Liberal Jonathan Turley Smells An Imperial President In Obama's 'Recess' Appointments

Because the Congress wasn't in recess:

Yet the latest recess appointments push this controversy to a new extreme. The shortest prior period for a recess appointment in recent history was a break of 10 days. In this case, Congress did not intend to take such a recess and took steps to "stay in business" to prevent any end run by the president. Under the Constitution, neither chamber of Congress can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other chamber. This winter, the House expressly declined to give consent — holding sessions every three days to prevent any recess appointments. Moreover, this session was hardly "pro forma." Just three days after going into the session in December, Congress passed the president's demand for a two-month payroll tax holiday extension. So the Obama administration was doing business with Congress on important legislation while simultaneously claiming that Congress was functionally out of session.

Yeah, but most of the House went home, leaving a skeleton crew behind to pass the payroll tax holiday extension for two months, repudiating an earlier vote in the House which called for a one year extension.

Just as bad, the skeleton crew also raised a tax on mortgages for two years to pay for the lousy two month extension. The new tax on mortgages is not just a first, but is utterly insane at a time when the Fed is doing everything it can to stimulate housing through long term interest rate interventions. A tax will only suppress home-buying.

If Republicans had any balls, they'd remove Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor for that.

It's not just an imperial presidency at work in this case, but an unrepresentative House of Representatives.

See Turley's complete remarks for USA Today here, which provide a very reasonable interpretation of the meaning of the conditions under which recess appointments may be made, i.e. when a vacancy occurs during a recess.

Obama's appointments didn't occur during a recess, and the vacancies didn't occur during one, so they're wrong. And so were George Bush's.

Consumption is in Decline, Frugality is in the Ascendant

As reported here:

Legendary Swiss investor Felix Zulauf believes that the current rally in risk assets is likely to last until at least the end of March, but that global sharemarkets will again succumb to downward pressure in the second half of the year.

In a wide-ranging interview with Business Spectator, Zulauf, who is president of Zulauf Asset Management and who has been a member of Barron’s Roundtable for more than 20 years, paints a gloomy picture of debt-laden industrialised countries, where central banks have no choice but to print money in an attempt to stave off dire deflationary pressures.

He also predicts that dwindling demand from the West will force China to redouble its efforts to boost domestic consumption, but that this will reduce China’s rate of economic growth. ...

"I think we are now dealing with a structural weakness in consumption in the industrial world due to declining prosperity. Real disposable personal income in most industrialised countries is stagnating, or even declining. And that means China has to change its model. Its export industries won’t be as vigorous as they used to be, both as a result of the weakness in demand outside China, and also because Chinese labour costs have risen sharply in recent years." 

USPS Needs To Cut $20 Billion, Plans To Close 3,830 Post Offices To Save $0.3 Billion

"That doesn't make any sense!"

As reported here by Reuters:

The Postal Service chose post offices for possible closure based primarily on revenue. Two-thirds of the 3,830 post offices slated for closure earned less than $27,500 in annual sales, postal data show. Nearly 90 percent of these post offices are located in rural areas, where shrinking populations and dwindling businesses mean the post offices simply cost more to operate than they earn. ...

The statistics show that closing all of the post offices under consideration would save about $295 million a year - about four-tenths of 1 percent of the Postal Service's annual expenses of $70 billion. ...

To match the falling demand, the agency says it needs to cut $20 billion in operating expenses by 2015. Restructuring healthcare programs, eliminating jobs, ending Saturday delivery and closing post offices are among the moves being considered, though some of these would require permission from a Congress that remains deeply divided on how to address the Postal Service's woes.

The postal service question is a matter of civil liberties: the guarantee of private communication. No cost is too high to protect it. That we don't care about it anymore just shows we are no longer a free people.

If we repealed the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, however, the costs of postal service would plummet almost overnight, and we might be less inclined to sell our birthright for a bowl of pottage.

Obama Plans To Cut Deployed Nukes To As Few As 300 From 1790 Now

So reports AP Obama here:

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003. ...

The U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of last Sept. 1, the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each. The treaty does not bar either country from cutting below 1,550 on their own.

The World Currently Owes Japan Approximately $3.23 Trillion

At an exchange rate of 77.87 yen to the dollar:

Japan’s current-account surplus has meant that it hasn’t needed to rely on foreign capital to finance its budget deficits, unlike the U.S.  Foreign buyers hold about less than 10 percent of the public debt, compared with almost half for the U.S. Yields on 10-year Japanese government bonds were at 1 percent, among the world’s lowest.

A legacy of years of trade surpluses has left Japan as largest net holder of external assets, a position it had for a 20th straight year in 2010, with a position of 251.5 trillion yen, according to the finance ministry. Figures for 2011 are due in May. China is second-largest, according to the ministry.

