- Super site . . 3 million books and all kinds of sites recorded over 10Tbites huge huge big.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permanent Policy Principles for State-Federal RelationsFebruary 28, 2012PreambleThe relationship and authority of states and the federal government are governed by the U.S. Constitution. The federal government is delegated certain enumerated powers while all other powers not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the states. America has thrived as a nation of laws with a strong national and international identity anchored by the diversity and innovation of representative self government in the states. It is vital that the National Governors Association works to preserve and promote a balanced relationship between the states and the federal government.Principles for State-Federal RelationsGovernors believe that federal action should be limited to those duties and powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution. We favor the preservation of state sovereignty when legislating or regulating activity in the states. To ensure the proper balance between state and federal action and to promote a strong and cooperative state-federal relationship, governors encourage federal officials to adhere to the following guidelines when developing laws and regulations.2.1. Exercise Federal Forbearance. Governors recommend that:
- Federal action should be limited to situations in which constitutional authority for action is clear and certain.
- Federal action should be limited to problems that are truly national in scope.
- Federal action should be sensitive to each state’s ability to bring a unique blend of resources and approaches to common problems.
- Unless the national interest is at risk, federal action should not preempt additional state action.
2.2 Avoid Federal Preemption of State Laws and Policies. Governors recognize the need for federal intervention should states fail to act collectively on issues of legitimate concern. Preemption of state laws, however, should be the exception rather than the rule. This is especially true in areas of primary state responsibility, including education, insurance regulation, criminal justice, preservation of the dual banking system, preservation of state securities regulation, and the management of state personnel programs.2.3 Avoid Imposing Unfunded Federal Mandates. Congress and the Administration should avoid the imposition of unfunded federal mandates on states. Federal action increasingly has relied on states to carry out policy initiatives without providing necessary funding to pay for these programs. State governments cannot function as full partners in our federal system if the federal government requires states to devote their limited resources toward complying with unfunded federal mandates.2.4 Designing Federal-State Programs. To provide maximum flexibility and opportunity for innovation, as well as foster administrative efficiency and cross-program coordination, federal-state programs should be designed to meet the following principles:- States should be actively involved in a cooperative effort to develop policy and administrative procedures.
- The federal government should respect the authority of states to determine the allocation of administrative and financial responsibilities within states in accordance with state constitutions and statutes. Federal legislation should not encroach on this authority.
- Legislation should authorize and appropriate sufficient funds to meet identified program objectives.
- Federal assistance funds, including funds that will be passed through to local governments, should flow through states according to state laws and procedures.
- States should be given flexibility to transfer a limited amount of funds from one grant program to another, or to administer related grants in a coordinated manner.
- Federal funds should provide maximum state flexibility without specific set-asides.
- States should be given broad flexibility in establishing federally mandated advisory groups, including the ability to combine advisory groups for related programs.
- Governors should be given the authority to require coordination among state executive branch agencies, or between levels or units of government, as a condition of the allocation or pass-through of funds.
- Federal government monitoring should be outcome-oriented.
- Federal reporting requirements should be minimized.
- The federal government should not dictate state or local government organization.
ConclusionGovernors recognize the unique nature of the federal system and the critical importance of developing a close working relationship with our federal partner. We also recognize and support a continued federal role in protecting the basic rights of all our citizens and in addressing issues beyond the capacity of individual states. At the same time, the federal government must recognize that there are challenges that can be best addressed at the state and local levels.
Governors are committed to a vibrant and strong partnership with Congress and the Administration to maintain and promote a balanced federal system. Governors believe that a strong, cooperative relationship between the states and federal government is vital to best serve the interests of all citizens.Permanent policy.
Adopted Annual Meeting 1993; revised Winter Meeting 1994, Annual Meeting 1994, Annual Meeting 1995, Winter Meeting 1996, Winter Meeting 1997, Annual Meeting 2005 and Winter Meeting 2012..
- Permalink Reply by on
FEDERAL BUDGET 101
Where Does the Money Go?
In fiscal year 2014, the federal government will spend around $3.8 trillion. These trillions of dollars make up a considerable chunk – around 22 percent – of the US. economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product(GDP). That means that federal government spending makes up a sizable share of all money spent in the United States each year. So, where does all that money go?
