Upon retiring the last of the Shuttles, they will be sent to various locations as museum pieces. They are expected to be big draws. Last year Obama allocated $14 for one to be located in Dayton, Ohio. The money and the shuttle were intended to offset the loss of jobs in Ohio caused by mothballing manned space flight. So, in the usual Obama style of promising everyone the Moon and screwing everyone that believed him, these were the final four resting sites:
- Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia
- Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York City
- California Science Center in Los Angeles
- Kennedy Space Center Visitor’s Complex in Florida
I don’t see Ohio on that list. According to Sherrod Brown, senior Senator from Ohio, “NASA was directed to consider regional diversity when determining shuttle locations”. This is Charles Bolden’s idea of “regional diversity”":
View Shuttle Locations in a larger map
In spineless Charles’ defense, he does site “input” from the White House. And, from what I’ve seen, those pretty much ARE the only regions in the United States according to Obama. Surprised one didn’t wind up in Chicago. Meanwhile, legislation has been proposed to assist the communities affected by the loss of jobs at the Johnson Space Center near Houston, to the tune of $40 million.
H.R.286 — Johnson Space Center Workforce Stability Act of 2011 (Introduced in House – IH)
HR 286 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 286
To direct the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce to create a job training program and an economic stability program to stabilize the workforce and promote economic growth in the Johnson Space Center region.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 12, 2011
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (for himself and Mr. OLSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce to create a job training program and an economic stability program to stabilize the workforce and promote economic growth in the Johnson Space Center region.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Johnson Space Center Workforce Stability Act of 2011′.
SEC. 2. JOB TRAINING.
(a) Program Authorized- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall create a job training program to assist any affected worker in the Johnson Space Center region to transition to a new job. Such program may include a one-stop career center tailored to the needs of affected workers in the Johnson Space Center region.
(b) Duration- The job training program created under this section shall terminate 2 years after its creation.
SEC. 3. ECONOMIC STABILITY.
(a) Cooperative Agreements Authorized- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Economic Development Administration of the Department of Commerce (referred to in this section as the `EDA’), shall enter into cooperative agreements with eligible recipients in the Johnson Space Center region to help stabilize the workforce in such region and to promote economic growth.
(b) Application- An eligible recipient that desires to receive funds under this section shall submit an application that contains a comprehensive economic adjustment strategy to the Secretary, at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such additional information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
(c) Uses of Funds- The EDA, acting through a cooperative agreement with an eligible recipient, shall use funds authorized to carry out this section for activities to help stabilize the workforce and promote economic growth in the Johnson Space Center region, which may include–
(1) providing financial and technical assistance to eligible recipients to help implement the comprehensive economic adjustment strategy, which may include efforts such as infrastructure upgrades, establishing entrepreneurial networks, and establishing skill training facilities; and
(2) analyzing whether other methods for economic adjustment that have been successful in similar situations may be effective in the Johnson Space Center region, and if so, implementing such methods, which may include–
(A) supporting efforts to start new technology ventures based on the specific skills of dislocated engineers;
(B) providing technical assistance to guide public officials, management, and affected workers; and
(C) providing additional oversight through visits to the Johnson Space Center region.
(d) Duration- The cooperative agreements entered into under this section shall be for a 2-year period.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Johnson Space Center Region- The term `Johnson Space Center region’ means the locality surrounding the Johnson Space Center that contains affected workers.
(b) Affected Worker- The term `affected worker’ means any employee of the Johnson Space Center or any individual who works for a contractor of the Johnson Space Center whose job stability is impacted by the programmatic changes to the space exploration program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(c) One-Stop Career Center- The term `one-stop career center’ means a comprehensive office dedicated to helping individuals who are unemployed find new employment that offers training referrals, career counseling, job listings, and similar employment-related services.
(d) Cooperative Agreement- The term `cooperative agreement’ has the meaning given the term in chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code.
(e) Eligible Recipient and Comprehensive Economic Adjustment Strategy- The terms `eligible recipient’ and `comprehensive economic adjustment strategy’ have the meanings given the terms in section 3 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3122).
