I don't really have anything to add to what's said here, except, maybe, "I told you so."

From Jim Geraghty and the National Review:

Three Lies to the Public That Must Have Consequences

From the first Morning Jolt of the week… A National Security Agency leak tells me many of you are already subscribers, but some of you aren’t. If you’re not already a subscriber, click on the link or look for the box in the upper right hand of your screen.

Three Administration Lies to the Public That Must Have a Consequence
President Obama, speaking to the American public, Friday afternoon:

“If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

In the specific issue that Obama is discussing, i.e., oversight of the National Security Agency’s vast data collection on American citizens, there is the problem in that no one within that system of oversight has the role or duty to speak on behalf of those being monitored, or about to be monitored. The executive branch knows what it wants – it wants to monitor people. The Congress may or may not want to advocate the argument, “hey, that person hasn’t done anything wrong, you have no good reason to collect that information on them” – judging from what we now know, no one argued that perspective very strongly. And the oversight of the judicial branch is pretty weak when we know the Department of Justice goes “judge shopping” when their initial requests are rejected. If the executive branch can keep going to new judges until they get the decision they want, there isn’t really much of a check on their power, now is there?
Regarding that alleged Congressional oversight, Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, is coming awfully close to accusing the president of lying:

“Since government officials have repeatedly told the public and Congress that Patriot Act authorities are simply analogous to a grand jury subpoena, and that intelligence agencies do not collect information or dossiers on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans, I think the executive branch has an obligation to explain whether or not these statements are actually true,” Wyden said.

Wyden’s suspicion is driven by a lie he appears to have been told under oath, one we’ll look at in a moment. But more generally, we have seen quite a few folks in the executive branch abuse the public’s trust and then see no real consequences for it.
LIE ONE: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s November 28 explanation about changes made to talking points about the Benghazi attack:

The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two — of these two institutions were changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” because “consulate” was inaccurate. Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.

You can see the twelve rounds of revisions here, well more than a single adjustment, and mostly in response to State Department objections.
After it became clear that Carney had put forth false information, he dug in deeper, insisting that the twelve rounds of revisions were merely “stylistic changes.” Carney paid for his lie with two days of hostile questions from the White House Press Corps… and then the storm seemed to have blown over.
LIE TWO: Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, May 15:

“Well, I would say this. With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I’ve ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy.”

Michael Isikoff later reported the precise opposite: The Justice Department pledged Friday to to review its policies relating to the seizure of information from journalists after acknowledging that a controversial search warrant for a  Fox News reporter’s private emails  was approved “at the highest levels” of the Justice Department, including “discussions” with Attorney General  Eric Holder.
There is a claim from the usual suspects – Media Matters – that Holder is in the clear because he was asked about prosecutions for publishing classified information, not solicitation for classified information; they assert that the two actions are totally different. A pretty thin reed for a perjury defense, and one that utterly fails the standard of the chief law enforcement officer of the United States informing the public of his department’s operations.
For us to believe that, it would mean that during the entire Justice Department discussion of prosecuting Fox News’ James Rosen for soliciting the information, no one suggested or mentioned prosecuting Rosen for publishing it. Remember, Holder didn’t just say he didn’t agree with that idea; he said he never heard of the idea.
LIE THREE: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, testifying under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on March 12, responding to questions from Wyden, Democrat of Oregon:

Wyden: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Clapper: “No, sir.”

Wyden: “It does not?”

Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly.” 

The subsequent explanation from Clapper: “What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’ e-mails. I stand by that,” Clapper told National Journal in a telephone interview.
But that’s not what he was asked, nor was it even close to what he was asked. In fact, the light from what he was asked takes several years to reach a question about voyeurism.
If your excuse is that you are incapable of discerning what ‘any type of data at all’ means, you are no longer allowed to have a job title that has the word ‘intelligence’ in it.
This weekend, the Guardian reported, “During a 30-day period in March 2013, the documents indicate, the NSA collected nearly 3 billion pieces of intelligence from within the United States.”
Two of these three were under oath before Congress; the other was to the press, with the cameras rolling, on a topic of high public interest and great controversy.
If Obama were to ask for the resignations of Carney, Holder, and Clapper tomorrow, all of us who don’t trust him would have to at least acknowledge that he’s trying to set a better standard for consequences of lying to the public. But all of us know that he will do nothing of the sort.
Instead, he will continue to give speeches where he expresses incredulity that the public wouldn’t trust him and his administration.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/350616/three-lies-public-must-have-consequences-jim-geraghty