Mandatory and Discretionary SpendingThe U.S. Treasury divides all spending into three groups: mandatory spending and discretionary spending and interest on debt. Interest on debt, which is much smaller than the other two categories, is the interest the government pays on its accumulated debt, minus interest income received by the government for assets it owns. This pie chart shows all projected federal spending in 2014 broken into these three categories.Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year. In other words, Congress directly sets the level of spending on programs which are discretionary. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year.This pie chart shows how President Obama proposes dividing up discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014.Mandatory spending is largely made up of earned-benefit or entitlement programs, and the spending for those programs is determined by eligibility rules rather than the appropriations process. For example, Congress decides to create a program like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. It then sets criteria for determining who is eligible to receive benefits from the program. The amount of money spent on SNAP each year is then determined by how many people are eligible and apply for benefits.Congress therefore cannot decide each year to increase or decrease the budget for SNAP. Instead, it can review the eligibility rules and may change them in order to exclude or include more people.Mandatory spending makes up around two-thirds of the total federal budget. The largest mandatory program is Social Security, which comprises more than a third of mandatory spending and around 22 percent of the total federal budget.This chart shows where the projected $2.4 trillion in mandatory spending will go in fiscal year 2014.Finally, putting together discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and interest on the debt, you can see how the total federal budget is divided into different categories of spending. This pie chart shows how President Obama proposes dividing up the whole federal budget in fiscal 2014. Income security programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance together comprise the largest slice, followed by Medicare & Health, and Military.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Why do they lump Social Security with unemployment and Labor, why do they lump Medicare with Health [welfare]?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
Metonymy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLook up metonymy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Metonymy (pron.: /mɨˈtɒnɨmi/ mi-tonn-ə-mee)[1] is a figure of speech used in rhetoric in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept.For instance, "Hollywood" is used as a metonym (an instance of metonymy) for the U.S. film industry, because of the fame and cultural identity of Hollywood, a district of the city of Los Angeles, California, as the historical center of film studios and film stars.[2] A building which houses the seat of government or the national capital is often used to represent the government of a country, such as "Westminster" (Parliament of the United Kingdom) or "Washington" (United States government).[3]The words "metonymy" and "metonym" come from the Greek: μετωνυμία, metōnymía, "a change of name", from μετά, metá, "after, beyond" and -ωνυμία, -ōnymía, a suffix used to name figures of speech, from ὄνῠμα, ónyma or ὄνομα, ónoma, "name."[4] Metonymy also may be instructively contrasted withmetaphor.[5] Both figures involve the substitution of one term for another. In metaphor, this substitution is based on some specific similarity, whereas, in metonymy, the substitution is based on some understood association (contiguity).[6]Contents
[hide]Cognitive science and linguistics for metaphor and metonymy [edit]
Main article: Metaphor and metonymyMetonymy works by the contiguity (association) between two concepts, whereas metaphor works by the similarity between them. When people use metonymy, they do not typically wish to transfer qualities from one referent to another as they do with metaphor:[7] there is nothing press-like about reporters or crown-like about a monarch, but "the press" and "the crown" are both common metonyms. Of course, metaphors reside in every metonymical phrase,[6] and thus the relationship between "a crown" and a "king" could be interpreted metaphorically (i.e., the king, like his gold crown, could be seemingly stiff yet ultimately malleable, over-ornate, and consistently immobile).Two examples using the term "fishing" help clarify the distinction.[8] The phrase "to fish pearls" uses metonymy, drawing from "fishing" the idea of taking things from the ocean. What is carried across from "fishing fish" to "fishing pearls" is the domain of metonymy.In contrast, the metaphorical phrase "fishing for information" transfers the concept of fishing into a new domain. If someone is "fishing" for information, we do not imagine that the person is anywhere near the ocean; rather, we transpose elements of the action of fishing (waiting, hoping to catch something that cannot be seen, probing) into a new domain (a conversation). Thus, metaphor works by presenting a target set of meanings and using them to suggest a similarity between items, actions, or events in two domains, whereas metonymy calls up or references a specific domain (here, removing items from the sea).Examples [edit]
Main article: List of metonymsHere are some broad kinds of relationships where metonymy is frequently used:- Containment: When one thing contains another, it can frequently be used metonymically, as when "dish" is used to refer not to a plate but to the food it contains, or as when the name of a building is used to refer to the entity it contains, as when "the White House" or "the Pentagon" are used to refer to the US presidential staff or the military leadership, respectively.