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act–
(1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
(2) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
(b) Allocation- Of the amounts appropriated to carry out this Act for each fiscal year–
(1) the Secretary of Labor may use not more than $10,000,000 for the job training program; and
(2) the Secretary of Commerce may use not more than $30,000,000 for the economic stability program.
Anyone else get the idea where I’m going with this?
Now, Obama is saying he’s serious in fighting the debt. He’s going to raise taxes.
What do you think about all this?
This judge came to the incredible epiphany that, oh sheez, this is so complicated I’m sure most everyone will have a very difficult time understanding it. But, I will do my utmost best to word it in such a way that it makes some sense. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Steven Brick came to the conclusion that paying people to work less causes them to not make as much money as they would have. I kid you not, he figured it out. I’m sure he had help since it took him over a year to come that conclusion. But he got it.
Do I really think Judge Brick is that dense? No. It just took them that long to find an activist judge who has absolutely no regard whatsoever for what 99% of the people would consider common logic. In the real world, the one I live and work in, when your employer runs out of money, you, as an employee, are SOL. I contract with quasi-governmental agencies. When they run out of money, I’m SOL. It’s in the contract ya see. “Availability of funds” is a bugger of a clause. However, it’s a seriously major part of the budget process. If it weren’t for that, there would be no budget process. In California, as of right now, there’s not one. As long as Judge Brick’s running California, bouncing checks and writing IOU’s will be the norm. There will be no need whatsoever for anyone to write a budget. I mean, why waste taxpayer’s time and money? Just hire a bunch of people at whatever rate you want and off you go. The state will just have to eat it.
So, in the last few months, judges have determined that 55% of the voters of California, the state legislature, and now the governor, have no say in California. It’s purely up to the individual judges to determine what can or can not be done in California. It’s pretty amazing to me that although a lot of Californians are more than happy to cede their individual rights to activist judges, they’re real pissy when other states try to protect theirs.
Pete Stark did his best in his effort to win the honor of most unhinged Representative. It’s damn good too. Hank Johnson going into obsessive detail over his concern of Guam tipping over ranks right up there as well. Nancy Pelosi confidently assuring us that once we pass health care reform we’ll find out what’s in it is a personal favorite of mine, but didn’t seem to get much traction with the public. Harry Reid confidently assuring us that losing 36,000 jobs could have been much, much, worse was pretty good as well.
Now, Ciro Rodriguez has jumped into the fray with his latest town hall chat:
Clue, perhaps?
H/T: Big Governmant and Dave the Sage at ConstitutionClub.
Barack Obama threw the entire country under the bus with his health care “reform”. People I know immediately made decisions affecting their very lives based on assumptions Obama said would occur, fully knowing they never would. How many people made the argument that it would require everyone to have insurance? Go ahead, raise your hands. Still believe that too dontcha?
Try this on for size.
Over the last several years, Robert Wood Johnson, among others, has been pushing Consumer Directed Options for elderly indigent people. The primary benefit of this program is designed to allow the elderly person the ability to:
- Select, manage, and dismiss their workers
- Choose which services to use
- Choose what providers or workers to hire
- Decide what time of day workers will come
- Decide whether to hire family members
- Decide whether to spend available funds on things other than services (like appliances or home modifications)
Sounds wonderful huh?
According to the Ohio Developmental Disabilities Council, the primary justification in most states to do it is “it’s the right thing to do“. I kid you not. Most of the administering agencies are loving it. It’s a cash cow for the financial administrator. The main reason it’s a cash cow?
- They don’t have to provide health insurance for the worker.
- Not only that, they don’t have to provide workers compensation for the worker either.
- Not only that, they don’t have to provide liability insurance on the worker either.
- Not only that, they don’t even have to train the worker on how to do the job safely.
In other words, they send an untrained person with questionable backgrounds into an elderly person’s home with no health coverage at all. None.