The Increasingly Toxic Relationship Between Media and Government” Obama WH threatens non-sympathetic journalists

The Increasingly Toxic Relationship Between Media and Government”  Obama WH threatens non-sympathetic journalists

 

Way back when CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson split from the sycophantic MSM and began frankly reporting the Fast & Furious scandal in unflinching honesty, Obama’s White House and Dept. of Justice began harassing her for refusing to ‘do what the other reporters are doing,’ and putting Obama and Holder in a bad light.

MSM Cover-Up Confirmed by "Bordergate" Reporter! Whitehouse Furious for Not Complying![/url]

 Now, reporters once considered “friends” or “safe” are being singled out, threatened with loss of access and credentials, and verbally abused for their similar refusal to toe the Obama White House line.

 

Last week, BobWoodward took the Obama spin on the sequester head-on and revealed how he had led the way with it during budget negotiations.

"Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened? …

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.”

He immediately drew the wrath of not just the White House insiders, but of those in the MSM seeking to re-affirm their allegiance and commitment to all things Obama.

"Appearing on CNN Wednesday, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward said a “very senior person” at the White House warned him that he would “regret doing this,” referring to his outspoken criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of the impending forced cuts known as the sequester.

“I think they’re confused,” Woodward told CNN host Wolf Blitzer. Woodward apparently went on to criticize Obama further over the sequester the same day he received the warning from the White House.

“It makes me very uncomfortable for the White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”[/exnews]

[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-very-senior-white-house-official-warned-me-id-regret-attacking-obama-over-the-sequester/[/url]

[url]http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-on-white-house-threat-it-makes-me-very-uncomfortable-to-have-the-white-house-telling-reporters-youre-going-to-regret-doing-something-that-you-believe-in/[/url]

 

Of course, those members of the MSM pro-Obama clique immediately attacked Woodward, instead of the underlying story!

[exnews] Progressives are throwing a series of virtual flowerpots at veteran journalist Bob Woodward, following his stepped-up criticism of President Barack Obama’s attempt to raise taxes by hyping the sequester budget trims. …

The pile-on by the president’s allies follows Woodward’s recent statements that Obama is walking away from the 2011 budget-deal by calling for more tax increases, that he is hyping the impact of the sequester cuts, and that he was allegedly threatened by Obama’s top economic adviser, Gene Sperling.

The supposed threat came Feb. 22 when Sperling tried to get Woodward to back down from his conclusion that Obama is “moving the goalposts” from the 2011 budget deal.[/exnews]

[url]http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/woodward-under-fire-as-white-house-allies-seek-to-discredit-sequester-reporting/[/url]

Even so,Woodward stood steadfast, going so far as to describe the Obama administration’s behavior as “madness.”

[exnews] "Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. 'I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country,'" Woodward said.

"That’s a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time," he said.

Woodward's harsh criticism came after he stirred controversy last weekend by calling out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.[/exnews]

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-republicans-2013-2[/url]

 

Now, we learn that the Obama White House was not limited in its anger and vitriol to just one reporter; but, that it has spread to include others who’ve considered themselves “friends” and supporters of the Obama administration.

 

Lanny Davis, President Clinton’s former aide, has gone ‘on the record’ to recount a similar scenario of vicious attacks and not-so-veiled threats to their livelihoods and those of their employers.

[exnews]Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times.