- Tools/Instruments: Often a tool is used to signify the job it does or the person who does the job, as in the phrase "the press" (referring to the printing press), or as in the idiom, "The pen is mightier than the sword."
- Synecdoche: A part of something is often used for the whole, as when people refer to "head" of cattle or assistants are referred to as "hands."
- Toponyms: A country's capital city is frequently used as a metonym for the country's government, such as Washington, D.C. in the United States. Similarly, other important places, such as Wall Street and Hollywood are commonly used to refer to the industries that are located there (finance and entertainment, respectively).
Sometimes, metaphor and metonymy may both be at work in the same figure of speech, or one could interpret a phrase metaphorically or metonymically. For example, the phrase "lend me your ear" could be analyzed in a number of ways. One could imagine the following interpretations:- Analyze "ear" metonymically first – "ear" means "attention" (because we use ears to pay attention to someone's speech). Now, when we hear the phrase "lending an ear (attention)", we stretch the base meaning of "lend" (to let someone borrow an object) to include the "lending" of non-material things (attention), but, beyond this slight extension of the verb, no metaphor is at work.
- Imagine the whole phrase literally – imagine that the speaker literally borrows the listener's ear as a physical object (and the person's head with it). Then the speaker has temporary possession of the listener's ear, so the listener has granted the speaker temporary control over what the listener hears. We then interpret the phrase "lend me your ear" metaphorically to mean that the speaker wants the listener to grant the speaker temporary control over what the listener hears.
- First, analyze the verb phrase "lend me your ear" metaphorically to mean "turn your ear in my direction", since we know that, literally, lending a body part is nonsensical. Then, analyze the motion of ears metonymically – we associate "turning ears" with "paying attention", which is what the speaker wants the listeners to do.
It is difficult to say which of the above analyses most closely represents the way a listener interprets the expression, and it is possible that the phrase is analysed in different ways by different listeners, or even in different ways by the same listener at different times. Regardless, all three analyses yield the same interpretation; thus, metaphor and metonymy, though quite different in their mechanism, may work together seamlessly. For further analysis of idioms in which metaphor and metonymy work together, including an example very similar to the one given here, read this article entitled Metaphor and Metonymy in Contrast.[9]
- Permalink Reply by on
The IRS Fiasco Is Only The Tip Of The Iceberg
Comment NowFollow CommentsFormer Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service Steve Miller (C) waits for the beginning of a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee May 17, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing to examine the IRS scandal of targeting conservative groups. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)You certainly hear some amazing things in congressional testimony. Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS unit that determines whether organizations receive tax-exempt status, claimed last week that she had neither done anything wrong nor lied about her involvement in the discrimination against conservative and libertarian groups – and then took the Fifth and declined to answer any questions. (She was promptly placed on administrative leave.) And the previous week, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, who was fired by President Obama but is sticking around to help with the transition to new leadership, told members of the House Ways and Means Committee some real doozies.He said that his agency’s targeting of conservative and libertarian groups for special scrutiny of their requests for tax-exempt status was “obnoxious” but that he did “not believe that partisanship motivated the people who engaged in the practices described in the inspector general’s report.” He even objected to the word “targeting,” claiming that there was no scandal but only “foolish mistakes” made by “people trying to be more efficient in their workload selection.”