Anyone see a plan here if you want to assure some revenue for the rest of your life? ( Think bad back. Think no legal entity to challenge you. )
In every state they’ve done this plan to any real degree, they are now looking for ways to cut the entire state budget because they’re going broke. California’s a freaking nightmare.
So, ya gotta ask, if they don’t have to provide health insurance, workers compensation, liability, or even training, how does it get sooooo expensive?
Simple. They do allow the SEIU to collect fees not only from member providers, but from providers who don’t participate. In Illinois you won’t have health insurance, you won’t have workers compensation, you won’t have liability insurance, but you will have to pay union dues.
Obama is so thrilled with this concept he has altered the Older Americans Act to require this arrangement in all fifty states whether the state wants to do it or not. He’s doing that through the local waivers, the programs designed to allow states to manage the programs as they wish. And, he’s doing it as a policy change to keep not only Congress from bothering him, but pretty much all media clueless.
So, what is going on right now, and I mean right now, is people who are providing this service are receiving health insurance to some degree, workers compensation, liability coverage, and training on how to not injure themselves working with elderly people. Under Obama’s and Kathleen Sebelius’s direction, they will lose their health insurance and workers compensation. That’s not conjecture. That’s not speculation. That’s not rhetoric. That’s not a straw man. That’s not TEA bagging. That is happening right now. Call any Administration on Aging office in your local area and ask for Consumer Directed Options. If you don’t believe me, I dare ya. I double-dog dare ya.
If you work in non-medical elderly services, prepare to get screwed like you’ve never been screwed before. This isn’t an advocacy campaign, it’s already been done.
And you know what? It doesn’t stop there. By diluting program funds from existing programs to fund this effort to avoid providing the health insurance Obama guaranteed everyone, it’s making existing grant programs so small they can’t support themselves. These grants are used to compel providers to provide services in small rural areas that otherwise would have no providers at all. So, what IS happening is existing providers are dropping out all over the country. Where do you suppose those workers are now getting their health insurance? And for the locals, my agency is very close to that point now. We are discussing at this point whether it’s worth it or not to even try. I mean, what’s the point from a company perspective. We are required, by law, to make sure our employees are protected. It’s our #1 expense, bar none. We are now put in a position where we will have to not only compete, but give away at least 10% of our revenue source, to entities that do not have to provide any benefits whatsoever to their “employee”. And, they’re not.
All of that because of the empirical evidence of “it’s the right thing to do”.
That’s the AP headline this morning.
MEXICO CITY — It’s one of the safest parts of America, and it’s getting safer.
It’s the U.S.-Mexico border, and even as politicians say more federal troops are needed to fight rising violence, government data obtained by The Associated Press show it actually isn’t so dangerous after all.
The top four big cities in America with the lowest rates of violent crime are all in border states: San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso and Austin, according to a new FBI report. And an in-house Customs and Border Protection report shows that Border Patrol agents face far less danger than street cops in most U.S. cities.
The Customs and Border Protection study, obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request, shows 3 percent of Border Patrol agents and officers were assaulted last year, mostly when assailants threw rocks at them. That compares with 11 percent of police officers and sheriff’s deputies assaulted during the same period, usually with guns or knives.
In addition, violent attacks against agents declined in 2009 along most of the border for the first time in seven years. So far this year assaults are slightly up, but data is incomplete.
“The border is safer now than it’s ever been,” said U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Lloyd Easterling.
OK, so this article, originating from MEXICO CITY is making a claim that seems to run counter to everything we’ve been told for the last decade or so. So, I started by researching who wrote this fact-stating article. It was written by Martha Mendoza.
“Politicians are hyping up this incredible fear across the country about the border, but these numbers show these are lies being perpetrated on the American public,” said immigrant advocate Isabel Garcia at Tucson-based Derechos Humanos. “The warnings about violence are just an excuse to crack down on migrants who want to work and be with their families.”
Martha rattles off a bunch of “facts” based on numbers no one actually shows. Let’s look at the ramifications of the porous border. Let’s do that by looking at the top 10 most violent cities in the US and why:
- #10: Baltimore, Maryland. Not a border city by most people’s definition.
