WSJ on the debate on Gun Control

Taranto hits the nail on the head...again. Read the original here.


OK, Let's Debate Gun Control!
A second Obama term could kill the Second Amendment.
By JAMES TARANTO

WSJ BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
Updated July 23, 2012, 4:05 p.m. ET 

Last week's horrific crime in Aurora, Colo., has, predictably enough, prompted many leftist politicians and commentators to call for more antigun laws. Actually, that's not quite right. Rather than directly call for more antigun laws, some of them are complaining about the absence of a debate over gun control. Where's the "searching conversation over what rational steps can be taken by individuals, communities and various levels of government to make the recurrence of a comparable tragedy less likely"? the Washington Post's E.J. Dionnewants to know.

"Where a gun massacre is concerned," Dionne writes, "an absolute and total gag rule is imposed on any thinking beyond the immediate circumstances of the catastrophe." It doesn't seem to occur to him that this assertion is self-refuting. If "an absolute and total gag rule" were actually in effect, it would prevent Dionne from saying so.

When people find it necessary to demand a "debate" or complain about the absence of same, it usually means they're frustrated because there is a debate and their side is losing. Sure enough, Dionne's complaint is that those who disagree with him--whom he labels "the gun lobby," "worshipers of weapons" and adherents to "the theology of firearms"--make their case far more effectively than his side does. "The rest of us," he whines, suffer from a "profound timidity," as a result of which they "allow" their opponents' arguments "to work every time."

Dionne is claiming that those on his side have good arguments but fail to advance them because they have poor character. That may be true, especially the part about poor character, but it's still an odd thing to say.

But anyway, by all means let's debate gun control! The Associated Press's Steven Hurst begins a dispatch on the subject by "reporting" that "controlling access to guns would appear, on its face, the simple answer to preventing public massacres like the movie-theatre tragedy in Colorado." He does not reveal the source of this information, but we'll bet it was an exclusive interview with the Associated Press's Steven Hurst.

New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who governs a city some 1,800 miles from Aurora, demanded to know what President Obama and Mitt Romney are "going to do about" making it "harder to get guns." Bloomberg asserted that lawmakers "have been cowed by a handful of advocates who think that the right to bear arms allows you to go out and kill people at random." It is unlikely that anybody actually holds the position that Bloomberg ascribes to his opponents.

The president got into the act too. He "condemned U.S. gun laws as 'mistaken' and urged Washington to review them after a shooter killed 12 people and injured more than 50 others at a U.S. movie theater on Friday,"Reuters reports, quoting his tweet: "Because of the Aurora, Colorado tragedy, the American Congress must review its mistaken legislation on guns. It's doing damage to us all."

Oh, we should specify that was Felipe Calderon, president of Mexico. We'll get to what President Obama said in due course.

Now, there's a very good reason why coastal elites' arguments for gun control fall on deaf ears in most of Middle America. Those who value the Second Amendment suspect that people like Dionne and Bloomberg advocate "reasonable" gun restrictions as a camel's nose to a total or near-total ban on private ownership of firearms and their use for self-defense.

This suspicion is entirely justified. At his press conference, for instance, Bloomberg professed to believe that "there's nothing wrong with you having a gun. . . . If you comply with the law you will have responsible people who know the danger that a weapon or the responsibility that somebody who has a weapon in their hands has."

Well, this columnist lives in Bloomberg's New York, and we would like to own a pistol. But our understanding is that the procedures for acquiring a permit are so onerous that it isn't worth our while to apply. In more than a decade as mayor, Bloomberg has never sought to relax the city's gun restrictions, which are among the nation's most oppressive. He has always pushed in the other direction, demanding loudly if ineffectually that the rest of the country make its laws more like New York's. His actions give every reason to think his claims to respect gun rights are in bad faith.

A New York Times editorial makes similarly disingenuous concessions but carelessly lets the mask slip at the end. The editorialists allow that "many perfectly reasonable people" (though not they themselves) are of the view that the Second Amendment "gives each individual the right to bear arms." They pretend to seek a reasonable middle ground: "The country needs laws that allow gun ownership, but laws that also control their sale and use in careful ways."

The editorial concludes by quoting Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas: "It does make me wonder, you know, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying? That could have stopped this guy more quickly?" To which the Times responds: "That sort of call to vigilante justice is sadly too familiar, and it may be the single most dangerous idea in the debate over gun ownership."

The answer to Gohmert's question is that the chain that owns the theater where the massacre took place has a no-weapons policy, which oddly enough did not deter the shooter any more than Colorado's strict laws against murder did.

But what gives away the game is the Times's characterization of Gohmert's musing as a "call to vigilante justice." To see why that is not just mistaken but pernicious, let's consider the story of another shooting in Aurora.

On April 22, Denver's KCNC-TV reports, a man ran into an Aurora church "and told people to take cover." The pastor's mother "came out of the church to see what was happening in the parking lot and got shot." She was killed, but further carnage was averted because "an off-duty [police] officer was at a service and went outside and shot the man who shot the woman." The officer, a cousin of the pastor, was unhurt, but the suspect later died.

Now, the Times might find this acceptable because the man who shot the murderer was not a "vigilante" but a law-enforcement officer with a (presumably) government-issued gun. But the crucial point is that the shooting was not an act of "justice," which is to say that it was not punitive. If the killer had dropped his weapon, held up his hands, and surrendered to the cop, shooting him would have been an act of murder. Even if he arguably deserved to die, he also has a right to due process of law.

The policeman shot him because there was an immediate danger that he would wound or kill more innocent people. It was an act of defense, not justice. Vigilante justice is contrary to the rule of law, but self-defense is an essential part of it. If the latter is indistinguishable from the former, as the Times claims, then individual self-defense is never justified. To put it another way, the Times editorialists claim not merely that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are dangerous but that it is wrong in principle to save innocent lives by stopping a mass murder in progress.

Does President Obama agree with this extreme and un-American position? He professes not to. "The White House signaled [yesterday] that President Obama . . . did not intend to make a push for stricter gun controls," reports ABC's Jake Tapper, Press secretary Jay Carney says the president stands by "the op-ed that was published in an Arizona newspaper."

That would be Tucson's Daily Star, in which the following assertion appeared under the president's byline in March 2011: "Like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land."