Was there a concerted attempt to silence the Administration’s political enemies in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election? Absolutely not, according to Miller. It was simply “horrible customer service.” Oh, please.The use of the IRS for partisan advantage is repugnant but it should not come as a surprise. Discriminatory treatment and abuses of federal powers are rife elsewhere in the Obama administration as well. For example, the EPA was found to be granting favors to left-wing “green” organizations that were denied to conservative groups.Government agencies are supposed to waive fees for groups that disseminate information for public benefit, but there is an extraordinary disparity in the granting of those waivers by EPA, depending on how “friendly” the groups are to the agency’s (and President Obama’s) expansive and precautionary view of government. Left-wing environmental organizations that lobby for more intrusive, obstructionist regulation fared much better, according to an analysis by Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Of Sierra Club’s 15 requests, EPA granted 11. And Sierra Club received the harshest of treatments. In fact, EPA granted 19 of [the Natural Resources Defense Council’s] 20 requests and 17 of EarthJustice’s 19 requests. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility went a perfect 17-for-17. The Waterkeeper Alliance had all three of its requests granted, Greenpeace and the Southern Environmental Law Center each were 2-for-2, the Center for Biological Diversity 4-for-4.”While pro-regulation, EPA-friendly groups had their fees waived 92 percent of the time, Horner’s requests on behalf of CEI and the American Tradition Institute were rejected more than 93 percent of the time. That certainly looks like discrimination – unless, of course, it’s just more of Steve Miller’s “people trying to be more efficient in their workload selection.”It’s not just federal agencies who are guilty of discriminatory “service” based on politics. Last year, the White House itself hijacked the impending FDA approval of an obviously innocuous genetically engineered, farmed salmon that reaches mature size more rapidly than its cohorts but is otherwise indistinguishable from them. Ordinarily, this sort of approval would be made by mid-level bureaucrats at the FDA, but politics came into play.The reasons for the lengthy delay that ensued after the needed Environmental Assessment was completed were revealed in brilliant investigative reporting by science writer Jon Entine. He wrote that the White House interference “came after discussions late last spring [2012] between Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ office and officials linked to Valerie Jarrett at the Executive Office [of the President], who were debating the political implications of approving the [genetically modified] salmon. Genetically modified plants and animals are controversial among the president’s political base, which was thought critical to his reelection efforts during a low point in the president’s popularity.” This is a grotesque perversion of what is supposed to be transparent and impartial government regulation.Even more worrisome is partisan discrimination and bias in law enforcement. An egregious example concerned the intimidation of white voters by the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia during the 2008 election. Two of its members were originally charged with voter intimidation for obstructing the entrance to a polling place while brandishing baseball bats, but the Department of Justice later lessened the charges against one and dismissed the charges against the party and the other, eliciting widespread outrage and charges of racism. Department of Justice official J. Christian Adams, who resigned his position in protest at his department’s conduct, said in an interview with Fox News Network’s Megyn Kelly that it was common knowledge around the DOJ that,”Civil rights complaints would only be pursued when initiated by people of color against white people,” but, “when it was the other way around, the complaints, even when well-substantiated as with the New Black Panthers, would disappear in a bureaucratic morass.”Finally, the FDA and FBI have ignored flagrant violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by anti-biotechnology activists who have slapped homemade labels on genetically engineered foods in markets, which makes the products “misbranded,” and therefore unable to be sold legally. (The illegal labeling was the subject of a front-page New York Times story on May 24, 2012, which identified a perpetrator and the site of the crime and included a photograph of her applying the label. I personally reported that incident to both the FBI and the FDA, neither of which has taken any action.) This reeks of more special treatment for a political constituency friendly to the administration.What ever happened to the concept of equal treatment under the law?
Henry I. Miller
- Permalink Reply by on
Will an Export Tax Restore True Free Enterprise?
Written by Gary North on May 27, 2013Gary North’s Reality CheckThis is a recent discussion between the Export Tariff Guy and the Free Trade Guy.ETG: What this country needs is an export tariff.FTG: How would it work?ETG: Every exporter would pay a tariff on the retail price of everything it exports.FTG: So, it’s a sales tax on exports.ETG: That’s correct.FTG: And why should the government do this?ETG: It needs the money.FTG: So, you are in favor of added taxes.ETG: Extra export sales taxes, yes.FTG: So, you want the government to spend more money.RTG: Correct.FTG: So, you are a Keynesian.ETG: Of course not. I am a defender of free enterprise.FTG: You think that free enterprise is promoted by raising taxes.ETG: Yes. Sales taxes. On exports.FTG: Any other taxes?ETG: Sales taxes on imports.FTG: So, you want bigger government to help promote free enterprise.ETG: Yes.FTG: So do Keynesians.ETG: But Keynesians are not supporters of real free enterprise.FTG: What is real free enterprise?ETG: Free enterprise that is promoted by high sales taxes on exports.FTG: And imports.ETG: Right.FTG: How do taxes on exports promote free enterprise?ETG: Because they reduce the number of exports.FTG: How?ETG: By raising prices to foreigners.FTG: So, they will buy less from American exporters because post-tax prices are higher.ETG: Correct.FTG: Why is that good for free enterprise?ETG: Because it makes available more American-made goods for Americans to buy.FTG: Because the goods are not shipped to foreigners.ETG: Correct. So, consumer prices will fall in America.FTG: So, this is a subsidy to American buyers of American-made goods.ETG: Correct.FTG: This subsidy is paid for by Americans who want to buy foreign goods, but who will cut back because of reduced imports due to reduced exports.ETG: Correct.FTG: So, free enterprise requires government subsidies to one group of American buyers at the expense of another group of American buyers.ETG: Correct.(For the rest of my article, click the link.)