- #9: Nashville, Tennessee. Not a border city by most people’s definition.
- #8: Charleston, South Carolina. Not a border city by most people’s defintion.
- #7: Little Rock, Arkansas. Not a border city by most people’s defintion.
- #6: Orlando, Florida. Not a border city by most people’s definition.
- #5: Stockton, California. Not a border city by most people’s defintion.
- #4: Las Vegas, Nevada. Not a border city by most people’s defintion.
- #3: Miami, Florida. Not a border city by most people’s defintion.
- #2: Memphis, Tennessee. Not a border city by most people’s definition.
- #1: Detroit, Michigan. Most definitely a border city. But not the border Martha Mendoza is talking about.
All ten of these cities do have one thing in common.
All 10 of the most dangerous cities were among those identified by the Department of Justice as transit points for Mexican drug cartels.
Run by crime lords like Joaquin Guzman Lorea, these gangs–and their violent turf wars–are spreading into the American Southwest and beyond. Places like Stockton, Calif., nearly 500 miles from Tijuana, have seen an uptick in related violent crime.
“Stockton is a major transit point along the I-5 corridor on the way to Seattle and Vancouver,” says Wolfram. “A lot of it is similar to crime happening in the Southwest. For the most part, it’s drug gang on drug gang.”
Anyone with just a tiny bit of interest would find immediate overwhelming evidence that the problem is not the drugs stopping at the border and causing problems. The problem is drugs going into our cities and causing huge problems. Read the national headlines. Almost every day you’ll find some story referencing Mexican drug cartels. Here’s one from today:
Prosecutors say a third federal officer was wounded in the Wednesday attack in the town of Garcia.
If it’s all the same to Martha, I’m doing three things. First of all, I’m not believing her article. At all. Not in the least bit. I”m gonna bet I’m doing what most of the people near that border are doing to keep it so “safe”. They’re staying away from it. Second, I’m not scheduling any vacations to that area. Not even close. There’s nothing there that appeals to me anyway. Lastly, I’m supporting Arizona’s efforts to make it not only safer for themselves, but safer for people living in those cities and communities infested by drug cartels bringing their drugs in by the truckload.
Next I’m sure Martha will write an AP story about what a pleasant place to live Mexico City is.
This is pure nutroot, unabashed liberal, idiocy run amok here. The Los Angeles City Council debated whether to boycott Arizona. Councilman Ed Reyes summed it up best for the enlightened council:
So, the Los Angeles City Council, who does not live in Arizona, decided they needed to take a stand and have their voice heard. Most of the world heard it, but thought it was petty politics. However, the people of Arizona heard it and thought it was bad for business. So they looked at what that might impact.
The primary thing Los Angeles imports from Arizona is power.
52% of Los Angeles’s power comes from outside of California by means of coal powered generators. ( That’s another story entirely. )
The story today is how a utilities person in Arizona is threatening to cut off Los Angeles’ power if they push the boycott. But it seems to me that Los Angeles has already made that decision for them. Foxnews is running a poll to see if people think it’s right for Arizona to cut off Los Angeles or whether that’s petty politics. At the time of this writing, with over 100,000 responses, 93% think Arizona should do it.
I do too.
A boycott’s a boycott. You can’t just pick and choose what products you buy from someone you find morally incapable of dealing with. It’s on, or it’s not.
You gotta ask yourself LA if you feel lucky. Well, do ya? Go ahead punks, make our day!
You can join in on the fun if you want:
I also wonder how many of those council members even read the Arizona law. My bet, zero.
Five kids attending Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California, were sent home for wearing American flags on Cinco de Mayo. The school is actually the one that enforced it. For those unaware, California is in the United States. The “Mexican” students protesting are in the United States as well.
“I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican heritage day,” Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, told NBC. “We don’t deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do that on Fourth of July.”