Is that a sincere expression of Obama's views? If you believe it is, we have a bridge we'd like to sell you. (Disclosure: We didn't build that.) After all, this is the man who in 2008, when he thought only his snotty and well-heeled San Francisco supporters were listening, said of Middle Americans: "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

To be sure, the political exigencies are such that Obama's true feelings may not matter. As Politico notes: "The gun control caucus in Congress is increasingly urban, liberal and shrinking. . . . The handful of bills introduced this Congress that would tighten gun restrictions have languished, with a Republican majority in the House. No gun-control bills have cleared the Democratic-controlled Senate, either."

New federal gun-control legislation is highly unlikely to be enacted even if Obama is re-elected. None passed Congress in 2009-10, when Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. It's virtually impossible the Dems will reach 60 seats anytime before 2017.

But there's a third branch of government, and it is the reason why a second Obama term could prove deadly to the Second Amendment. Obama's professions of support for the right to keep and bear arms sounds awfully familiar. They sound, in fact, a lot like this: "Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. . . . I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."

That was Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's first appointee to the Supreme Court, answering a question at her 2009 confirmation hearing from Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. She was referring to District of Columbia v. Heller, which astonishingly was the first Supreme Court decision ever to recognize this fundamental right. Sotomayor's statement was a careful one. She did not say that she agreed with Heller or even that she would respect it as precedent. She could easily turn out to "understand" it and wish to wipe it from the books.

And she did. In 2010 the court decided McDonald v. Chicago, which applied the "incorporation" doctrine to the Second Amendment--that is, it held that the amendment, coupled with the 14th, forbids states as well as the feds from encroaching on the right to keep and bear arms. Sotomayor (along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) joined Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent, which flatly asserted: "The Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense."

McDonald, like Heller, was decided 5-4. One of the dissenters, Justice John Paul Stevens, has since retired from the court. His successor, Justice Elena Kagan, has not yet had occasion to cast a vote in a gun-rights case (and as solicitor general she did not file a brief in McDonald). But we are going to go out on a limb and guess that she agrees with Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor that the Second Amendment is essentially a nullity.

If that is correct, then the court is one vote away from having a majority to reverse Heller. Two of the justices in the pro-Second Amendment majority, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, will be 80 by the end of the next presidential term. If either or both of them were to leave the court during a second Obama term, it is far likelier than not that an Obama appointee would join what is now the minority to kill the Second Amendment.

Ginsburg and Breyer are also in their 70s. If Romney were to replace one or both of them, it is likely that the right to keep and bear arms would be secure, backed by a 6-3 or 7-2 majority.

So by all means, let's have a vigorous debate about gun control and the Constitution. But it's not too much to ask of President Obama that in describing his own views on the subject and the consequences of re-electing him, he be at least as honest as the New York Times editorial page.

Podcast: James Taranto on gun control.

Who built what?

Who is responsible for success? If something is given, it can be taken away. James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal gives his $0.02. Read the original here.

You Didn't Sweat, He Did
Constructing a sentence is hard work when you're the World's Greatest Orator.
By JAMES TARANTO

Wall Street Journal

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that." If the World's Greatest Orator turns out to be a one-term president, it is likely to go down as the most memorable utterance of his career. Mitt Romney certainly hopes that happens. HotAir.com's Ed Morrissey has highlights of Mitt Romney's response, in a speech yesterday at Irwin, Pa.:

The idea to say that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple, that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor, that Papa John didn't build Papa John Pizza, that Ray Kroc didn't build McDonald's, that Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft, you go on the list, that Joe and his colleagues didn't build this enterprise, to say something like that is not just foolishness, it is insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America, and it's wrong.
And by the way, the president's logic doesn't just extend to the entrepreneurs that start a barber shop or a taxi operation or an oil field service business like this and a gas service business like this, it also extends to everybody in America that wants to lift themself [sic] up a little further, that goes back to school to get a degree and see if they can get a little better job, to somebody who wants to get some new skills and get a little higher income, to somebody who have, may have dropped out that decides to get back in school and go for it. . . . The president would say, well you didn't do that. You couldn't have gotten to school without the roads that government built for you. You couldn't have gone to school without teachers. So you didn't, you are not responsible for that success. President Obama attacks success and therefore under President Obama we have less success and I will change that.
I've got to be honest, I don't think anyone could have said what he said who had actually started a business or been in a business. And my own view is that what the President said was both startling and revealing. I find it extraordinary that a philosophy of that nature would be spoken by a president of the United States. It goes to something that I have spoken about from the beginning of the campaign. That this election is, to a great degree, about the soul of America. Do we believe in an America that is great because of government or do we believe in an America that is great because of free people allowed to pursue their dreams and build our future?

There's a website called didntbuildthat.com with a variety of hilarious treatments of the Obama philosophy. Of course, whoever's running the site didn't build that. As he acknowledges, Al Gore did. And hey, remember Julia, Barack Obama's composite girlfriend? At 42, she starts a Web business. Under President Obama, she didn't build that.

Obama may be God's gift to comedy, but Romney is right that the philosophical stakes here are serious. The president's remark was a direct attack on the principle of individual responsibility, the foundation of American freedom. If "you didn't build that," then you have no moral claim to it, and those with political power are morally justified in taking it away and using it to buy more political power. "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama said in another candid moment, in 2008.

This isn't even Obama's only such revelatory comment of the past week. Politico.com reports that the president, in an interview with WTOL-TV of Toledo, Ohio, let the mask slip again when asked about the ObamaCare mandate tax. "It's less a tax or a penalty than it is a principle--which is you can't be a freeloader on other folks when it comes to your health care, if you can afford it," he said.

Of course this is a dodge. The administration claimed that the mandate was not a tax for political purposes but was a tax for legal purposes. Chief Justice John Roberts tied himself in knots to accept the argument Obama is now running away from. Between them, the solicitor general and the chief justice look as if they were too clever by 1.

What's objectionable about Obama's comment, however, is not "tax" or "penalty" or even "principle." It's the way he uses the word "freeloader."

Normally we think of a freeloader as somebody who sponges off others, which in the context of public policy means the government. A freeloader is an able-bodied welfare recipient, or someone who fakes a disability to collect Supplemental Security income, or who waits until his unemployment runs out before looking for a job.

Now, think about how the ObamaCare mandate tax is structured. As Roberts noted in his opinion for the court in NFIB v. Sebelius, "It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status."

The only people who pay the ObamaCare mandate tax are people who make a living. Actual freeloaders are exempt. What Obama calls a freeloader is someone who makes his own money and pays his taxes but does not spend his money in the government-approved way.

