Tag Archives: donna brazile

Peter Schiff — Purveyor of Libertarian Principles … When Convenient

For the past several years, we’ve heard the doom-and-gloom prognostications coming from perma-bear Peter Schiff: The Federal Reserve is the root of all evil. Inflation will be the United States’ undoing. Invest in gold and overseas because the American stock market is toast. Perhaps that’s a legitimate view, but Schiff argues a more libertarian approach to prevent these supposed calamities. He argues for a different way of handling monetary policy , less spending by the federal government and a rethinking of how regulation is handled . Yet, when a political campaign is waged in the halls of Congress by a partisan member against one of his competitors , he turns a blind-eye to the abuses of government power. “You know, I have my own gold company and it bothers me what they’re going to do,” Schiff said to CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report” fill-in host Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on the Sept. 24 broadcast. “I think that companies like, you know, like Goldline, you know that are basically marking up their gold coins 67 percent or whatever – it’s outrageous. I mean, most companies mark-up 2 or 3 percent, which is what I do. These type of companies give the whole industry a bad name. What I’m afraid of is we’re going to have a lot of regulation.” Caruso-Cabrera asked Schiff in these circumstances if it was a case of buyer beware. However, Schiff suggested it was fraudulent for coin companies to charge these prices for what by any measure of the law would be a legal transaction if a consumer chose to purchase coins from such a company. “If there’s fraud, it’s not buyer beware,” he continued. “But what I’m afraid of is I don’t want government regulating the coin industry so that people like me have to raise our prices to cover all the extra cost of regulation.” But assuming Schiff’s assumption were correct, wouldn’t he has a competitor be able to move in on the market and offer the same product for a lower price? Isn’t that how the free market operates? Schiff conceded that point, but complained he was getting beat because he couldn’t afford the advertising. “I mean, I think the free market should ferret out these companies that are grossly overcharging people who don’t know any better. You know, that’s the problem. People haven’t bought gold in so long and see how well it’s doing and get conned by these commercials that are all over television. But most gold companies like mine, we can’t afford to run commercials because we’re not charging that much.” Schiff makes regular appearances on all the cable news networks, with his firm’s logo Euro Pacific Capital on the backdrop and raised more than $3 million for his failed effort to win the Connecticut Republican U.S. Senate nomination. So is it fair to complain about his firm’s inability to market its products, if indeed they’re at lower prices than the competition’s products.

See the original post here:
Peter Schiff — Purveyor of Libertarian Principles … When Convenient