Davis told WMAL that his editor, John Solomon, "received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn't like some of my columns, even though I'm a supporter of Obama. I couldn't imagine why this call was made." Davis says the Obama aide told Solomon, "that if he continued to run my columns, he would lose, or his reporters would lose their White House credentials."[/exnews]

[url]http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?pt=WMAL+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Woodward%27s+Not+Alone+-+Fmr.+Clinton+Aide+Davis+Says+He+Received+White+House+Threat&id=8924&is_corp=0[/url]

[url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/28/longtime-dem-lanny-davis-also-reports-white-house-threat] Longtime Dem Lanny Davis Also Reports White House Threat[/url]

 

As if these were not enough, former Obama ally Ron Fournier, of the same [i]Washington Times[/i], reports that he too has been subjected to such viciousness that he has terminated his relationship with a formerly valuable White House insider due to his contact’s defense of the Obama agenda and verbal abuse and threats.

[exnews] Woodward-gate is a distraction the White House welcomed, even encouraged, as part of a public-relations strategy to emasculate the GOP and anybody else who challenges Obama. It is a distraction that briefly enveloped my reporting last weekend, when I essentially broke ties with a senior White House official.

Yes, I iced a source– and my only regret is I didn’t do it sooner. I decided to share this encounter because it might shed light on the increasingly toxic relationship between media and government, which is why the Woodward flap matters outside the Beltway.

 …

I had angered the White House, particularly a senior White House official who I am unable to identify because I promised the person anonymity. … The official angered by my Woodward tweet sent me an indignant e-mail. “What’s next, a Nazi analogy?” the official wrote, chastising me for spreading “bull**** like that” I was not offended by the note, mild in comparison to past exchanges with this official. But it was the last straw in a relationship that had deteriorated.

As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Politico characterized as a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.

Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.[/exnews]

[url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-bob-woodward-s-fight-with-the-white-house-matters-to-you-20130228[/url]

 

The MSM has not only abandoned its obligations to “speak truth to power,” but is fighting over who can remain closest to the White House; which has created its own media apparatus, “Organizing For Action” (OFA). To curry favor and ensure acceptance from Obama and his closest advisers, they are ever more resolute in their determination to join the team of presidential advisers, spin-meisters and spokespeople.

[url= http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-press-officially-abdicates-its-role/] The Press Officially Abdicates Its Role[/url]

Now, those who’ve abandoned the chase, and returned to their journalistic roots are paying the price in loss of opportunity, access and the support of their colleagues.

 

So, who says “there’s no such thing as media bias,” now; when even the White House believes it can safely threaten those who no longer toe the line?

 

 

Jw

"Global Warming" Advocates' Own Data PROVES No Warming!

I often look at news and information sites and sources for views that are NOT the same as my own.

I often find things that aren't available elsewhere, and which can be truly enlightening. I especially enjoy foreign sources who have no agenda on U. S. political or social issues.

Reviewing the latest information from pro-AGW advocates, I came across a "tool" that gave trends and statistical analysis of climate data. What a surprise!

Actually, the "no warming" is proven by several independent studies AND supported by the pro-AGW site "skeptical science."

Here's what their own data reveal (recently acknowledged and cited by such AGW "luminaries" as Hansen, Pachauri, Trenberth and the MET Office) for land sea and satellite observations:

Satellite
For RSS, NO significant warming for 23 years.
Trend 0.130 ± 0.136 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

For UAH, NO significant warming for 19 years.
Trend 0.143 ± 0.173 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

Land/ocean
For Hacrut3, NO significant warming for 19 years.
Trend 0.098 ±- 0.113 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hacrut4, NO significant warming for 18 years.
Trend 0.098 ± 0.111 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For GISS, NO significant warming for 17 years.
Trend: 0.113 ± 0.122 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

For NOAA, NO significant warming for 18 years.
Trend 0.090 ± 0.106 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

Land
For NOAA, NO significant warming for 16 years.
Trend: 0.139 ± 0.203 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997

For BEST, NO significant warming for 16 years.
Trend: 0.182 ± 0.243 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997
...

These guys are often cited as authority for "debunking" AGW skeptics, but their own figures support the lack of significant warming.

What alarmists ignore is that the IPCC and many other warmists have "projected" an exponential increase in temperature correlative with the rise of CO2 (e.g., the "Hockey Stick" illusion).

This is clearly and undeniably NOT happening; the the alomst oracle-like "models" and "projections" are wrong.

What the AGW dogma ignores is that the temperature plateaued when it would have skyrocketed if their "climate science" was even a close approximation of reality.