The Obama campaign hotly disputes Romney's contention that the president meant what he said. A "fact check" from the Obama-Biden "Truth Team" (formerly Attack Watch) claims that Romney "is taking President Obama's words out of context" to produce "a complete distortion." Here is the full context, as presented by the Truth Team:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

The Team then explains: "The President's full remarks show that the 'that' in 'you didn't build that' clearly refers to roads and bridges--public infrastructure we count on the government to build and maintain."

That's bunk, and not only because "business" is more proximate to the pronoun "that" and therefore its more likely antecedent. The Truth Team's interpretation is ungrammatical. "Roads and bridges" is plural; "that" is singular. If the Team is right about Obama's meaning, he shoudl have said, "You didn't build those."

Barack Obama is supposed to be the World's Greatest Orator, the smartest man in the world. Yet his campaign asks us to believe he is not even competent to construct a sentence.

Marijuana, Soda, and criminalization

I know a lot of people say that marijuana is not as bad as alcohol, and there may be some merit to that. But in NYC, small amounts of marijuana will be not as regulated or criminalized as large sugared sodas? Does that seem like priorities may be a bit out of wack? If a community wants to decriminalize a certain amount of weed, that is up to them as are the consequences, both expected and unexpected. However, it piques the interest when it so closely follows the crackdown on large sodas. Read the original here.

Bloomberg Backs Plan to Limit Arrests for Marijuana
By THOMAS KAPLAN
Published: June 4, 2012

ALBANY — The New York Police Department, the mayor and the city’s top prosecutors on Monday endorsed a proposal to decriminalize the open possession of small amounts of marijuana, giving an unexpected lift to an effort by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to cut down on the number of people arrested as a result of police stops.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, whose Police Department made about 50,000 arrests last year for low-level marijuana possession, said the governor’s proposal “strikes the right balance” in part because it would still allow the police to arrest people who smoke marijuana in public.

The marijuana arrests are a byproduct of the Police Department’s increasingly controversial stop-and-frisk practice. Mr. Bloomberg and police officials say the practice has made the city safer, but, because most of those stopped are black or Hispanic, the practice has been criticized as racially biased by advocates for minority communities.

The support expressed by Mr. Bloomberg, prosecutors and police officials is likely to carry significant weight in the Republican-led State Senate, which is the key obstacle to passage of the bill in Albany during this year’s legislative session. Mr. Cuomo has amassed a strong track record of winning passage of legislation he embraces, and the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, joined him at his news conference Monday, indicating that the Democrat-controlled Assembly would back the measure. The Republican Senate leadership has traditionally opposed legislation it views as soft on criminals.

Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, framed the issue as one of racial justice as well as common sense, saying that the police in New York City were wasting time, resources and good will making tens of thousands of unnecessary arrests. Possession of small amounts of marijuana is a crime only if the marijuana is in public view or if it is being smoked in public, but many of the marijuana possession arrests have been occurring when the police order someone stopped to empty his or her pockets, making the marijuana visible — a phenomenon the governor called an “aggravated complication” of the stop-and-frisk practice.

“It becomes a question of balance,” the governor said of the city’s police stops. “Part of the balance is the relationship with the community. I think the N.Y.P.D. and the mayor are making efforts to work with the community.”

The governor’s announcement was cheered by lawmakers from minority neighborhoods as well as by civil rights groups, who are increasingly looking to Albany and to Washington in an effort to rein in what they see as overly aggressive tactics on the part of the Bloomberg administration.

Black leaders also cited the governor’s proposal as a rare recognition of — and attempt to remedy — what they describe as a cultural and legal double standard: that young African-American men are being arrested in large numbers for an activity — using marijuana — that is prevalent, but with less frequent legal consequences, among whites of the same age.

“Some of our police officers are making race-based discretionary decisions on who they’re going to arrest for low-level marijuana possession,” said Leroy Gadsden, the president of a branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Jamaica, Queens, and the chairman of the criminal justice committee for the statewide N.A.A.C.P. “Therefore, of course, if you’re a young, black male, even a female, you’re going to feel that you’re being targeted when you notice that your white counterparts are not being arrested for the same thing.”

The Rev. Al Sharpton praised Mr. Cuomo’s proposal as “a step in the right direction” in curbing what he described as racial profiling by the Police Department. And Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat who has pushed legislation to end low-level marijuana arrests, said, “It cannot be criminal behavior for one group of people and socially acceptable behavior for another group of people, where the dividing line is race.”

A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg rejected the notion that the Police Department acted with racial bias in arresting people for marijuana possession.

Under Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, the state would downgrade the possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana in public view from a misdemeanor to a violation, with a maximum fine of $100 for first-time drug offenders. It is already a violation to possess that amount without putting it into public view.

In September, facing growing pressure over the marijuana arrests, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly issued a memorandum clarifying that the police were not to arrest people who take small amounts of marijuana out of their pockets after being stopped. A city spokesman said that low-level marijuana arrests had fallen by nearly a quarter since then.

Mr. Bloomberg, whose administration had previously defended low-level marijuana arrests as a means of deterring more serious crimes, said on Monday that Mr. Cuomo’s proposal was consistent with Mr. Kelly’s directive. Mr. Kelly made a rare trip to the Capitol to join Mr. Cuomo at the news conference as a way of demonstrating the city’s support for the governor’s proposal.

“This law will make certain that the confusion in this situation will be eliminated,” Mr. Kelly said, adding, “Quite frankly, it will make the application of this law much clearer.”

Mr. Cuomo said changing the law was a better approach in the long term, saying, “I think it puts the police in an awkward position to tell them, enforce some laws, don’t enforce other laws.”

“This is nice and clean: change the law, period,” the governor added.

The five district attorneys in New York City also endorsed the change in the law on Monday. The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., said that half of the 6,200 people who were charged with low-level marijuana possession last year in Manhattan had never been arrested before.

“This simple and fair change will help us redirect significant resources to the most serious criminals and crime problems,” Mr. Vance said. “And, frankly, it’s the right thing to do.”

But one Republican, Senator Martin J. Golden of Brooklyn, expressed concerns. He said that the enthusiasm among some lawmakers and advocacy groups for Mr. Cuomo’s proposal was “all about stop-and-frisk,” and, citing several young people in his district who had died of prescription drug overdoses in recent months, questioned the message it would send to young people about drug use.

Noting the 25-gram threshold for Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, he said, “That’s a lot of pot, my friend.”

This feels a bit heavy handed...

Read the original here.

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Published: May 30, 2012

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

A spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, an arm of the soda industry’s national trade group, criticized the city’s proposal on Wednesday. The industry has clashed repeatedly with the city’s health department, saying it has unfairly singled out soda; industry groups have bought subway advertisements promoting their cause.

