Friday, May 28, 2010
Census workers can enter your apartment in your absence
6:00 am May 26, 2010, by Bob Barr
Thousands of census workers, including many temporary employees, are fanning out across America to gather information on the citizenry. This is a process that takes place not only every decade in order to complete the constitutionally-mandated census; but also as part of the continuing “American Community Survey” conducted by the Census Bureau on a regular basis year in and year out.
What many Americans don’t realize, is that census workers — from the head of the Bureau and the Secretary of Commerce (its parent agency) down to the lowliest and newest Census employee — are empowered under federal law to actually demand access to any apartment or any other type of home or room that is rented out, in order to count persons in the abode and for “the collection of statistics.” If the landlord of such apartment or other leased premises refuses to grant the government worker access to your living quarters, whether you are present or not, the landlord can be fined $500.00.
That’s right — not only can citizens be fined if they fail to answer the increasingly intrusive questions asked of them by the federal government under the guise of simply counting the number of people in the country; but a landlord must give them access to your apartment whether you’re there or not, in order to gather whatever “statistics” the law permits.
In fact, some census workers apparently are going even further and demanding — and receiving — private cell phone numbers from landlords in order to call tenants and obtain information from them. Isn’t it great to live in a “free” country?
ShareThis Print
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Susan Gaztanaga On The Mark Steiner Show
Maryland LP candidate for Governor Susan Gaztanaga appeared on the Mark Steiner show on WEAA-FM, 88.9. Below is the link to the audio from that segment.
http://www.steinershow.org/files/steinershow_052510_seg2.mp3
http://www.steinershow.org/files/steinershow_052510_seg2.mp3
Lorenzo Gaztañaga Answers the Questions Part 4
One of the toughest decisions Congress must make is whether or not to authorize the President to go to war. The two current military operations, Iraq and Afghanistan, are obviously two different situations. Would you have authorized the President on either of those situations? And why or why not?
I would never have authorized the war in Iraq under any circumstances. All the reasons for going in there were false. Anyone who has followed the history of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would have known that the executed tyrant was a secular Muslim with little more than speaking Arabic in common with Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that they both engaged at the time in killing innocent people to fulfill their agendas.
I would have authorized Afghanistan along the lines of a letter of mark with the specific purpose of routing out Al Qaeda, which was clearly based there at the time, and any Taliban that might get in the way. No nation building. All of the rhetoric in the world regarding the niceness of bringing democracy and representative government to people who don’t even see themselves as a nation is ludicrous, however well meant those words might be. The cost in life and treasure, the so-called “collateral damage” of civilians in-country is, simply put, unaffordable by any decent measure.
I would never have authorized the war in Iraq under any circumstances. All the reasons for going in there were false. Anyone who has followed the history of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would have known that the executed tyrant was a secular Muslim with little more than speaking Arabic in common with Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that they both engaged at the time in killing innocent people to fulfill their agendas.
I would have authorized Afghanistan along the lines of a letter of mark with the specific purpose of routing out Al Qaeda, which was clearly based there at the time, and any Taliban that might get in the way. No nation building. All of the rhetoric in the world regarding the niceness of bringing democracy and representative government to people who don’t even see themselves as a nation is ludicrous, however well meant those words might be. The cost in life and treasure, the so-called “collateral damage” of civilians in-country is, simply put, unaffordable by any decent measure.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Lorenzo Gaztañaga Answers the Questions.
Becoming a congressman is a position where great trust is placed in you. What changes in ethics rules that govern Congress would you work to change?
First of all, when we’re talking about ethics rules, let’s focus on the fact that rules and regulations that Congress makes regarding itself are aimed at the privilege that they give themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens. When it comes to this question, the first order of the day for Congressman Gaztañaga would be to strike down via legislation or jawboning anything that gives privilege to a member of Congress, whether it is a special gymnasium in the Capitol, a special health care plan, the outrageous pensions and salaries, or the ability to simply retire and go make a gazillion dollars as lobbyists—this particular one should have a twelve year moratorium. If you want to advise anyone; do it on your own dime.
I remember well, during the 1970’s when the gasoline shortage hit the nation, people had to schedule gassing up according to odd or even numbers on their license plates, etc. I was living in Washington, DC and I saw with my own eyes how the regular citizens of all social strata had to put up with the enormous inconvenience, but not Congress. They had an ample supply of gasoline that could be pumped at will, right in the garages of congressional buildings.
