LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[shafnutz05]

I never hear anyone talking about every employee - from the CEO down - of government contractors also undergoing drug tests.
Why is that?

They are fighting for America

[columbia]

Snarky.

[shafnutz05]

Snarky.

When it comes to defending freedom, I'm dead serious.

[columbia]

It's so nice when Hannity posts here. ;)

[tifosi77]

Worth every penny. I would rather validate that the money given to people isn't spent on illegal drugs than allow every dollar become questionable.

But the assertion you're making does not follow from the evidence. Based on what has been learned from these programs, saying "every dollar become[s] questionable" is just paranoia.

I never hear anyone talking about every employee - from the CEO down - of government contractors also undergoing drug tests.
Why is that?

I got no beef with that. Altho I'm sure most of the contractors already have their own testing policies. (Not sure if it's as comprehensive as your suggestion)

[shafnutz05]

Bob Woodward on Obama's lies on budget cuts:

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn’t even initially know what a sequester was — because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.

Why does this matter?

First, months of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)

Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html

[King Sid the Great 87]

I never hear anyone talking about every employee - from the CEO down - of government contractors also undergoing drug tests.
Why is that?

I took one as a condition of employment when I started at Lockheed in 2004 and have to say that I am surprised that there is no periodic or random follow up.

Unless you need a lifestyle poly for a program (I assume the question comes up there, I've never taken that one) it seems you are in the free and clear if you don't mind fudging the truth on your five year re-investigate.

I smoked plenty of dope and ate plenty of pills in college and loved them both, but I'm sure as **** not risking my job/career/life over it. Fear is enough of a deterrent for me.

[Pitt87]

Worth every penny. I would rather validate that the money given to people isn't spent on illegal drugs than allow every dollar become questionable.

But the assertion you're making does not follow from the evidence. Based on what has been learned from these programs, saying "every dollar become[s] questionable" is just paranoia.

Hyperbole, perhaps, but its not paranoid to believe that welfare has limited monitors and frequent abusers. Drug tests are a reasonable expectation, creates both a checkpoint and deterrent, and is therefore effective. Since the majority of those tested passed, I'd say that its better to applaud a system that's been validated to be working than righteously validate opinions.

[tifosi77]

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever - not even any real evidence - that drug testing is a deterrent. (In this context) And when you say 'frequent', what is the metric? What do you mean by that? The one sample we have to go on suggested that less than 4% of applicants failed the tests. To me, that is the antithesis of 'frequent', and actually provides support for the notion that the common belief that welfare recipients are by and large criminal layabouts is a misconception (to put it mildly).

Again, as in the gun control debate, this is a case of managing expectations. I'm not sure what you believe is achievable with these programs (programs that, as I say, I support conceptually), but based on the last couple of posts I think five years into the deployment of such a testing regime I think you'd be pretty disappointed with the results and might even come in here and post some statistics that point to it as yet another example of government waste.

[Gaucho]

I guess more government is ok as long as it affects only other people.

[columbia]

That is one of the classic tensions of representative democracies, it appears.

[tifosi77]

Bob Woodward on Obama's lies on budget cuts:

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn’t even initially know what a sequester was — because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.

Why does this matter?

First, months of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)

Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html

There are 1,200 accounts in the U.S. budget. The $85 billion sequester accounts for roughly 2% of the requested level of spending in 2013.

Big. Whoop.*

And while Obama may be moving the goal posts, it is laughable that Congressional Republicans didn't even know what a 'sequester' was, and that is somehow supposed to absolve them of culpability. Mr. I-got-98%-of-what-I-wanted (who wanted to buy the Air Force a $3 billion jet engine it was no longer requesting) can sit back and play Big Boy games all he wants. But he and his caucus share responsibility here.









* The sequester may not represent a large sum of money in aggregate, but it's arbitrary and capricious. It doesn't target wasteful programs or antiquated programs. It's a blunt tool, so it's not the best way to go about the business of cutting spending...... which was the point; it was crafted to be so onerous that no one in their right mind would allow it to happen. Thankfully, no one in Washington is in their right mind, so we are not deprived of political theater.

Honestly, I think if you spent six months going deep and analyzing the budget you could probably make an instantaneous cut of closer to 10% or even 15% if you specifically targeted the bloat. And then extend that exercise over another six months - coupled with needed reforms to defense acquisition, the tax code, Medicare and Obamacare - you could probably cut the budget in half.

[tifosi77]

And does it really matter whose idea it was if both sides voted for it in the end?

[Tico Rick]

Karzai orders U.S. forces out of Wardak province:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/24/17076037-afghan-president-orders-us-forces-out-of-key-province?lite

Unless the allegations are true, I think it's time to pull the plug on this twerp.