You either deliberately ignore this, or you choose to misdirect with an incomplete comparison of trends.

CO2 levels are growing across the globe in "developing" countries and economies (while the US and some parts of the EU have seen declines). The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are far above what alarmists have contended would pass a "tipping point" beyond which average land and ocean temperatures would rise faster than ever before.

That is NOT happening.

Of course, one of the principal determinants of true science is "falsifiability;" and this incongruence of reality and predition renders the entire AGW alarmism FALSE. The hypothesis has been disporven,, as even Jim Hansen this week acknowledged.

The ever-liberal Economist has for years toed the official UK political line that AGW is real. But, even now they acknowledge that the science is not settled.

 

Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
. . .
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. . . The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are based partly on GCMs [Global Circulation Models]. Because these reflect scientists’ understanding of how the climate works, and that understanding has not changed much, the models have not changed either and do not reflect the recent hiatus in rising temperatures.

www.economist.com...

Here's the illustration the Economist uses to illustrate part of its recognition of the failure of AGW alarmisism:

Here it is annotated:

And, what are some of the results of this ignorant denialism, according to the article?

Bad climate policies, such as backing renewable energy with no thought for the cost, or insisting on biofuels despite the damage they do, are bad whatever the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases.

www.economist.com...

It's so ironic and laughable to see the AGW faithful now assuming the role of "DENIERS" as their models fall apart before their eyes; and, as the predictions, assumptions and projections of 30, 20, and 10 years ago are time after time proven FALSE!

Climate is alway changing.
AGW acolytes seem to ignore the cycles:
the “Great Medieval Warm Period” (800 to 1300), the “Little Ice Age” (1500 to 1850), and smaller trends like a cooling period between 1880 and 1915… a warming period from 1915 to 1945… a cooling period in the first half of the 20th Century!!

But they also ignore the fact that their models are absolutely unable to account for the plateau while CO2 SOARS.

They have used the epithet of "Denier" as if it proved that their views of science and climate are invariable and incapable of challenge.

 

deny ignorance
indeed

jw

"Worst Cities" ALL Share a Single Unifying Trait: You Will NOT Beleive It!

I have lived in many places, and my work has taken me to dozens of others.  Rather than sit in a hotel bar to bide time, I like to move around and get the "feel" of the places I visit.

I just returned from an extended visit, and found the city I'd been to featured in a "Worst Cities" list (deservedly so). Based upon my own observations and review of the local news and press, I found myself drawn to a certain gut-feeling about why this place had declined so badly from what I'd remembered of log-past visits.

I decided to look for similar recent compilations and dig a little to see if my feelings were borne out, or completely off base.

What I discovered was that over the period from 2010 to the present, several of these places were consistently among those listed as "worst."  Even more revealing was that they shared several of the usual criteria for inclusion frequently used for selection: crime, poverty, corruption, high taxes, housing and services; but, that the mix varied and was never consistent.

However, there was one single factor that these various "worst" places shared, and that it had not changed over time.

 What, you might ask, was the "one single factor" that among all the other criteria for inclusion, these terrible places shared between and among themselves?

Shockingly (?), the commonality they shared was that they were at present, or had just recently been, governed by Democrat administrations!

Here is my run-down, in alphabetical order, of the worst of the worst places to live with my notes and reference to this single unifying criterion.

CA (Jerry Brown, (D))

El Centro (Benjamin Solomon (D))
Los Angeles (Antonio Villaragosa (D))
Stockton (Anthony Silva ( R )defeated Ann Johnston (D), In Johnston's reign as mayor, Stockton twice topped Forbes magazine's "Most Miserable American Cities" list, as was about to become the largest US city to go bankrupt.)
Modesto (Garrad Marsh, (D))
San Bernardino (Pat Morris(D), largest city to file Ch 9 Bkcy.)
Oakland (Jean Quan (D), 3rd in US crime, catered to OWS and gangs)
Vallejo (Osby Davis (D))

IL (Pat Quinn, Democrat - 2 predecessors convicted of corruption)

Chicago (Rahm Emmanuel (D))
Rockford (Larry Morrissey (I))
Waukegan (Robert G. Sabonjian (D))

LA (Bobby Jindal ( R ),

New Orleans (Mitch Landrieu (D), predecessor indicted for corruption, highest murder rate in US.)