When it comes to campaign financing, I favor donations by individuals only—people who live and talk and eat. In other words, the likes of GE, UAW, etc. need not apply here. Any campaign donation by an individual over $100 needs to be reported. As long as it’s reported, there’s no limit. Is this a perfect system? No, but it would be a vast improvement over all the systems we’ve had over the years.
First of all, when we’re talking about ethics rules, let’s focus on the fact that rules and regulations that Congress makes regarding itself are aimed at the privilege that they give themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens. When it comes to this question, the first order of the day for Congressman Gaztañaga would be to strike down via legislation or jawboning anything that gives privilege to a member of Congress, whether it is a special gymnasium in the Capitol, a special health care plan, the outrageous pensions and salaries, or the ability to simply retire and go make a gazillion dollars as lobbyists—this particular one should have a twelve year moratorium. If you want to advise anyone; do it on your own dime.
I remember well, during the 1970’s when the gasoline shortage hit the nation, people had to schedule gassing up according to odd or even numbers on their license plates, etc. I was living in Washington, DC and I saw with my own eyes how the regular citizens of all social strata had to put up with the enormous inconvenience, but not Congress. They had an ample supply of gasoline that could be pumped at will, right in the garages of congressional buildings.
When it comes to campaign financing, I favor donations by individuals only—people who live and talk and eat. In other words, the likes of GE, UAW, etc. need not apply here. Any campaign donation by an individual over $100 needs to be reported. As long as it’s reported, there’s no limit. Is this a perfect system? No, but it would be a vast improvement over all the systems we’ve had over the years.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Susan Gaztanaga On The Mark Steiner Show
Maryland LP candidate for Governor Susan Gaztanaga will be appearing on the Mark Steiner show on WEAA-FM, 88.9, this afternoon.
She will be in-studio, and her segment will begin around 5:20 pm. I think it will go until 6 pm.
If you're interested in listening live, the program streams on www.weaa.org.
It will be posted as a podcast at the website, www.steinershow.org, after the show.
Bob Johnston
She will be in-studio, and her segment will begin around 5:20 pm. I think it will go until 6 pm.
If you're interested in listening live, the program streams on www.weaa.org.
It will be posted as a podcast at the website, www.steinershow.org, after the show.
Bob Johnston
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Wicomico County's Council Districts
Often mysterious and hard to find, here is Wicomico County's Council Districts.
Dodd's Do-Nothing Financial 'Reform'
by Mark A. Calabria
This article appeared in the New York Post on May 21, 2010.
Dodd's Do-Nothing Financial 'Reform'
by Mark A. Calabria
This article appeared in the New York Post on May 21, 2010.
Wall Street is heaving a quiet sigh of relief: All Washington is going to give us for "financial reform" in the wake of the collapse of 2008 is a law based on Sen. Chris Dodd's bill.
That thin semblance of reform will let Congress and the Obama administration claim they brought Wall Street to heel. But by dodging all the hard issues, this "reform" makes it likely that the next crisis will put the last one to shame.
Start with ending "too big to fail": Despite Dodd's floor statements (and improvements made at the request of Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on Dodd's committee), the bill actually further enshrines the special and privileged status of our largest financial institutions. It squashes whatever hope there was of bringing back market discipline to our largest financial institutions — and guarantees ever-increasing concentration in our financial markets.
Going forward, we are left with relying on only the discretionary wisdom of the same regulators who were asleep at the wheel last time. And though that crisis cost millions their jobs, the Dodd bill won't see even one incompetent bureaucrat lose his.
Yes, the Dodd bill eliminates the Office of Thrift Supervision — but it guarantees that all OTS employees will have jobs at the new bank regulator. How exactly is moving around boxes on the organizational chart going to prevent the next financial crisis? (Ironically, OTS was itself created in the "crackdown" after another Washington-sparked meltdown, the savings-and-loan crisis of the late '80s.)
Indeed, the real theme of the Dodd bill is: Give the bureaucrats more power and discretion, without any accountability. Its main achievement is to set up a new agency that will largely determine who, what and how it will regulate.
But the bill itself doesn't touch even blatant problems.
For example, with almost universal recognition that banks lacked sufficient capital going into the financial crisis, it should be a "no-brainer" to fix our flawed regulation of bank capital — in other words, to prevent banks from borrowing 40 times as much as their assets, as Lehman Bros. was doing shortly before its collapse.
Sorry, no: The Dodd bill simply proposes that its new "council of regulators" may recommend that the Federal Reserve impose more stringent standards. Yes, that's may. The bill doesn't even require regulators to change the current levels or framework for bank capital.