First of all, Annicia’s not in Mexico any more. If these kids had done this in Mexico, I’d be on Annicia’s side. However, she’s not in Mexico. Cinco de Mayo is meaningless for the most part in the United States. She’s in school to learn United States heritage, not Mexican. And, United States citizens, of which those five kids’ parents are, pay for the school Annicia is attending, not Mexicans. If she wants to show respect for her Mexican heritage, that’s fine. However, stomping on her adoptive country’s heritage is not. Freedom of speech is what was being fought for at Puebla. That’s the heritage. They weren’t fighting for Mexicans living in another country to trample on that right for others.
Second of all, Annicia, her friends, and the school, have come to a conclusion that is not at all supported by facts or history. From another source:
When the battle was over, many French were killed or wounded and their cavalry was being chased by Diaz’ superb horsemen miles away. The Mexicans had won a great victory that kept Napoleon III from supplying the confederate rebels for another year, allowing the United States to build the greatest army the world had ever seen. This grand army smashed the Confederates at Gettysburg just 14 months after the battle of Puebla, essentially ending the Civil War.
Union forces were then rushed to the Texas/Mexican border under General Phil Sheridan, who made sure that the Mexicans got all the weapons and ammunition they needed to expel the French. American soldiers were discharged with their uniforms and rifles if they promised to join the Mexican Army to fight the French. The American Legion of Honor marched in the Victory Parade in Mexico, City.
It might be a historical stretch to credit the survival of the United States to those brave 4,000 Mexicans who faced an army twice as large in 1862. But who knows?
In gratitude, thousands of Mexicans crossed the border after Pearl Harbor to join the U.S. Armed Forces. As recently as the Persian Gulf War, Mexicans flooded American consulates with phone calls, trying to join up and fight another war for America.
Mexicans, you see, never forget who their friends are, and neither do Americans. That’s why Cinco de Mayo is such a party — A party that celebrates freedom and liberty. There are two ideals which Mexicans and Americans have fought shoulder to shoulder to protect, ever since the 5th of May, 1862. VIVA! el CINCO DE MAYO!!
Although Mexico won on Cinco De Mayo, they did not have the resources to fight a sustained war with France. France teaming up with the US Confederacy was a nightmare the Union feared most. Maximillian’s loss at Puebla hurt France so bad that it was unable to help the Confederacy. This assured the Union an eventual victory over the Confederacy. In gratitude to Mexico, the United States loaned Mexico men and equipment enabling Mexico to fight off France and gain their ultimate freedom.
Cinco de Mayo would have been meaningless in history if it were not for men wearing the US flag.
So, these “Mexicans” at Live Oak High School have it all wrong. As wrong as they can get it. What’s more disturbing is the faculty at Live Oak apparently is equally as clueless.
Annicia thinks the five kids should apologize. I think the faculty of Live Oak should apologize to the entire student body for failing them which led to a conflict that would never have occured if they had done their job correctly.
16
Apr
President Obama is gearing up for a fight to get Goodwin Liu for the 9th Circuit. For those not in the know, that’s the one from San Francisco. It represents the liberal heart and soul. I don’t think you’re going to find a conservative judge in that part of the world, so that point is somewhat moot. But, he said something that to me represents the essence of “activist” or not judges. Per Goodwin:
“The question … is not how the Constitution would have been applied at the founding, but rather how it should be applied today … in light of changing needs, conditions and understandings of our society.”
In other words, it’s open to translation as Goodwin Liu sees fit.
That is the root for activism. Now, here’s why that’s a bad thing. The US Constitution does not address a lot of things. It does that intentionally. Anyone wanna guess why?
Think about it real hard. People who read my stuff regularly should already know.
Still thinking? It’s really not that difficult. In fact, the problem today is people have made an otherwise mindlessly simple document too complicated.
Give up?
OK, try this one for size.
They intentionally did not address stuff because they felt it was none of their business.