MD (Martin O’Malley (D))
Baltimore (Stephanie Blake (D), predecessor convicted of corruption, “on a path to financial ruin”)

MI (Rick Snyder ( R ), predecessor hosted [i]Current TV[/i] “War Room” )

Detroit (Dave Bing (D), predecessor convicted of corruption, no taxes paid by majority of owners)
Flint (Dayne Walling (non-partisan))
 
MO (Jay Nixon (D))
St Louis (Francis Slay (D))

NJ (Chris Christie ( R ), predecessor, Jon Corzine (D) accused of misapplication of customers’ money, theft, corruption, adultery; bankrupted MFGlobal hedge fund)
Atlantic City (Lorenzo Langford (D))
Camden (Dana Redd (D))
Newark (Cory Booker (D)

NY (Andrew Cuomo (D))
New York (Michael Bloomberg, got on ticket as ( R ), formerly/actually (D))

OH
Cleveland (Frank Jackson (D))
Toledo (Michael Bell (D))
Youngstown (Charles P. Sammarone (D))
 
PA (Tom Corbett ( R ))
Philadelphia (Michael Nutter (D))
Scranton (Christopher Doherty (D))

Here are the sources from which I obtained the lists:

 
http://www.coli.org/

http://www.dailyfinance.com/blog/2010/08/05/10-worst-places-to-live/

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/11/americas-most-miserable-cities-business-beltway-miserable-cities_slide_3.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/23/forbes-lists-americas-20-most-miserable-cities-guess-what-vast-majority-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/02/21/detroit-tops-2013-list-of-americas-most-miserable-cities/

I started this inquiry with only a gut feeling; but what I found appears to have borne-out my suspicions.

I still haven't had enough time to see if this holds true over longer periods of time, or even  why it holds true at all. I will check to see if academics or peer-reviewed analyses have examined this phenomenon.

2/24/13 ETA:

I used only certain criteria for these selections: crime, housing, corruption, taxes/cost of living, housing, services.  Some people, using different criteria, have placed many of these cities on their own "Best Cities in America" lists.  The criteria you set greatly influences the outcomes of any survey, as Pew and Gallup will tell you.

If you're criteria is "best creole food" then New Orleans would be "The Best," by far.

Likewise, if you value "automotive industry employment, then Detroit becomes "The Best."
Those were not my criteria,

jw 

Sequestration Devastation? Not By a Long Shot!

Sequestration Devastation?

Not By a Long Shot!

If you've been exposed to any form of news media this month, you've been told that a looming disaster is approaching as March 1 approaches, and federal budget/spending "sequestration" takes effect.

From ajc.com News:

"The White House today released examples of what the Obama Administration says will happen if $85 billion in automatic budget cuts are allowed to go into effect on March 1, arguing the domestic spending cuts in the "sequester" would "threaten thousands of jobs and the economic security of the middle class."

In a fact sheet given to reporters, the Obama White House argues there would be damaging across the board cuts to education, small business, food safety and more ... ."

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/jamie-dupree-white-house-lays-out-sequest-impact/nWKPZ/

To emphasize the grave danger about to destroy America's economy and the lives of registered (and un-registered) voters, the Obama administration released a "Fact Sheet:" with a litany of the extent of the destruction about to sweep the Nation.

A summary of the horrific impact includes:

•           Cuts to education
•           Cuts to small business
•           Cuts to food safety
•           Cuts to research and innovation
•           Cuts to mental health
•           Security and Safety
•           Research and Innovation
•           Economic Growth
•           Government Services
•           Education
•           Economic Security
•           Public Health.

Unfortunately, what the White House and Congress fail to tell you, is that the "devastation" is NOT the result of draconian slashes to our lives, welfare and futures, but a 2% decrease in the rise of total government spending; which will inevitably exceed  the unprecedented  total $1,358,000,000,000.00 for FY 2012.

Of this total, "discretionary" spending ( the stuff that might be "cut") has exploded by 60% since 2008!