“The New York City health department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top,” the industry spokesman, Stefan Friedman, said. “It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity. These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday.

Mr. Bloomberg has made public health one of the top priorities of his lengthy tenure, and has championed a series of aggressive regulations, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.

The measures have led to occasional derision of the mayor as Nanny Bloomberg, by those who view the restrictions as infringements on personal freedom. But many of the measures adopted in New York have become models for other cities, including restrictions on smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption, and the demand that chain restaurants post calorie contents next to prices.

In recent years, soda has emerged as a battleground in efforts to counter obesity. Across the nation, some school districts have banned the sale of soda in schools, and some cities have banned the sale of soda in public buildings.

In New York City, where more than half of adults are obese or overweight, Dr. Thomas Farley, the health commissioner, blames sweetened drinks for up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years. About a third of New Yorkers drink one or more sugary drinks a day, according to the city. Dr. Farley said the city had seen higher obesity rates in neighborhoods where soda consumption was more common.

The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.

Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.

At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.

Corner stores and bodegas would be affected if they are defined by the city as “food service establishments.” Those stores can most easily be identified by the health department letter grades they are required to display in their windows.

The mayor, who said he occasionally drank a diet soda “on a hot day,” contested the idea that the plan would limit consumers’ choices, saying the option to buy more soda would always be available.

“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

The Bloomberg administration had made previous, unsuccessful efforts to make soda consumption less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, but the idea was rejected by federal regulators.

With the new proposal, City Hall is now trying to see how much it can accomplish without requiring outside approval. Mayoral aides say they are confident that they have the legal authority to restrict soda sales, based on the city’s jurisdiction over local eating establishments, the same oversight that allows for the health department’s letter-grade cleanliness rating system for restaurants.

In interviews at the AMC Loews Village, in the East Village in Manhattan, some filmgoers said restricting large soda sales made sense to them.

“I think it’s a good idea,” said Sara Gochenauer, 21, a personal assistant from the Upper West Side. Soda, she said, “rots your teeth.”

But others said consumers should be free to choose.

“If people want to drink 24 ounces, it’s their decision,” said Zara Atal, 20, a college student from the Upper East Side.

Lawrence Goins, 50, a postal worker who lives in Newark, took a more pragmatic approach.

“Some of those movies are three, three and a half hours long,” Mr. Goins said. “You got to quench your thirst.”


Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.

Who pays their fair share?

I'm guessing you do. But do government workers? Of course, the IRS is currently lead by a Treasury Secretary who decided that paying taxes was too complicated. So he just didn't. And then became Treasury Secretary. Other people would have had their wages garnished or been arrested. Read the original here.

Hey, how about administration officials pay their fair share of taxes?
POSTED AT 2:31 PM ON APRIL 18, 2012
BY TINA KORBE
HotAir.com

Over at our sister site, Townhall.com, Carol Platt Liebau and Kevin Glass issue a timely reminder. At the same time that the president shrilly demands passage of a rule to force millionaires to “pay their fair share” of taxes (passage the Senate didn’t deliver), administration officials and federal workers owe an astonishing amount in back taxes.

Some 36 members of Obama’s executive staff owe more than $800,000 in back taxes, while federal workers owe more than $3.4 billion in unpaid taxes, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

Granted, we can’t wait for perfect compliance to reform the tax code, just as we can’t wait for the elimination of every instance of waste, fraud and abuse before we reform entitlement programs. The noncompliance of so many members of the Obama administration and the federal government, though, might reveal yet another reason why they target “the rich” for tax increases. Because they don’t pay their own taxes, they don’t trust others to pay their fair share without special enforcement, either. “The rich” — as such a small portion of the population — are easy to monitor and easy to milk. Few millionaires would take the risk of fudging their tax returns — especially since the IRS is, in fact, auditing more millionaires these days.

Meanwhile, the Buffett Rule isn’t even the most disastrous tax the Obama administration has proposed of late. John Ransom calls attention to the many pitfalls of a global minimum tax, which Joe Biden recently touted:

A global minimum tax is a tax on all profits made by nominally US companies that operate overseas. They operate overseas for various reasons, but one big reason is because corporate taxes are higher in the US than overseas. And to fix high corporate taxes in the US, the Obama administration proposes even HIGHER TAXES on corporations. …

Not content to tax the rich here in the United States, Democrats are so hungry for welfare revenues that they now want to tax all revenue, everywhere, ignoring international borders, international waters and universal common sense.

And guess who is gonna pay the tax? When they toll the bell “rich” during this campaign, understand that that bell tolls for thee.

Because, while the “rich” may be someone across town in the US, the “rich” in Obama’s global sense, isyou. This is a tax that will fall most heavily on the poor and middle income earners.

The truth is, most of the tax increases the president has proposed will eventually hit the middle class, thanks to the phenomenon of trickle-down taxation. Grover Norquist thinks the American people won’t fall for tax-the-rich rhetoric again because they know eventually, in the eyes of the government, everybody will be considered “rich.” I hope he’s right — but the president’s opportunistic emphasis on the Buffett Rule during an election year suggests the president thinks his rhetoric will work.

The tax battle is not about “paying a fair share.” If it were, Obama would direct the injunction to pay up directly at the tax evaders in his administration. It is and always has been about wealth redistribution and centralization of power.

Secret Service buys a little more service, should have stayed a little more secret

Umm....Not sure what to say about this one. This is pretty bad.  There better be some severe disciplinary action, as this exposes the President and other officials to a high security risk, if their bodyguards are susceptible to blackmail.  Read the original here.

Secret Service hooker flap over $47 (or just 83,475 naughty lil’ pesos)
By GEOFF EARLE in DC and DON KAPLAN in NY
With POST WIRE SERVICES
Last Updated: 9:52 AM, April 15, 2012
Posted: 12:52 AM, April 15, 2012
NY Post

A Secret Service agent shamed the United States after a wild night of babes and booze that ended in an argument with a Colombian hooker over as little as $47.

One of 11 elite agents assigned to ensure President Obama’s protection at a summit meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, was busted after his lady of the evening refused to leave his hotel room in the morning without her fee.

That woman was one of 11 hookers hired by the agents — and the only one who hadn’t left Cartagena’s swank Hotel Caribe, where White House staffers, members of the press and dignitaries are staying during the Summit of the Americas meeting, sources said.

The confrontation occurred early last week, said Rep. Pete King, a Long Island Republican who was briefed on the incident yesterday.