That is the message Goodwin Liu is completely missing. That is why Goodwin Liu is unfit to be a judge, period, much less a federal judge. An activist judge will make a decision on something that is not a federal issue. A conservative judge, regardless of current expectations, would say it’s not a federal issue and pass on the decision entirely. The problem we have now is there are very few truly conservative judges. Everyone feels they have to render an opinion. They don’t. The question is not whether the Contitution was to be interpreted at some random point in time, the question is always whether it applies to the situation or not. If it does not, pass it back to the state it came from and let them decide how they wish to deal with it. If another state chooses to deal with it differently, so be it. It’s not Goodwin Liu’s right to tell the states what they can do based on his personal interpretation of the Constitution.
That is the difference. Goodwin Liu is totally unfit to be a federal judge. Obama won’t care because he has the same disregard for the Constitution. The Democrats won’t care because Obama picked the guy and they’ll have to support him. The Republicans will fight him because they pretty much have to. But, so far I think they’re making the wrong arguments. I think they just need to make a poster of Goodwin Liu with the banner on it to the effect of “How would you like your Constitution today?”.
Now, where this gets really fun is applying my definition of “liberal” vs “conservative” judges, Barbara Crabb would have made a very conservative decision regarding the National Day of Prayer. She cited the fact that the Constitution is very specific in dealing with religion. She’s right. In this case by suggesting everyone pray, Congress is compelling those who don’t believe in prayer to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. That’s wrong. She’s right. However, states CAN have a day of prayer. That’s none of her business. That’s not Liu’s business either. The right decision in this case would be to pass it back to the state to decide. A true conservative judge would do that. A true liberal judge would not. That’s the difference. Then, a person who wants to live in an environment that does have a day of prayer, or does not have a day of prayer, can choose to do so. Under Liu’s random interpretation model, they could not and therefore people in Wyoming have to fight people in New Jersey for the right to do what they wish in Wyoming. That’s wrong folks.
I’ve decided rather than bitching and moaning about Obamacare passing or not, which inevitably it won’t, and if it does, won’t do squat to fix anything, I’m gonna take the high road and fix it all myself. If anyone listens, the simplicity will amaze you.
First of all, a lot of problems have festered since 1993 or so as a lot of health provision and oversight was dumped on the states, with little to no adequate funding. If the states had a huge boost in revenues, it would help more than anything Obamacare is suggesting. Here’s one suggestion. Get serious with these people:
| Person | Amount |
| Winson T Lee | $9,940,513.49 |
| Che H Lo | $7,124,443.01 |
| Dionne Warwick | $2,185,901.08 |
| Marvin T Levin | $1,992,501.59 |
| Michelle M Quinn | $1,666,800.16 |
| Robert Taylor | $1,334,793.51 |
| Brad J Harris | $1,331,709.97 |
| New World Tillage, Inc | $1,298,685.67 |
| Gary P Rexroad | $1,289,714.68 |
| Roland C Colton | $1,283,013.28 |
| Daniel P Desmond | $1,259,464.08 |
| Vianey Ramirez | $1,258,706.75 |