In case you're not sure just who's telling the truth, you could always look at the "letter of the law."

Since 99% of people will not take that step, and would rather listen to their favored "truth-teller" on the tube, here's the real deal:

Budget Control Act of 2011

 "CBO ESTIMATES.—As soon as practicable after Congress completes action on any discretionary appropriation, CBO, after consultation with the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall provide OMB with an estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget authority and outlays for the current year, if any, and the budget year provided by that legislation.

OMB ESTIMATES AND EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES.—Not later than 7 calendar days … after the date of enactment of any discretionary appropriation, OMB shall transmit a report to the House of Representatives and to the Senate containing the CBO estimate of that legislation, an OMB estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget authority and outlays for the current year, if any, and the budget year provided by that legislation, and an explanation of any difference between the estimates.

(A) The term ‘nonsecurity category’ means all discretionary appropriations not included in the security category defined in subparagraph (B).

(B) The term ‘security category’ includes discretionary appropriations associated with agency budgets for the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the intelligence community management account (95–0401–0–1–054), and all budget accounts in budget function 150 (international affairs).

‘‘with respect to fiscal year 2013— ‘‘(A) for the security category, $686,000,000,000 in new budget authority; and ‘‘(B) for the nonsecurity category, $361,000,000,000 in new budget authority"

The "report" that the CBO is required to publish, has been. It shows, clearly, there is no devastation on the horizon.

It reveals that the scare tactics of the right and the left are little more than flailing attempts to protect their favorite programs and take further advantage of the taxpayers who are being stuck with these ridiculous bills:

 

So, how does "total discretionary spending under "sequestration" compare to the planned spending increases for 2013?

From the Wall Street Journal:

"the sequester cuts the agencies' "budget authority" by about $85 billion between March 1 and Sept. 30,

The government spent $3.538 trillion in the fiscal year that ended in September 2012. So [i][b]$85 billion is 2.4% of the federal budget[/i][/b]. … Depending on the agency, cuts are going to be in the ballpark of 5% and 13%, according to various estimates from government officials."

What's really happening?

The government will have to cut 2% of projected total spending in the coming years!

Now, I'm not rich, but I am certain that I can find two cents to save from each dollar I have to spend without feeling too much pain.

If I have to cut increasing my "discretionary spending" (Shiner Bock, Jack Daniels, movies, Pecan Sandies, Marlboros, et c.) by "between 5% and 13%, I'm pretty sure I can handle that , too.

 Why can't the idiots in Washington find 15% of waste in their departments, instead of whining and terrorizing the uninformed and credulous?

Are you terrified, too?  Or should we just expect "business as usual?"

2/24/13 ETA:
How about we cut fundung across the board to 2008 levels, when schools were full of teachers, no firefighters or other first-responders had been laid off, there were still construction jobs and job-training programs, and no banks or automakers had yet needed to be bailed out?

Things were working well as far as government-run programs/jobs were concerned until the housing bubble and financial bailouts; so, why not "reset" policy and funding to those levels and let the taxpayers spend the rest as they see fit?

We no longer have an Iraq war to pay for and Afghanistan is all but over. According to the Obama administration, Government Motors and Chrysler are flying high and do not need our help anymore. All the "bailouts" were paid back. Where's all that extra money now?

There should be tons of extra money to spend on social programs without the need for any other tax increases or spending increases!

Jw

Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!

Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!

Australian scientists have published a paper in the peer-reviewed and prestigious journal,  Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, that asserts that Earth climate forces are mainly driven by forestation and the related effects they have on water condensation and evaporation.  “Mainstream” climate scientists, have long neglected to consider such a factor in climate models and projections.

Needless to say, the paper is highly controversial, and deeply invested adherents to current modeling and “the settled science” are up in arms since their models almost completely fail to take into account water vapor’s influence on climate drivers such as wind and rain patterns.

From The Australian:

"The world’s great forests have long been recognised as the lungs of the earth, but the science establishment has been rocked by claims that trees may also be the heart of its climate. Not only do trees fix carbon and produce oxygen; a new and controversial paper says they collectively unleash forces powerful enough to drive global wind patterns and are a core feature in the circulation of the climate system.