George Will Schools This Week Panel on Tea Party Causing GOP Civil War

George Will on Sunday gave a much-needed education to the entire “This Week” panel about how the Tea Party is moving the GOP in a positive direction that could alter politics in this nation for years to come. As Christiane Amanpour and her Roundtable guests – Democrat strategist Donna Brazile, National Journal’s Ron Brownstein, and Republican strategist Matthew Dowd – all fretted about the so-called Civil War brewing in the GOP, Will was once again the voice of reason.  “At the beginning of the year, the question was, will the Tea Party people play nicely with others and will they obey the rules of politics? Who’s sort of not playing nicely?” asked Will. “Mr. Crist starts losing the primary to a Tea Party favorite Rubio. He suddenly discovers that he’s an independent and changes all his views overnight,” he continued. “Mrs. Murkowski loses a primary and suddenly discovers that she has a property right in her Senate seat and she’s going to run as a write-in. Senator Bennett thought of that in Utah, Senator Castle in Delaware is thinking of a write-in candidate. Who are the extremists?” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRAT STRATEGIST: But, you know, the Republicans have a great story right now to tell. Excuse my voice. I was up watching the LSU game, clearly. But the — the problem I have — and the Republicans should — should understand — is that there’s still an eternal civil war going on within the Republican Party. In Washington state, in Delaware, and Colorado, many of the mainstream Republican candidates have not endorsed the Tea Party candidates. They’ve provided enthusiasm, they’ve provided a lot of energy and organization for the Republican Party, but we don’t know yet if the Republicans can heal those wounds and provide the kind of turnout they need to beat the Democrats. MATTHEW DOWD, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think that if you gave most Democrats truth serum and they said who’s place would they rather be in, they would pick the Republicans’ place in this year’s election as opposed to their own place in this year’s election. The problem I think for this class that’s coming in for the Republicans is for Mitch McConnell, who just talked to, is his ability to herd them is going to be like herding quail, because these folks are coming to Washington and think, “I’m not going to be part of this. I’m not going to listen to the leaders. I’m going to do what the voters want me to do,” and they’re not going to be — they’re not going to be acquiescent to what the leadership wants. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: And that’s what I actually — I wanted to ask, because in today’s newspaper, there’s a quote by a senior Republican, you know, consultant that, after the elections, it’s going to be basically all-out war, a struggle for the heart and the soul of the Republican Party. You’re shaking your head. GEORGE WILL: They’ve been writing this story for eight months about what a problem the Tea Party is for the Republican Party. You know what the problem… (CROSSTALK) AMANPOUR: Well, Tom Ross basically told us that they lost because of that and they might lose. WILL: On balance across the country, the Tea Party is enormous help for the Republicans. At the beginning of the year, the question was, will the Tea Party people play nicely with others and will they obey the rules of politics? Who’s sort of not playing nicely? Mr. Crist starts losing the primary to a Tea Party favorite Rubio. He suddenly discovers that he’s an independent and changes all his views overnight. Mrs. Murkowski loses a primary and suddenly discovers that she has a property right in her Senate seat and she’s going to run as a write-in. Senator Bennett thought of that in Utah, Senator Castle in Delaware is thinking of a write-in candidate. Who are the extremists? (CROSSTALK) RON BROWNSTEIN, NATIONAL JOURNAL: Donna, I would say, look — I mean, I think clearly this class of Republicans do not feel they are being sent here to Washington to compromise with Barack Obama or to follow the Republican leadership. So in that sense, there’s going to be tension. And I quote Ken Buck in my story as saying so. But if you look at what they are actually going to be voting on, in all likelihood, over the next two years, there is remarkable unanimity in this class. And despite all the focus on the civil war, I think that is kind of a — what the long-range vision of what the federal government should be doing or not doing is where you will see diversity. (CROSSTALK) BROWNSTEIN: But in the near term — in the — in the near term, I think — in terms — the main thing that the Republicans, I think, are being sent here to do is to block and try to roll back whatever they can what Obama did. I think the spending thing will continue to be a challenge for them, because if you want to reduce the deficits and extend the Bush tax cuts, that does point you back toward cutting Medicare and Medicaid, which is exactly the problem they got into in ’95, and they may end up in that same cul-de-sac next year. But I actually believe there is more commonality in this class than is often assumed. And in the near term, they are going to be a very formidable and, I think, cohesive force. WILL: And look at the not-so-near term. In the next two cycles, 2012 and 2014 combined, the Democrats are defending 43 Senate seats, Republicans 22. So the Republican wave that’s now starting is just starting. Indeed. As Will accurately stated, the media have been “writing this story for eight months about what a problem the Tea Party is for the Republican Party.” The liberal press are always trying to figure out a narrative that paints the GOP in the most negative light.   First we were told the Tea Party represented an inconsequential fringe of racists and homophobes that will have no impact on elections. Now that its candidates have produced shocking results across the fruited plain, and have reinvigorated conservative voters like nothing we’ve seen in many years, the movement is going to produce a Civil War within the Republican Party that will either hurt it in November or make it impossible for it to govern if its successful at the polls. This is clearly why you could see Will either shaking his head or seemingly laughing to himself as his colleagues waxed philosophically about some as yet unrealized though oft-predicted calamity associated with this movement. Less than two years after Barack Obama and the Democrat Party won a landslide victory that had the potential of being a political realignment shifting the balance of power in this country to the left for many years nay decades, the Republicans are on the precipice of shocking the world by taking back the Congress. Is it any wonder the media are doing their darnedest to figure out a way to undermine it or that Will is getting such a kick out of watching them try?

View post:
George Will Schools This Week Panel on Tea Party Causing GOP Civil War

Donna Brazile Defends Obama By Badly Misrepresenting Oil Pollution Act, Gets No Challenge From ‘This Week’ Panel

