?

BC Football Commit - This is a Good One!

St. Francis running back Akeel Lynch verbally committed to Boston College this afternoon. 
Lynch, a native of Toronto who will be a senior this fall, made the decision in the Athol Springs private school's weight room.

He selected BC over Penn State. 

"The offense fits my style, it's the zone offense that we run here," Lynch said. "Also, their ability to move me around [on offense], which I really like. I think what really made the difference were the coaches. They made me feel like I was part of the family. I think that's key in anywhere you go, because after football you got to have people to help you succeed in life."

Thursday, July 14, 2011

She's Actually STUPID! She's Busy Doing What?

Obama and His Threat to Seniors

Yesterday, I posted about Obama's threat that if the debt ceiling is not raised he could not guarantee that seniors would receive their social security benefits.   When I listen to democrats campaign, we hear about the social security trust fund.  President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:

“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing.  They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers.  These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”

Director Lew did not say anything about raising the debt ceiling, which was already on the horizon, and it should not matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing".   What could be clearer?

So if Director Lew is correct, then seniors should receive their social security checks even if the debt limit is not raised.  Or is the social security trust fund nonexistent?   Somebody is not telling the truth here. 

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Love this Facebook Post from BC Linebacker Kevin Pierre-Louis

I am NOT...i repeat...NOT leaving BC without an ACC Championship...

Disgraceful Scare Tactics

Scare Tactics

Our government brings in revenue of $175 billion per month.   That income will not go away should the debt ceiling not be raised and is sufficient to pay all entitlements and debt service.    What does our President do?  Threaten to withhold social security payments to seniors.  Disgraceful. 

I have a question:

If your monthly household income is $6,000 but your monthly household expenses are $7,500, what are you going to do?   You are going to cut your expenses.  It is time to reign in this reckless spending.

Look at the increase in spending over the last 4 years. 

Sunday, July 10, 2011

My Second Son at BC Orientation: Here is his quote: "Been waiting for one of these all my life!"

So the first child is off to New York City to do investment banking.   And the next son  is off to BC !   He has grown up in a BC family and this what he texted me while he was at orientation as he got his student ID:

"Been waiting for one of these all my life."

Saturday, July 9, 2011

One of My Favorite Topics - The Greatest Hits of Nancy Pelosi - So Loathsome

Nancy Pelosi's Greatest Hits

Debt Ceiling

Public Supports Entitlement Overhaul, but Not Cuts

by Keith Koffler on July 9, 2011, 12:31 pm
With Social Security and Medicare reform apparently in the debt ceiling talks mix, the Pew Research Center has just released a poll showing that the public indeed supports major changes to the programs – but not cuts in benefits.

This is approximately like saying you want to lose weight, but on the Kentucky Fried Chicken diet designed by Col. Sanders.

According to the poll, 54 percent of Americans say Medicare – where the deficit reduction big bucks are – needs major changes or should be completely rebuilt, while 38 percent think it’s working pretty well. However, when asked which is more important, taking steps to reduce the deficit or keeping Medicare and Social Security benefits the way they are, only 32 percent choose reducing the deficit, while 60 percent say leave the benefits untouched.

According to Pew:
The public’s desire for fundamental change does not mean it supports reductions in the benefits provided by Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Relatively few are willing to see benefit cuts as part of the solution, regardless of whether the problem being addressed is the federal budget deficit, state budget shortfalls or the financial viability of the entitlement programs.
So here’s the question: Will our political leaders over the coming days take a political risk to actually reduce the deficit? Anyone who has studied the problem knows the money is in the entitlements.
Leadership on such a fundamental matter must come from the president, and the top Republicans must be close behind. So far we’ve gotten general statements from Obama on wanting to address entitlements. We’ll see if he backs up the words with real, politically risky proposals.

In Obama's Own Words

One Term President

Friday, July 8, 2011

It's An Obama Economy

Markets Alert
from The Wall Street Journal

The U.S. economy barely added jobs for the second month in a row in June and the unemployment rate rose to the highest level this year, adding to concerns the labor market will take years to recover.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 18,000 last month, far less than expected. Payrolls data for the previous two months were revised down by a total 44,000 to show increases of only 25,000 jobs in May, and 217,000 in April.

The jobless rate, which is obtained from a separate household survey, increased for the third straight month to 9.2% in June, from 9.1% in May.

Entourage - The Final Season! Can't Wait!

Entourage Trailer