| Augustin A. Lin, D.O., Inc | $1,158,909.78 |
| Byron E Congdon | $1,120,124.20 |
| Yusaku Uchimura, M.D., Inc | $1,105,373.25 |
| Mohamad E Mohamad | $1,051,042.98 |
| William J and Laura J Levy | $1,020,074.30 |
| Zartaj T Majeed | $854,476.14 |
| Bauchet International, Inc | $777,746.23 |
| Debra R. Judelson, M.D., Inc | $760,926.96 |
| Ruby N Riverabarrett | $756,227.80 |
| Violeta B Vicencio | $755,718.44 |
| Edison Odisho | $750,543.94 |
| Eveready Bonds II, Inc. | $715,499.85 |
| William L Maragno | $714,209.84 |
| West Coast Mortuary Transport Services, Inc | $705,785.72 |
| Martin Hernandez Jr | $700,092.87 |
| John and Kitty Gaiser | $695,296.29 |
| Melvin T Hobbs | $693,711.45 |
| Button Group, Inc | $692,135.47 |
| Lazarus Technologies, Inc | $689,627.14 |
| Kenneth W Louie | $676,937.06 |
| Mafatlal Patel | $675,375.08 |
| Dale’s Welding, Inc. | $669,001.25 |
| Lamont H and Barbara U Dozier | $640,550.59 |
| William H Paris Jr | $633,724.34 |
| Anthony P Brooklier | $622,222.77 |
| Darrell W Evans | $611,851.20 |
| Philip Andrew | $608,544.72 |
| Andre F and Rana Hawit | $570,371.19 |
| Jean M Schulman | $535,317.11 |
| G.M.S. | $534,191.21 |
| Christopher Hammond | $504,378.08 |
| George H Jesson | $498,591.26 |
| Felix and Liliana Prakasam | $489,038.38 |
| Adams Kart Track, Inc | $478,345.59 |
| Luther J Watts | $477,042.74 |
| Georgia Eliopulos | $470,809.86 |
| Kenneth Ramirez | $470,255.95 |
| Pedro M. Lopez, M.D., Inc. | $467,777.34 |
| H.L. Cargo, Incorporated | $465,590.31 |
| Aero Specialties, Inc. | $464,006.37 |
| Neal C Wang | $459,094.81 |
| Nahid Tabrizian | $453,108.85 |
| Peter Liu, M.D., Inc | $449,209.23 |
| James P Kleier | $441,022.92 |
| Byron Marquez | $439,024.47 |
| James W and Katherine L Riley | $437,939.06 |
| Charles E and Tracy L Thiras | $431,188.19 |
| Juan S Figueroa | $425,580.81 |
| 1st American Property Management, Incorporated | $424,679.38 |
| Owen L and Dorothy L Charles | $421,463.76 |
| Robert Simanian | $414,927.65 |
| Maurice E Rugroden | $413,301.94 |
| Artem A Martinov | $403,699.12 |
| Hsueh Ying Huang | $390,397.01 |
| Kurt B Anderson | $381,714.66 |
| Qadree Elamin | $375,654.10 |
| Tichina Arnold | $366,373.25 |
| Alexander Miroshnichenko | $361,455.49 |
| Jovina A Flores | $360,003.38 |
| Blaine A and Valerie C Morton | $359,200.99 |
| Ronald D Bachrach | $349,255.12 |
| Jose and Guadalupe O Diaz | $343,143.28 |
| Joanne Garza | $342,359.30 |
| Carey Fierro | $340,328.51 |
| Spencer Hosie and Diane S Rice | $340,219.76 |
| Peter D and Elena B Marano | $338,170.62 |
| Antonio J Casamento | $337,951.04 |
| Thu H Nguyen | $333,447.95 |
| Bernard L Lichtman | $323,547.50 |
| Susan L Hannaford | $323,521.94 |
| Vincent P Loduca Jr and Daidri Loduca | $322,864.81 |
| Martha E Espinoza | $319,671.63 |
| Stephen R Miller | $317,904.38 |
| John Callaghan | $317,657.35 |
| Ron J and Charlotte E Boehm | $315,085.14 |
| Kenneth L Widmer | $314,022.19 |
| Michael J Pettiford | $313,163.21 |
| Judith E Brooks | $309,804.18 |
| David J Tarantino | $306,136.70 |
| Douglas Colkitt | $301,182.41 |
| David Vargas | $300,884.97 |
| Keith K Wollenberg | $300,459.85 |
| Sta America Incorporated | $297,980.43 |
| Ronald W Hertel | $296,977.96 |
| Jared W Hannah | $292,325.90 |
| Anthony E Brennan | $291,271.25 |
| Alana D Levy | $290,708.27 |
| Karen B Sutherlin | $290,247.41 |
| S Richard and Jeanne M Denardo | $284,483.45 |
| Thomas Gurske | $283,948.27 |
| Jack Lanphere | $283,855.99 |
| David Duarte | $281,855.87 |
| Efrain P Haro | $276,809.66 |