Even where Dodd claims to be the toughest, on issues of consumer protection, he simply punts to the regulators and the trial bar. That is, he orders bureaucrats to do better — and makes it easier for lawyers to sue.
The bill doesn't even eliminate zero-down mortgages — or any of the irresponsible lending products that plainly contributed to the crisis. Indeed, Dodd twice fought off floor amendments to require modest down payments.
Perhaps most insulting is Dodd's pretense that ordering up a "study" should count as addressing an issue. By my count, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office or the financial regulators to conduct no less than 28 separate studies.
What's Dodd's solution to the failings of the credit-rating agencies? A study.
His answer to the crisis in the auction-rate-securities and municipal-debt markets? A study. What to do about proprietary trading? A study. How about the flawed home-appraisal process that contributed to inflated housing prices? You got it, another study.
The worst of all; How do we protect the taxpayer from further losses from Fannie and Freddie? One more study, of course — although Dodd has assured us that this one will be a "tough study."
Our system of financial regulation is an embarrassing mess. But rather than restructure it, the Senate bill doubles down on the flaws and weakness of that mess.
It would be nice, just once, to see Congress make some hard choices and legislate — especially when the long term health of America's financial system is at issue.
This article appeared in the New York Post on May 21, 2010.
Dodd's Do-Nothing Financial 'Reform'
by Mark A. Calabria
This article appeared in the New York Post on May 21, 2010.
Wall Street is heaving a quiet sigh of relief: All Washington is going to give us for "financial reform" in the wake of the collapse of 2008 is a law based on Sen. Chris Dodd's bill.
That thin semblance of reform will let Congress and the Obama administration claim they brought Wall Street to heel. But by dodging all the hard issues, this "reform" makes it likely that the next crisis will put the last one to shame.
Start with ending "too big to fail": Despite Dodd's floor statements (and improvements made at the request of Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on Dodd's committee), the bill actually further enshrines the special and privileged status of our largest financial institutions. It squashes whatever hope there was of bringing back market discipline to our largest financial institutions — and guarantees ever-increasing concentration in our financial markets.
Going forward, we are left with relying on only the discretionary wisdom of the same regulators who were asleep at the wheel last time. And though that crisis cost millions their jobs, the Dodd bill won't see even one incompetent bureaucrat lose his.
Yes, the Dodd bill eliminates the Office of Thrift Supervision — but it guarantees that all OTS employees will have jobs at the new bank regulator. How exactly is moving around boxes on the organizational chart going to prevent the next financial crisis? (Ironically, OTS was itself created in the "crackdown" after another Washington-sparked meltdown, the savings-and-loan crisis of the late '80s.)
Indeed, the real theme of the Dodd bill is: Give the bureaucrats more power and discretion, without any accountability. Its main achievement is to set up a new agency that will largely determine who, what and how it will regulate.
But the bill itself doesn't touch even blatant problems.
For example, with almost universal recognition that banks lacked sufficient capital going into the financial crisis, it should be a "no-brainer" to fix our flawed regulation of bank capital — in other words, to prevent banks from borrowing 40 times as much as their assets, as Lehman Bros. was doing shortly before its collapse.
Sorry, no: The Dodd bill simply proposes that its new "council of regulators" may recommend that the Federal Reserve impose more stringent standards. Yes, that's may. The bill doesn't even require regulators to change the current levels or framework for bank capital.
Even where Dodd claims to be the toughest, on issues of consumer protection, he simply punts to the regulators and the trial bar. That is, he orders bureaucrats to do better — and makes it easier for lawyers to sue.
The bill doesn't even eliminate zero-down mortgages — or any of the irresponsible lending products that plainly contributed to the crisis. Indeed, Dodd twice fought off floor amendments to require modest down payments.
Perhaps most insulting is Dodd's pretense that ordering up a "study" should count as addressing an issue. By my count, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office or the financial regulators to conduct no less than 28 separate studies.
What's Dodd's solution to the failings of the credit-rating agencies? A study.
His answer to the crisis in the auction-rate-securities and municipal-debt markets? A study. What to do about proprietary trading? A study. How about the flawed home-appraisal process that contributed to inflated housing prices? You got it, another study.
The worst of all; How do we protect the taxpayer from further losses from Fannie and Freddie? One more study, of course — although Dodd has assured us that this one will be a "tough study."
Our system of financial regulation is an embarrassing mess. But rather than restructure it, the Senate bill doubles down on the flaws and weakness of that mess.
It would be nice, just once, to see Congress make some hard choices and legislate — especially when the long term health of America's financial system is at issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)