Nothing ruins my Sunday more than a pundit defending his or her politician by completely misrepresenting a law and nobody on the program in question bothers to challenge the falsehood. Such happened on the recent installment of ABC’s “This Week” when Democrat strategist Donna Brazile said of President Obama’s pathetic response to the Gulf Coast oil spill, “The administration has been constrained by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which basically gives the responsible party the lead role in trying to not only fix the problem, but contain the problem.” Really? Well, why don’t we look at the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and see if Brazile was right (video and transcript follow with details about this law and commentary):  ROBERT REICH: But the present spectacle of the Coast Guard asking BP to speed up this clean-up is absurd. I mean, the federal government needs to be in charge. The president needs to be in charge of this. Use BP’s expertise. Use BP’s resources. But the president must be in charge of all of this. Otherwise, he looks like he’s just standing on the sidelines. DONNA BRAZILE: Well, the administration has been constrained by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which basically gives the responsible party the lead role in trying to not only fix the problem, but contain the problem. That has been the problem from day one. They’ve waited for BP to come up with the answers, and we know that BP continues to mislead people. This is the Overview of the Act (emphasis added): The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was signed into law in August 1990, largely in response to rising public concern following the Exxon Valdez incident. The OPA improved the nation’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that expand the federal government’s ability , and provide the money and resources necessary, to respond to oil spills. The OPA also created the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is available to provide up to one billion dollars per spill incident. In addition, the OPA provided new requirements for contingency planning both by government and industry. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) has been expanded in a three-tiered approach: the Federal government is required to direct all public and private response efforts for certain types of spill events ; Area Committees — composed of federal, state, and local government officials — must develop detailed, location-specific Area Contingency Plans; and owners or operators of vessels and certain facilities that pose a serious threat to the environment must prepare their own Facility Response Plans. Finally, the OPA increased penalties for regulatory noncompliance, broadened the response and enforcement authorities of the Federal government , and preserved State authority to establish law governing oil spill prevention and response. Now, let’s take a look at the expanded National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)  (emphasis added):  The OPA was enacted to strengthen the national response system. The OPA provides for better coordination of spill contingency planning among federal, state, and local authorities. The addition of the National Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC), for example, is expected to relieve equipment and personnel shortages that have interfered with response to oil spills posing particularly significant environmental or human health threats. Today’s rule revises the NCP to implement a strongly coordinated, multi-level national response strategy. The national response strategy, contained primarily in Subparts B and D of the NCP, provides the framework for notification, communication, logistics, and responsibility for response to discharges of oil, including worst case discharges and discharges that pose a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States. The amended NCP further strengthens the OSC’s ability to coordinate the response on-scene and also incorporates a new OPA- mandated level of contingency planning–Area Committees and Area Contingency Plans (ACPs). These committees and plans are designed to improve coordination among the national, regional, and local planning levels and to enhance the availability of trained personnel, necessary equipment, and scientific support that may be needed to adequately address all discharges. The major revisions to the NCP being promulgated today reflect OPA revisions to CWA [Clean Water Act] section 311. These changes increase Presidential authority to direct cleanup of oil spills and hazardous substance releases and augment preparedness and planning activities on the part of the federal government, as well as vessel and facility owners and operators . For example, revised CWA section 311(c) requires the President to direct removal actions for discharges and substantial threats of discharges posing a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States . Revised section 311(d) requires a number of specific changes to the NCP, including the establishment of “criteria and procedures to ensure immediate and effective Federal identification of, and response to, a discharge, or the threat of a discharge, that results in a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States.”  Section 311(d) also mandates the establishment of procedures and standards for removing a worst case discharge of oil and for mitigating or preventing a substantial threat of such a discharge. As such, quite contrary to what Brazile stated Sunday, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, along with its changes to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, significantly increased the President’s authority over oil spills. As this disaster is now over seven weeks old, surely “This Week” host Jake Tapper should have been aware of the pertinent provisions of this Act. Ditto Reich and George Will who also sat idly by as Brazile made this misrepresentation. With this in mind, why didn’t anyone challenge her on this? This question especially goes out to Will who in recent months has gone after Bill Maher  as well as  Brazile for misrepresenting the facts in his presence.  I guess George wasn’t in the mood for a fight today. Too bad, for it was easy pickings.  Of course, there’s a larger issue here, and why this really angers me when it happens. It’s not surprising that a pol or pundit stretches the truth. It happens almost every time these people open their mouths. However, when their misrepresentations go unchallenged, the viewer assumes the statement was accurate. This is why it’s so important for the host or moderator to be on top of things. Unfortunately, folks watching “This Week” on Sunday were given the wrong impression about this law and its relevance to what’s currently happening on the Gulf Coast. As such, the burden was on SOMEONE present to correct Brazile on this point. Sadly, that didn’t occur. What a shame. 

See more here:
Donna Brazile Defends Obama By Badly Misrepresenting Oil Pollution Act, Gets No Challenge From ‘This Week’ Panel