[shafnutz05]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/michelle-obama-surprises-oscars-presenting-best-picture-award-053625676.html

Such a great honor to see the First Celebrity Lady wow the Academy Awards and present the best picture award. She is just so gosh darn cool and hip to the pop culture.

[columbia]

Do you drive a Chevrolet Vendetta, shad?

[Digitalgypsy66]

I know this is SC politics, and most, if not all of you, couldn't care less about it, but I need some rational opinions.

Evidently, SC treats solar power as a utility, making it difficult for solar companies to do business in the state (licensing, regulations, and so on). A recent SC House bill was up for debate which would reclassify solar power, making it easier for these companies to do business here.

During a public hearing, ministers and local leaders spoke in favor of it because it would lower prices to heat and cool churches, schools, nursing homes, and so on.

Groups of State Representatives - from both parties, although we are the Reddest of Red states - opposed it, stating that it would have an adverse effect on utilities and consumers. Isn't this just pressure from the electric utilities in the state? They have an active lobby, of course.

It isn't raising taxes, from what I can tell...it's just blocking it for the sake of keeping the electric utilities in the green.

http://www.thestate.com/2013/02/19/2640 ... k=misearch

[tifosi77]

I know this is SC politics, and most, if not all of you, couldn't care less about it, but I need some rational opinions.

It sounds to me like SC has a strong public utility lobby.

I saw that the up front costs to go solar in SC can exceed $20,000..... which is stupid expensive. Here in Los Angeles, you can actually go solar for $0 down. (You don't own the panels in that case; you are still buying your electricity, just from the solar company instead of the utility..... which means the solar company then gets to pocket the money for any excess power sold out to the grid.)

[tifosi77]

It's a new week............ so that means it's time for a new F-35 grounding!

F-35: Grounded Due to Engine Issues

Already hit by soaring costs, delays and second thoughts by potential customers, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) ran into more problems last week when a crack was discovered during a routine inspection, prompting the grounding of all aircraft.

The more than half-inch crack on the low-pressure turbine blade of a conventional takeoff and landing F-35A was discovered on February 19th during a routine inspection at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Under strict protocol, ground inspections are held after every 50 hours of engine service. After these findings were corroborated by a different test, all 51 F-35s currently in service in the U.S. fleet were grounded as a precautionary measure, and all further tests and training flights were halted for the three variants of the radar-evasive aircraft. Soon afterwards, the British Ministry of Defense also announced its own suspension of all test flights.

*****************

Although the verdict won’t be known until the end of this week at the earliest, possible causes include a foreign object hitting the turbine or basic manufacturing defects. A more devastating, albeit less likely, scenario would involve high-duty cycle fatigue cracking, which can lead to complete engine failure within as little as 90 minutes.

I am reminded of a jab from a famous F-14 pilot, who once quipped, "If it says 'Pratt & Whitney' on the engines, it better say 'Martin-Baker' on the seats." (MB, maker of the finest ejection seats in the world since 1946.) Thankfully, this appears to be the one thing the F-35 is getting right.

[Kaizer]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/michelle-obama-surprises-oscars-presenting-best-picture-award-053625676.html

Such a great honor to see the First Celebrity Lady wow the Academy Awards and present the best picture award. She is just so gosh darn cool and hip to the pop culture.

In fact, former presidents and former First Lady Laura Bush have participated in Academy Awards ceremonies. In 2002, Bush appeared at the Oscars in a taped appearance.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/25 ... nce/192788

omg laura bush is just so hip and cool

[Gaucho]

Let me show you my verschmitzt face.

[columbia]

Kaizer: are you on Pwn Stars?

[pittsoccer33]

i dont have any problem with Michelle O on the Oscars - it looks kind of weird, like the state of the union response. it goes from this grand gala to a quiet room. But I like her more than most of the people who presented/won.

[DelPen]

And does it really matter whose idea it was if both sides voted for it in the end?

No, it doesn't, which makes what Obama is doing even more despicable using scare tactics to deflect his share of the blame if you want to call it that.

[shafnutz05]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/michelle-obama-surprises-oscars-presenting-best-picture-award-053625676.html

Such a great honor to see the First Celebrity Lady wow the Academy Awards and present the best picture award. She is just so gosh darn cool and hip to the pop culture.

In fact, former presidents and former First Lady Laura Bush have participated in Academy Awards ceremonies. In 2002, Bush appeared at the Oscars in a taped appearance.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/25 ... nce/192788

omg laura bush is just so hip and cool

I knew about this. I am looking at the entire body of work for the First Lady, and presenting the award for Best Picture kind of falls in line with that.