One of the agents sent home after agency bosses in DC learned what was going on was “in a supervisory role,” said King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

A hotel employee told The Associated Press that agents arrived at the beachfront hotel a week ago and drank heavily during their stay.

Prostitution is legal in much of Colombia inside “tolerance zones” controlled by police. The going rate for hookers in Cartagena is around $47, according to Colombian TV.

The trouble began for the Secret Service after the agents’ night of carousing, when a hotel employee noticed a hooker’s ID was still at the front desk at 7 a.m., in violation of hotel policy on overnight guests, King said.

The manager went to the agent’s room where the woman had spent the night and saw the two inside arguing, King said.

“She said the agent owed her money,” King said. “He said he didn’t have to pay her.”

He eventually forked over the money and the situation was resolved. But the cops were called and they filed a report, which was sent to the US Embassy.

The probe widened yesterday to include five members of the US military who were allegedly involved in the same incident, officials said.

The service members, with the Southern Command, are still in Colombia “because of the expertise and the knowledge that these guys have,” a military spokesman told CBS News.

A statement released by the Southern Command said the service members “violated the curfew . . . and may have been involved in inappropriate conduct.”

An expert on the Secret Service yesterday said that, although the agents involved in the scandal were not breaking Colombian law, most of them are married and could have been exposed to blackmail.

“It could have resulted in a potential assassination attempt on the president,” said Ronald Kessler, author of “In the President’s Secret Service.”

“It the biggest scandal in the history of the Secret Service and the most basic breach of security,” the author said.

Secret Service spokesman Edwin Donovan said that Obama’s security was not compromised because of the incident.

“This entire matter has been turned over to our Office of Professional Responsibility, which serves as the agency’s internal- affairs component,” he said.

None of the agents involved was directly assigned to protect the president. Donovan said the agents involved were relieved from duty and replaced.

But the scandal has made the United States the laughingstock of the important summit, as diplomats have been gossiping about hooker high jinx rather than focusing on Obama’s goals in the region.

“I had a breakfast meeting to discuss trade and drugs, but the only thing the other delegates wanted to talk about was the story of the agents and the hookers,” chuckled one Latin American diplomat.

Without mentioning the Secret Service scandal specifically, Obama — who arrived in Cartagena on Friday — blasted “flashy” coverage of the controversy.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/ho_lombia_twist_4oMCMx8CRfOyJhODIuCcfM#ixzz1s8b0t9x7

Spike Lee: what was his point?

I suppose it's a good thing he apologized for tweeting an elderly couple's address. Of course, it did take long enough. Is he going to compensate them at all for having to flee their home and stay at a hotel? At the very least, I think Spike Lee should compensate them for hotel costs, and any additional security concerns this couple has. But more than that, what was the point? Let's say he had "correctly" tweeted Zimmerman's address. Was he advocating that someone collect that Black Panther bounty? Was he sending it out for a movie style team of hitmen to go get him? Why tweet an address anyway? I mean, he tweets "Justice in court", but the implication of tweeting an address is not, wait until his fair day in court.  Otherwise, wouldn't he have tweeted the court address so the public could follow the case (eventually)?  Read the original here.

Spike Lee apologizes to elderly Florida couple
By Kerry Picket
March 28, 2012, 10:25PM

Washington Times

Filmmaker Spike Lee apologized to David and Elaine McClain of Sanford, Florida on Wednesday night after re-tweeting their address out to his 250,000 followers last week. Mr. Lee thought the McClain's address belonged to George Zimmerman, the 28 year old man who fatally shot 17 year old Trayvon Martin last month (background here). In a tweet Mr. Lee wrote:

"I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address.It Was A Mistake.Please Leave The McClain's In Peace.Justice In Court."

The McClains were forced to flee their home and stay at a local Sanford hotel after their address was tweeted out to hundreds of thousands of twitter followers.

Someone finally calls out Jesse & Al

Finally someone calls Jesse & Al out on what they do.  They never help the situation, they make their living and livelihood and stoking racial tension, not diffusing it.  And explain to me the purpose of POTUS weighing in on this.  This is Henry Gates all over again.  Read the original here.

Former NAACP leader accuses Sharpton and Jackson of ‘exploiting’ Trayvon Martin
Published: 2:17 PM 03/26/2012
By Alex Pappas - The Daily Caller

Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”

“His family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” Rev. C.L. Bryant said in a Monday interview with The Daily Caller.

The conservative black pastor who was once the chapter president of the Garland, Texas NAACP called Jackson and Sharpton “race hustlers” and said they are “acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy.”

Jackson, for example, recently said Martin’s death shows how “blacks are under attack” and “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business.” (SEE ALSO: Jesse Jackson says Trayvon Martin ‘murdered and martyred’)

George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, killed Martin, a 17-year-old black man who was unarmed at the time of his death, last month. Zimmerman has claimed to have shot Martin in self-defense and has not been charged with a crime.

But Bryant, who explores the topic of black-on-black crime in his new film “Runaway Slave,” said people like Jackson and Sharpton are being misleading to suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men.”

“The epidemic is truly black on black crime,” Bryant said. “The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”

Bryant said he wishes civil rights leaders were protesting those problems.

“Why not be angry about the wholesale murder that goes on in the streets of Newark and Chicago?” he asked. “Why isn’t somebody angry about that six-year-old girl who was killed on her steps last weekend in a cross fire when two gang members in Chicago start shooting at each other? Why is there no outrage about that?”

Bryant said he worries that “people like Sharpton and those on the left” will make Martin’s death a campaign issue in the presidential race.

He speculated that they will “turn this evolving tragedy of this young man into fodder to say… if you don’t re-elect Obama then you will have unbridled events or circumstances like this happening in the streets to young men wearing hoodies.” (RELATED: Herman Cain criticizes ‘swirling rhetoric’ after Martin shooting)

He also criticized President Obama for his “nebulous statement” responding to Martin’s death that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” “What does that mean?” Bryant asked. “What was the purpose in that?”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/former-naacp-leader-accuses-sharpton-and-jackson-of-exploiting-trayvon-martin/#ixzz1qK4koUkc

Everyone is a unique snowflake....

Remember kids. Everyone is a unique snowflake. The world will care how you feel. Everyone will hand you what you want and feel you are entitled to, as to not upset you. This is ridiculous. This is absurd. This is modern day England. Read the original here.

Schools ban children making best friends
By HARRY HAWKINS
Published: 19th March 2012

TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don't get upset by fall-outs.


Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.

Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.

She added: "I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn't have a best friend and that everyone should play together.

"They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they're learning to deal with it."

Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, confirmed some schools were adopting best-friend bans.

He said: "I don't think it is widespread but it is clearly happening. It seems bizarre.

"I don't see how you can stop people from forming close friendships. We make and lose friends throughout our lives." The Campaign for Real Education, which wants more parental choice in state education, said the "ridiculous" policy was robbing children of their childhood.

Spokesman Chris McGovern added: "Children take things very seriously and if you tell them they can't have a best friend it can be seriously damaging to them. They need to learn about relationships."

POTUS claims Solyndra collapse not administration's fault; blames anyone else he can

Seriously, man up and take responsibility for your administration. This just sounds whiny and like he's trying to get out of the responsibility. Also, my opinion on a side note. This is $500 million of federal money just gone down the wishing well. All in all, not that significant for their $14 trillion budget. And he's whining this much. Yet Joe Biden wants us to believe that if the operation to get Osama went bad, he would step up and take responsibility? You don't think he'd throw Congress and Admiral McRaven and the Navy under the bus politically? I have no evidence that he would, but I believe that his past actions and statements tilt the argument that he would. Read the original here.

OBAMA ON SOLYNDRA LOAN: ‘THIS WAS NOT OUR PROGRAM’
BLAMES 'CONGRESS' AND 'THE CHINESE' FOR FIRM’S FAILURE
BY: Andrew Stiles - March 22, 2012 11:08 am

President Obama denied culpability for the failure of solar firm Solyndra in a radio interview on Tuesday, instead pinning the blame on Congress and the Chinese.

The loans initiative used to finance Solyndra was “not our program,” he told American Public Media in response to question about Solyndra’s bankruptcy and subsequent controversy.

“Understand, this was not our program per se,” Obama said. “Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program…to help start-up companies get to scale.”


APM: With all respect, it was a gutsy move I think to come to a solar facility. Your administration has staked a lot on clean technology, green jobs – the biggest item most people know about that strategy is, of course, a company named Solyndra, which your administration gave loan guarantees to, then went bankrupt and has been the subject of many investigations. Are you doing your ‘all of the above’ strategy right if that’s what we have to show for it, Solyndra?

OBAMA: We are doing the all of the above strategy right. Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete. But understand, this was not our program per se.

Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries–it’s easy to raise money for start-ups, but if you want to take them to scale sometimes there’s a lot of risk involved, and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale. And the understanding is that some companies are not going to succeed, some companies are going to do very well, but the portfolio as a whole ends up supporting the kind of innovation that helps make America successful in this innovative 21st century economy. Do I wish that Solyndra had gone bankrupt? Absolutely not. And obviously it’s heartbreaking it happened for the workers who were there.

Obama has previously argued that the Department of Energy program used to finance a $535 million federal loan guarantee to Solyndra “predates” his presidency.

That’s an exaggeration of the truth, according to FactCheck.org: “Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing ‘commercially available technologies.’”
This entry was posted in Obama Administration, Video and tagged Solyndra. Bookmark thepermalink.

Free political hires...

Why hire more campaign staff, when the teacher will make students work for you for free? Read the original here.

Va. middle-schoolers assigned opposition research on GOP candidates
Published: 1:16 AM 03/22/2012
By Kalyn McMackin - The Daily Caller

A Virginia middle school teacher recently forced his students to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign by conducting opposition research in class against the Republican presidential candidates.

The 8th grade students, who attend Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County, were required to seek out the vulnerabilities of Republican presidential hopefuls and forward them to the Obama campaign.

“This assignment was just creepy beyond belief — like something out of East Germany during the Cold War,” one frustrated father, who asked for his family to remain anonymous, told The Daily Caller.

The assignment was for students to research the backgrounds and positions of each of the GOP candidates for president and find “weaknesses” in them, the parent explained. From there, students were to prepare a strategy paper to exploit those weaknesses and then to send their suggestions to the Obama campaign.

Liberty teacher Michael Denman, who declined to comment, unveiled the assignment in mid-January when he broke the Civics Honor’s class into four groups, one for each Republican candidate. The students were then to collaborate as a group and research the backgrounds of their assigned candidate.

Denman assigned two kids to write a paper revealing the identified “weaknesses,” two to write the attack strategy paper and two others to locate an individual inside the Obama campaign to whom they could send the information.

“My classmates don’t actually know a lot, but a few of us tended to agree that the most recent instruction on this project just didn’t seem right,” one of the students told TheDC. “Mr. Denman didn’t tell us where to find the information, just to research on them.”

As a result, the school received multiple phone calls from parents frustrated with the political nature of the assignment, the father told TheDC.

“I was shocked that a school teacher would so blatantly politicize the curriculum of a middle school classroom,” the parent said. “I asked [my child] if a similar assignment had been handed out to examine the background and positions of President Obama to see if the teacher was at least being bipartisan.”

No similar assignment was given to research Obama’s history, identify his weaknesses or pass them along to the Republican candidates.

John Torre, a spokesman on behalf of the Fairfax County Public School system, insists that students were never instructed to actually send their results to the Obama campaign.

“Instead, the teacher simply asked his students to find out the name of the office that would receive such information,” Torre wrote in an email to TheDC.

Torre explained that Principal Dr. Catherine Cipperly, who refused to comment, discussed the matter with Denman, citing that students should have been given a choice to research candidates from either major party.

“The principal advised the teacher that he should emphasize to his students that this assignment was meant to learn a process and not to endorse a particular candidate,” Torre said. “The teacher agreed with the principal’s direction.”

A district policy, which addresses employee political activities, states “employees shall not involve their schools in political campaigns, distribute political literature on school property or attempt to indoctrinate students with their personal political beliefs.”

Despite the rule, Denman’s intention was to exercise “a simulation activity with the intent of teaching students about the research process that a campaign committee goes through prior to an election,” Torre said.

The father, who describes himself as conservative, thought Denman’s behavior went too far and needed to be addressed.

“Teachers acting in such manner need to be called out,” he said. “I have no personal animosity toward the teacher in question at all, but let’s be real.”

In hopes of bringing this to the attention of other public school teachers, this father just wants one thing clear: “Leave politics out of the classroom,” he said. “Present a balanced viewpoint, teaching children to listen to all sides and think for themselves.”

Fairfax County, a suburban area situated across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., is by far Virginia’s most populous county and among the state’s most liberal. In 2008, Barack Obama won 60 percent of Fairfax County’s presidential votes, compared to just 39 percent for Sen. John McCain.

Follow Kalyn on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/va-middle-schoolers-assigned-to-do-oppo-research-on-gop-candidates/#ixzz1pwcp15qG

Home Associations are out of control...