- Permalink Reply by on
- population by race by county for the USA
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Constitutional Professors do not understand the Constitution they change words and the meanings of words to "create" the end result they seek. Below is an example of a communication between me and a Constitutional Law Professor. I asked him about the conflict of the 5th amendment protection against "TAKING" of property without just compensation even when for the public good. How does that explain the conflict with the 16th amendment (and Progressive tax rates which are no where in the Constitution so are they Unconstitutional?).
You can see quickly - as they deflect the "INCOME TAX" as not being "PROPERTY" but income (which is MONEY and money is property according to the Founders). They use new laws and new words to develop new laws which to create more case law decisions. It is the usurping of powers in my humble opinion.
Mr. Piatt:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The 16th amendment does not specify the tax rates, and in any case as a later amendment would trump the 5th.
Anyway, the "property" protected in the 5th does not include income as it is earned. I applies to realty and personalty. Real estate taxes, even progressive ones are constitutional (as "direct taxes") if Congress wished to impose them, which it does not.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comments regarding "It's the States, Stupid" from Barry Goldwater, excerpts from 'Conscience of a Conservative':[T]oday neither of our two parties maintains a meaningful commitment to the principle of States' Rights. Thus, the cornerstone of the Republic, our chief bulwark against the encroachment of individual freedom by Big Government, is fast disappearing under the piling sands of absolutism.
The Tenth Amendment is not "a general assumption," but a prohibitory rule of law. The Tenth Amendment recognizes the States' jurisdiction in certain areas. States' Rights means that the States have a right to act or not to act, as they see fit, in the areas reserved to them. The States may have duties corresponding to these rights, but the duties are owed to the people of the States, not to the federal government. Therefore, the recourse lies not with the federal government, which is not sovereign, but with the people who are, and who have full power to take disciplinary action.
The Constitution, I repeat, draws a sharp and clear line between federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction. The federal government's failure to recognize that line has been a crushing blow to the principle of limited government.
There is a reason for [the] reservation of States' Rights. Not only does it prevent the accumulation of power in a central government that is remote from the people and relatively immune from popular restraints; it also recognizes the principle that essentially local problems are best dealt with by the people most directly concerned.
[Some] have long since seen through the spurious suggestion that federal aid comes "free." They know that the money comes out of their own pockets, and that it is returned to them minus a broker's fee taken by the federal bureaucracy. They know, too, that the power to decide how that money shall be spent is withdrawn from them and exercised by some planning board deep in the caverns of one of the federal agencies. They understand this represents a great and perhaps irreparable loss--not only in their wealth, but in their priceless liberty.
Nothing could so far advance the cause of freedom as for state officials throughout the land to assert their rightful claims to lost state power; and for the federal government to withdraw promptly and totally from every jurisdiction which the Constitution reserved to the states.
I deny that there can be a conflict between States' Rights, properly defined--and civil rights, properly defined. If States' "Rights" are so asserted as to encroach upon individual rights that are protected by valid federal laws, then the exercise of state power is a nullity. Conversely, if individual "rights" are so asserted as to infringe upon valid state power, then the assertion of those "rights" is a nullity. The rights themselves do not clash. The conflict arises from a failure to define the two categories of rights correctly, and to assert them lawfully."IF all conservatives, libertarians, and TPM folks are serious about Liberty, and believe the Founding principles, they should join the fight for 10thA restoration IMO. The following should also be a required pledge by ANY candidate, for any office in the Land going forward:"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." (by Goldwater from the same book)