Japan has moved into trade deficit for the first time since 1980, according to the story at Bloomberg here.

Two Reasons For Legal Offshore Cash

Political risk, as in:

If the country implodes and you've got to renounce citizenship you'll have some resources abroad waiting for you.

Litigation risk, as in:

Rich people make big targets, so to prevent everything you've got from being exposed to a lawsuit, you park some money out of reach.

Brett Arends explains here.

Does it inspire confidence that a prospective president might think that way?

Romney Unlikely To Reform Tax Code Fearing Charges Of Personal Gain

So says Cato Institute Senior Fellow Dan Mitchell, here:

Romney will be reluctant - because of his personal wealth - to advance policies that can be portrayed as helping the so-called rich. We can't expect a Reagan-style agenda of economic liberty and individual freedom, so something like a flat tax is very unlikely.

Rick Santorum Blames His Wife For Blaming Feminists in "It Takes a Family"

And you thought Newt Gingrich was the only two-timing traitor in the Republican race for president.

From The New York Times, here:

Asked on the ABC News program “This Week” about the book’s contentions, Mr. Santorum noted that his wife, Karen, had written that section — though only his name is on the cover and he does not list her in the acknowledgments as among those “who assisted me in the writing of this book.” ...

In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Santorum pleaded unfamiliarity with the citation, saying, “I don’t know – that’s a new quote for me.” ...

Nevermind there's nothing new about it, as the evidence adduced going back many years shows.

"The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate."

Weasel.

h/t Chris

There is No Democracy in Greece: 43 Lawmakers EXPELLED for Voting the Wrong Way

As reported here:

Lawmakers voted 199-74 in favor of the cutbacks, despite strong dissent among the two main coalition members. A total 37 lawmakers from the majority Socialists and conservative New Democracy party either voted against the party line, abstained or voted present. ...

Besides the 37 lawmakers who voted against the bill or abstained, a further six voted against sections of the proposed measures. After the vote, the coalition government announced those 43 lawmakers had been expelled.

Banks Make Out Like Bandits Again, Mortgage Settlement a Drop in the Bucket

As detailed by Gretchen Morgenson for The New York Times here:

There's no doubt that the banks are happy with this deal. You would be, too, if your bill for lying to courts and end-running the law came to less than $2,000 per loan file.

As for the supposed benefits to the economy, skeptics abound. One of them is Paul Diggle, property economist at Capital Economics in London. In a report last week, he rejected the notion -- espoused by both banks and government authorities -- that this deal would help turn around the American housing market.

For most homeowners, it will barely move the needle. Forgiving $17 billion in principal "is a drop in the ocean," Mr. Diggle said, "given that close to 11 million borrowers are underwater on their loans to the tune of $700 billion in total." Doing the math, $17 billion in write-downs would be about 2.4 percent of the total negative equity weighing down borrowers across the nation now.

Gov. Romney Repeats the Myth of First Amendment Priority

Quoted here:

"We must have a President who is willing to protect America's first right, our right to worship God," he added.

The First Amendment was originally the Third Amendment. If religious liberty had really held priority in the founders' minds, this would not have been the case.

So what did pre-occupy their minds? The issue of adequate representation.

No one today can argue that we have it.

Sarah Palin at CPAC: Still a Vulgarian and a Believer in the Imperial Presidency

As reported here:

Palin zeroed in on President Obama. The current state of the economy "is not a failure of the American people," she said. "It is the failure of leadership. We know how to change that, oh yes we do. Oh yes we can," she said, echoing Obama's campaign line. "Hope and change – yeah, you gotta hope things change."

"He says he has a jobs plan to win the future. WTF, I know," Palin said, spelling out W-T-F. Palin hasn't endorsed any candidates and didn't do so today, telling the crowd that "For the sake of our country we must stand united, whoever our nominee is." Palin left the stage to an extended ovation, having managed to do what none of the candidates except Santorum could: get social conservatives truly fired up.

That's right. Never tell the people they have the government they deserve, especially that crowd. 

Ann Coulter Still Thinks Newt Gingrich Is The Main Threat To Mitt Romney

Quoted here:

So I ask you, CPACers, who are you willing to stake the future of this country on winning? Who is going to appeal to the most Independents? Because, if we’re betting the future of this country on Next Gingrich not being repellent to Independents, I want my money back. I’m not taking that bet.

So, the three back-to-back victories this week for Sen. Rick Santorum are chopped liver?

Mitt Romney (and Rush Limbaugh) Do Not Understand The American Founding

Here's Rush cheer-leading Gov. Mitt Romney for something Romney said today at CPAC, something which shows neither he nor Limbaugh really understand the American Founding:

ROMNEY: We believe in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence!  We believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!  We know the brilliance that suggested that individuals pursuing their own dreams would make us the most powerful nation on earth, not a government trying to guide our lives.  This is who we are! This passion we must take to the American people.  This is our moment! This is why we're conservatives.  The task before us now is to reaffirm the convictions that unite us and go forward, shoulder to shoulder, to secure victory that America so desperately needs and deserves. 