I don't know about other people, but I despise most homeowner and condo associations. I (and my bank) own my place, and having a group of peers that attempt to wield what little power they have like a 18th century monarch because they couldn't get elected to the city council just annoys me...on many levels. Because of things like this. This is just bullying, plain and simple. Read the original here.

NH Woman Sued For Planting Flowers In Her Front Yard
By Jim Armstrong, WBZ-TV
March 19, 2012 10:55 PM

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (CBS) – Kimberly Bois’ tiny front yard garden isn’t much to look at right now. But in a few weeks, it’ll be in full bloom, and every blossom will cost her dearly.

Even though she says her builder gave her permission to do a little planting, the current condo board now says she’s in violation.

They’re charging the Portsmouth, New Hampshire homeowner $50 a day for being so petal pushy. That fine has reached close to $6,000, plus the board’s legal fees.

“It’s just not a happy place to live anymore for me,” says Bois, who planted the small flower bed with the help of her mother, who has since passed away.

She says, “It just feels like we’ve been bullied and really all we wanted to do was have a conversation to figure out how this can benefit all of us.”

A new certified letter arrives every month, ordering Bois to uproot her garden and keeping track of her fines.

It got so bad, she contacted a Realtor friend of hers to talk about just selling the place that she has owned since 2008.

That’s when she got the real shock: the board put a lien on her townhouse for their fines.

Bois says the whole situation has, “gotten out of control.”

She even offered to pull up the flowers and pay part of the board’s legal fees a couple of weeks ago – an offer she says was refused.

The association’s bylaws don’t expressly forbid planting flowers on your property, Bois explains, nor do they explicitly allow it.

Board members have told Bois they just want all the units to look the same.

“Now we’ve gone down a rabbit hole that I just can’t seem to get out of and it’s very sad, and it’s upsetting,” she says.

WBZ reached out to the attorney who represents the condo association, but he did not respond our request for comment.

Umm....doesn't he have anything else to do?

I mean, sure POTUS can read books, but is there nothing better for him to do than pitch movie ideas? Has he already given up on 2012, and is looking for a new job as movie producer? To be fair, I suppose Hollywood does love him enough, that he would be able to greenlight anything he wants....until Harvey Weinstein says no... Either way, it just seems really tacky that he's pitching novel ideas for movie scripts while being POTUS. Read the original here.

Harvey Weinstein passes on movie pitch from Obama
2:57 p.m. CST, March 7, 2012
Peter Voskamp

Reuters
WASHINGTON, March 7 (TheWrap.com) - If you've ever had a pitch turned down by Harvey Weinstein

, you're now in some fine company. The Weinstein Co. chief disclosed thatPresident Obama

recently sent him a film idea -- which he passed on.

"The President sent me a book the other day and said 'Why don't you make this into a movie?'" Weinstein said. "I can't tell you. It was a spy novel."

But Weinstein demurred.

"I sent him an email back saying he was the most over qualified book scout I've ever had," he told the Times of London.

Weinstein is a deep-pocketed supporter of President Obama and theDemocratic Party, and recently co-hosted fundraising events for the president in New York and Los Angeles.

The Weinstein Co. said it had no comment on the pitch.

As if getting a movie pitch from President Obama wasn't enough, Harvey Weinstein on Wednesday was made a member of the French Legion of Honor.

In ceremony held in Paris, French PresidentNicolas Sarkozy honored the 59-year-old producer of "The Artist" for his contribution to cinema by making him a member of the French Legion of Honor.

"I am honored and humbled by this recognition from President Sarkozy and the people ofFrance. All my life, I have loved and been inspired by French cinema, and as a studio head it has been my pride and joy to have the ability to bring movies to audiences around the world," Weinstein said in a statement before the ceremony.

"I am still the young boy who walked to the cinema in Flushing, New York to see films by the greats - Lelouch, Godard, Renoir and my personal favorite, François Truffaut. They inspired me and led me to the place I am in today. I hope to continue my friendship with France and its filmmakers for many years to come."

Because government always spends money efficiently....

Oh wait. That's completely wrong. Is anyone surprised by this at all? Entities react with incentive. What is the incentive for the government to spend money wisely? It's not their money...Read the original here.

Audit: Part of $11M grant for Detroit job seekers only aided 2
BY DARREN A. NICHOLS
THE DETROIT NEWS
MARCH 7, 2012 AT 1:32 AM

Detroit — Part of an $11 million grant intended to provide business attire to 400 low-income job-seekers instead helped only two people, an audit of the city's Department of Human Services has found.

The audit, conducted by the city's auditor general for the period from July 2009 to September 2011, found the department failed to control the operations and finances of a boutique that was to provide the clothes.

The department did not safeguard grant funds or create an inventory for the clothing, the audit found.

Among the most telling findings, which will be discussed today during a City Council committee meeting, is that a third-party contractor advanced $148,000 to a downtown Detroit clothing store and opened an account, but did not include the city as the boutique's owner.

"It's just another example that money is not as much of an issue than managing the money, whether it's grant or general fund dollars that we have," said Council President Pro Tem Gary Brown. "We have to find a better way to manage the resources and give Detroiters the value for the tax dollars they deserve."

The audit is the latest finding against the city's Department of Human Services, which has been under scrutiny for chronic mismanagement of federal funds. Many of the department's leaders have departed since an internal investigation was launched last year, including an inquiry into the purchase of $182,000 worth of high-end furniture for a department office. In 2009, the department received more than $11 million in stimulus fundingand created a service center.

The center, at 1970 Larned, included the Customer Choice Pantry, the New Beginnings Clothing Boutique and a call center that had the capacity to service 60,000 families in need. The boutique was to provide business attire for low-income residents for job interviews.

To receive clothing, residents were required to have a job interview scheduled. According to the audit, the DHS was supposed to help 400 people between October 2010 and September 2011 but instead served only two.

"The DHS was only able to provide the auditors with two referral forms signed by two clients documenting that they received clothing from the boutique," the audit said. "Eligible Detroiters are not being served with available clothing being stocked in the boutique."

The department did not give a reason for not reaching the goal of providing 400 people with clothes.

The audit found the Department of Human Services hired a contractor to run the boutique. The contractor negotiated the purchase of clothing without involving city officials and did not give them keys to the center.

The contractor also did not provide proof of the receipt of the clothing to auditors.