| Debjyoti and Aparajeeta Das | $276,754.68 |
| Earl S and Olivia M Faries | $276,430.12 |
| Brennan J Spencer | $274,357.45 |
| Henry W and Margaret Mercado | $272,135.40 |
| Steven J Bollinger | $270,809.32 |
| Eric A Clemons | $270,439.11 |
| Mikhael I Kamar | $265,474.70 |
| Lonnie C and Kristen L Nielson | $264,706.73 |
| Charles C Shao | $262,552.12 |
| Pablo Escobar | $262,417.38 |
| Frank H Lemon | $260,724.92 |
| James M Agate | $260,419.68 |
| Ray Clingenpeel | $260,228.04 |
| Peter Lobue | $260,154.90 |
| Iain A Somerville | $255,951.62 |
| Barry L Kramer | $255,706.74 |
| Hussein K Mourad | $254,894.34 |
| Larry N Baker | $254,226.46 |
| Bruce A Hazuka | $248,939.46 |
| Richard A Yardley | $248,827.71 |
| Craig H and Dawn M Waldenmaier | $245,933.86 |
| DWF Enterprises, Inc. | $242,902.72 |
| Timothy J Sloan | $241,398.40 |
| AKA Industries | $241,192.81 |
| Richard A and Jennifer K Williams | $239,263.94 |
| John R Sullivan | $238,656.10 |
| Theron and Heather Shamgochian | $238,446.62 |
| Gregory L Kelsey | $238,342.64 |
| Russell T Jackson | $237,805.08 |
| CBP Equipment, Inc | $231,909.45 |
| Antonio Vences | $230,955.90 |
| Gene K Ouye | $230,103.61 |
| Luis Medina | $229,442.02 |
| John C and Louise Williams | $229,381.10 |
| Christopher Nielsen | $229,084.01 |
| Luat T Ly | $227,782.38 |
| Sanford Passman | $227,234.96 |
| Samira Alfano | $226,644.65 |
| Kevin L Benz | $225,219.45 |
| Burton L Reynolds | $225,008.64 |
| Ruben and Tammy Garcia | $223,317.31 |
| Clyde W and Rea B Stock | $221,661.09 |
| Tom Waddell | $217,909.17 |
In all, that breaks down to about $88,333,725. OK, let’s do some quick math using $88 million. At let’s say, $500 a person, that would cover about 14,722 people for a year. That’s just delinquent taxes in California. Or, for starters, those doctors who owe could just work it off for free at clinics.
Just an idea, kinda simple huh? Don’t need any legislation for that either.
27
Nov
I woke up this morning to the news that Dubai had basically defaulted on their debt. I expected a market crash as the result. So far, that hasn’t happened. It’s been a bad day, but not all that bad. But, to me, something just don’t feel right.
- Late June, California announces it’s basically bankrupt and starts issuing IOU’s. The Dow rose from 8,200 to 9,00 on the news.
- The FDIC announced it was bankrupt as of 9/30/2009. The Dow rose from 8,200 to 10,100 on the news.
- Throught out 2009, the unemployment rate has increased 25% to it’s highest level since 1983. During that time, the Dow rose 10%.
- The US federal debt increased:
2009 (est.) 12,867.5 90.4
2010 (est.) 14,456.3 98.1
2011 (est.) 15,673.9 101.0
2012 (est.) 16,565.7 100.6
2013 (est.) 17,440.2 99.7
2014 (est.) 18,350.0 99.8
It’s now exploring totally uncharted waters in that for the first time ever, it will actually exceed the GDP. - China seems to be looking at developing APEC moreso in the near future. That could pull investment money from the US. Who will buy our debt?
Now, I know the Dow has the shortest memory on the planet, but it just seems to me when you’re dealing with one financial disaster after another, it would have a negative impact on the markets. However, this Dow just seems to keep laughing at the bad news and climbing. I’d suggest it’s some sort of irrational exuberance. The only real justification I’ve seen is that the Dow over-corrected in 2008 and is returning to where it should be. However, if things have changed substantially, what is “where it should be”?