CROWD: (cheering)

ROMNEY: Let's do it together! Thank you, and God bless America. 

CROWD: (cheers and applause)

ROMNEY: Thank you.

RUSH:  Right on, dude.  Right on.  I mean, that's... What did you think of that, Snerdley?  Did you it? That was! It was severe.  It was.  It was "severely conservative."  You know that I'm just gonna get beat up so bad for this.

Rush should get beat up for this, along with Romney, because becoming "the most powerful nation on earth" was as foreign a concept to the Founders as it is to conservatism.

The Founders sought independence from England in order to enjoy membership in the family of nations, instead of enduring the on-going disrespect with which King George treated his colonies in America. A grandiose design to become world hegemon, pace Mitt, pace Rush, was a . . . uh hum, foreign concept.

From "The Original Intent of the Declaration of Independence" by John Fea, here:

Historian David Armitage, in a fascinating book entitled The Declaration of Independence: A Global History, has argued convincingly that the Declaration of Independence was written primarily as a document asserting American political sovereignty in the hopes that the newly created United States would secure a place in the international community of nations. In fact, Armitage asserts, the Declaration was discussed abroad more than it was at home. This meant that the Declaration was "decidedly un-revolutionary. It would affirm the maxims of European statecraft, not affront them."

To put this differently, the "self-evident truths" and "unalienable rights" of the Declaration's second paragraph would not have been particularly new or groundbreaking in the context of the 18th-century British world. These were ideals that all members of the British Empire valued regardless of whether they supported or opposed the American Revolution. The writers of the Declaration of Independence did not believe that they were advancing political principles unique to America. This was a foreign policy document.

In an 1825 letter to fellow Virginian Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson explained his motivation behind writing the Declaration:

When forced, therefore to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our jurisdiction. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take.

John Adams, writing five years after he signed it, called the Declaration "that memorable Act by which [the United States] assumed an equal Station among the nations." There is little in these statements to suggest that the Declaration of Independence was anything other than an announcement to the world that the former British colonies were now free and independent states and thus deserve a place in the international order of nations.

Alas, we are left with ignorant fools, appealing to ignorant fools.

Same as it ever was.

Fritz Vahrenholt's Climate Apostasy Partly Due to Solar Research of Henrik Svensmark

So says journalist and film-maker Michael Miersch for Germany's FOCUS, as translated by Phillip Mueller in "Solar Shift Rocks Germany", here:

The work of the Danish researcher Henrik Svensmark and other climate scientists convinced him that the fluctuating magnetic field of the sun is a driver of climate change, because it shields cyclically more or less cosmic radiation from the earth. This particle radiation from space contributes to cloud formation.

A Little Friday Night Truck Humor

h/t Scott

Potential Juror Number 382 in Hutaree Trial Sticks Up For 4th Amendment

The Detroit Free Press has the story here:

The last person added to the final jury pool said he is skeptical about police and paid informants going undercover to spy on people.

His views struck a nerve with the prosecution, whose key witnesses include a federal agent and paid confidential informant who infiltrated the Hutaree group, secretly recorded conversations with members, then reported everything they saw and heard back to the FBI. ...

He said he believes spying on people is an invasion of privacy. 

“You’re basically paying someone to lie and deceive people. I don’t think that’s right,” said the potential juror.

The country could use a lot more jurors 382.

Mormons Still Practice Polygamy in the Form of "Sealing"

So says Tresa Edmunds here:

Today polygamy still echoes in our doctrine as men can be "sealed", or united for eternity in a religious ordinance, to more than one woman. ... 

[M]y co-blogger, Lindsay Hansen Park, . . . writes . . . "[H]istory forces us to reflect on current practices and policies and we begin to question the reasoning of it all. Mormons still practice polygamy posthumously in the temple? Is polygamy the law we're to expect in the afterlife? And better yet, who are we to tell the world what a traditional family looks like, when our past is far from traditional?"

One's a Creep, the Other a Monster

Tim Noah of The New Republic (who admits Edward Kennedy was "criminally irresponsible" in 1969) helps you decide which is the creep, and which the monster, here.

Progressivism can only be said to be making progress, however, when people such as these are flailed while they are alive and still in power.

The West's Problem: Ongoing Misdirection of Capital

So says Nicole Gelinas, here:

In the years leading up to 2007, the rules necessary to govern a flourishing market economy broke down, producing a financial and economic crisis. Rather than responding to the crisis by fixing those rules, the West aggressively repudiated market economics, and the repudiation continues to this day.

Or, to put it the way George Bush did, we've abandoned free-market principles to save the market.

Never works. Never will.