"The potential loss of thousands of dollars exists because controls have not been established for the boutique," the audit said. "…failure to maintain an adequate inventory system results in the inability to efficiently monitor and safeguard inventory and to identify inventory losses from theft and damages."

dnichols@detnews.com

(313) 222-2073

Who gets mortgage help?

Not I...do you? Read the original here.



Boom-Era Property Speculators to Get Foreclosure Aid
By Prashant Gopal - Mar 5, 2012 12:00 AM ET

The Obama administration will extend mortgage assistance for the first time to investors who bought multiple homes before the market imploded, helping some speculators who drove up prices and inflated the housing bubble.

Landlords can qualify for up to four federally-subsidized loan workouts starting around May, as long as they rent out each house or have plans to fill them, under the revamped Home Affordable Modification Program, also known as HAMP, according to Timothy Massad, the Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial stability. The program pays banks to reduce monthly payments by cutting interest rates, stretching terms, and forgiving principal.

“When we started the program we focused on owner-occupied houses because the need was so great and we wanted to target the efforts to that group,” said Massad. “Given where we are today, more and more people recognize that vacant properties are a problem no matter how they became vacant.”The government’s need to protect neighborhoods from blight and renters from eviction by keeping the current owners in place is outweighing concern that taxpayers will end up bailing out real-estate investors. The program is being enlarged after less than 1 million borrowers modified loans through HAMP, compared with the administration’s stated goal in 2009 of helping 3 million to 4 million homeowners.

Homeownership Rate

Investors are central to the federal government’s strategy for reviving real estate with home prices down 34 percent since July 2006 and as foreclosures deplete the pool of buyers who can qualify for a mortgage. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told homebuilders in Orlando, Florida last month that the U.S. economic recovery has been “frustratingly slow,” in part because weak housing markets are holding back consumer spending.

The homeownership rate, which peaked at 69.2 percent in June 2004, fell to 66 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A new Fannie Mae program designed to reduce the overhang of foreclosed homes is encouraging potential buyers, including private-equity firms, to purchase properties in bulk and convert them to rentals. Almost one in four home purchases in January was made by an investor, according to the National Association of Realtors. And investment and vacation properties made up 21 percent of houses in the foreclosure process in January, according to Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac Inc.

‘Huge Change’

The Obama administration announced last month that it would triple incentives to owners of mortgages that reduce home-loan debt and expand eligibility to borrowers struggling under the weight of other liabilities, such as medical bills. The extension will apply to all loans, including those held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage financiers. About 700,000 landlords will be eligible under the revisions to HAMP, which has been plagued by consumer complaints about lost paperwork, servicer delays and restrictive eligibility requirements.

“This is a huge change,” said Dan Immergluck, a housing policy professor at Georgia Institute of Technology. “The excessive concern to make sure nobody who played any role in creating the problem gets any benefit has paralyzed the response.”

The danger of blight to communities from foreclosed, vacant properties is still pervasive six years into the slump. Empty houses push down a neighborhood’s property values, according to a 2009 report by the Center for Responsible Lending, which said foreclosures will affect 91.5 million nearby homes through 2012. That will reduce property values by $20,300 for each household, according to the group, which seeks to protect homeownership and family wealth.

Buy-And-Flip Investors

By widening the program, the plan will inevitably offer aid to buy-and-flip investors who pushed prices higher during the boom by taking out mortgages with little or no down payment. Speculators accelerated the crash because they were quick to default when prices fell, according to a September report from Andrew Haughwout, Donghoon Lee, Joseph Tracy, and Wilbert van der Klaauw of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

At the peak of the boom in 2006, more than a third of home purchase loans were made to borrowers who already owned at least one house, according to the study. In California, Florida,Nevada, and Arizona, which had the most pronounced bubbles, investors accounted for 45 percent of the mortgages.

While survivors of the property bust are now long-term investors, some of them may have started out as flippers, Haughwout said.

Taxpayer Dollars

While speculators are “no one’s first priority for receiving taxpayer dollars,” providing assistance to a large class of multiple property owners and “blanket modifications offered regardless of occupancy” would be more efficient than restrictive programs, the Fed said in the September report.

Chandrajit Bhattacharya, an analyst at Credit Suisse Group AG in New York, said that the HAMP changes will result in about 200,000 modifications for investors. While it won’t keep bondholders “up at night,” it will probably slow the process of liquidating foreclosed homes.

Bhattacharya said he doesn’t understand why the government should be subsidizing workouts for property investors who are in the business of making money on their purchases. Vacancies are unlikely to increase if the houses go into foreclosure and are purchased by owner-occupants or new investors who fill them with tenants, he said.

‘Ridiculous’ Policy

John Burns, an Irvine, California-based real estate consultant, said it’s “ridiculous” for taxpayers to come to the aid of individuals who made bad bets.

“What kind of precedent are you going to set?,” Burns said. “Are you going to refund people who lost money on the stock market too?”

Government help to homeowners comes after President George W. Bush’s administration rescued banks with the Troubled Asset Relief Program in 2008, when the housing crash sparked the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Wall Street benefited from Federal Reserve emergency programs to keep credit flowing, while Bush and President Barack Obama directed federal money to save companies including General Motors Co. (GM) and Chrysler Group LLC. The Obama administration then pursued a series of programs meant to reduce foreclosures.

John Russell, 61, of Northville, Michigan, said he was never a speculator seeking to flip houses. He bought four rental properties in neighborhoods in the state more than 10 years ago and said he planned to keep them for decades more. Now the houses are worth far less than he owes, his rents have tumbled, and he has to spend about $20,000 a year to keep them operating.

Chrysler Bankruptcy

Russell, a retired Chrysler executive whose pension was cut during the automaker’s 2009 bankruptcy, said two houses are in foreclosure and he can’t afford to keep them without the federal government’s help.

Banks have repeatedly rejected him for a modification because they aren’t primary residences, he said. Russell said he simply wants his mortgage bills to be brought in line with the rents.

“I guess what you’re always asking yourself is the market going to come back?,” Russell said. “As an investor you want to think that some day the house will be worth more than it is today.”

Moose Scheib, chief executive officer of LoanMod.com, a Dearborn, Michigan-based (MBASMI)firm that advises homeowners facing foreclosure, said many of the investors who hung on through housing bust are “mom and pop” property owners who bought real estate as a source of retirement income. Russell is one of his clients.

“Our economy is in trouble, housing is in trouble,” Scheib said. “Whether you’re fixing it on behalf of investors or homeowners, it benefits everybody to do that.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Prashant Gopal in New York at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Daniel Taub at dtaub@bloomberg.net; Rob Urban at robprag@bloomberg.net