If the theory proves correct, the peer-reviewed international paper co-authored by Australian scientist Douglas Sheil will overturn two centuries of conventional wisdom about what makes wind. And it will undermine key principles of every model on which climate predictions are based."

Scientists Anastasia Makarieva and Douglas Sheil faced vigorous opposition during the peer review process, with entrenched climate modelers clinging to the conventional wisdom; refusing to acknowledge that climate science is evolving, and that their models are imperfect.

 "The paper, lead authored by Anastasia Makarieva, sparked a long-running and furious debate about whether it should be published at all. At the end of a bruising assessment process the editorial panel of the prestigious journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics chose to publish and be damned.

In an accompanying statement the journal editorial board said: “The paper is highly controversial, proposing a fundamentally new view that seems to be in contradiction to common textbook knowledge. The majority of reviewers and experts in the field seem to disagree, whereas some colleagues provide support, and the handling editor (and the executive committee) are not convinced that the new view presented in the controversial paper is wrong.

“The handling editor (and the executive committee) concluded to allow final publication of the manuscript in ACP in order to facilitate further development of the presented arguments, which may lead to disproof or validation by the scientific community.”"

Of course, basic science tells us that any theory should be verifiable and subject to disproof; something that AGW advocates have refused to consider, and harshly criticized; frequently resorting to disparaging those who challenge basic “climate science” assumptions and “the consensus” that adheres to the AGW party line.

This paper, however, has deep implicarions for current climate modeling, because current and popular models almost completely fail to consider or account for the effect of atmospheric pressure changes resulting from water vapor, evaporation and condensation.

 "Sheil says the key finding is that atmospheric pressure changes from moisture condensation are orders of magnitude greater than previously recognised. The paper concludes “condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics”.

“Climate scientists generally believe that they already understand the main principles determining how the world’s climate works,” says Sheil. “However, if our hypothesis is true then the way winds are driven and the way rain falls has been misunderstood. What our theory suggests is that forests are the heart of the earth, driving atmospheric pressure, pumping wind and moving rain.”

 “Accepting our theory would basically mean the climate models are wrong. It wouldn’t mean that theories about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are wrong.

“The basic physical issues are still there. Winds are still caused to some degree by temperature differences, global warming will still be potentially caused by greenhouse gasses. But what we are saying is one of the major reasons that air moves around the surface of the globe, and one of the main reasons that rain falls where it does, is to do with these patterns of moisture evaporation and condensation.”

 “Accepting our theory would basically mean the climate models are wrong. It wouldn’t mean that theories about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are wrong.

 “The basic physical issues are still there. Winds are still caused to some degree by temperature differences, global warming will still be potentially caused by greenhouse gasses. But what we are saying is one of the major reasons that air moves around the surface of the globe, and one of the main reasons that rain falls where it does, is to do with these patterns of moisture evaporation and condensation.”

“When we look at the Amazon and ask, is the forest there because there is a lot of rain, we are saying, no, it is the other way around: the rain is there because there is a lot of forest.

“It may sound strange – forests causing wind, forests causing rain – but the physics is quite convincing.”"

 Common sense would seem to dictate that the presence of desert in once-forested lands, such as northern Africa, indicates that the new theory has considerable merit.

 Unfortunately, the “consensus” clings to the basic tenets of the AGW faith and the funding-supported apologists for models that don’t and predictions that aren’t.

 Sheil and his colleagues are aware of the problem of those whose careers and wealth are tied to the conventional wisdom of current AGW, and the retrenching that will take place, instead of a reasoned assessment of these new findings.

 As noted in The Global Warming Policy Foundation website:
"Climate scientists, however, still say the significance is not as great as has been claimed.

“It has now gone from a discussion about mechanism to a discussion about magnitude,” Sheil says, adding that a key objective of his work is to make climate models more reliable.

“At present the models are incorrect,” he says, “because they are missing one the key mechanisms of how the global climate works. I know it does sound amazing to say this, but once you look at these models they are not as detailed and not as smart as you would think.

“A lot of it is, they are calibrated to fit. There is a little bit of people hiding the problems, and that is bad science.”"