Political Rapids and Current Events

Mitt Romney Starring in George W. Bush, Redux

2012-01-12T23:48:00.000-05:00

"Mitt, old buddy, follow my tax policy lead. Things will fall into place. No sweat. Trust me."

The headlines are scary enough, but the prospects of actual policy after 2013, should Romney capture the White House and have a majority GOP congress is scarier.

"Romney’s Tax Cut For Millionaires Would Be Nearly Twice The Size Of George Bush’s"

Meat of the story from Think Progress [click here for more].

[snip] "... Mitt Romney’s economic plan calls for a massive tax cut for the rich, even while the plan would likely result in a tax increase on millions of middle class families. And as it turns out, Romney’s tax cuts for the rich would dwarf even those put in place by George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, as Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden noted."

[snip] "... Romney’s plan also gives nearly 60 percent of its benefit to the richest 1 percent of Americans, while preserving the loopholes that let the wealthy pay less than middle class families."

Why would we think otherwise???

Read more at the link >>>

Best Hope This Does Not Happen

2012-01-11T21:35:00.002-05:00

Who stands with and for ultra big money. Two guesses, and the first one does not count...

If this flies, and it could, then it probably would spell the end of our democratic electoral process as we know it. It goes far beyond Citizens United by a long shot. Story headlines read:

Republican National Committee Files Brief Seeking To Allow Corporate Funding Of Campaigns

In a brief just filed (January 10, 2012), in Fourth Circuit, the RNC argues that the federal ban on corporate donations is unconstitutional in large part because it applies across the board to all corporations.

This is very troublesome to say the least - how far will the GOP go to gain or regain total and complete control of government and if this flies, the courts that would support them?

Continue story at the link.

Romney: Artful Dodger Who Thinks No One is Watching or Remembering

2011-12-18T22:39:00.001-05:00

So, Mitt, did we do the right thing when we invaded Iraq. Yes, or no?

One headline today from Foxnews Sunday appearance by Romney says:

Romney Dodges Question On Iraq Invasion: ‘We Took An Action That Was Appropriate At That TIme’

Meet Mitt, the Flip:

In 2002: While running for governor of Massachusetts, and at the height of the run-up to the Iraq war, Romney campaigned alongside President George W. Bush (picture above). At time, his Romney campaign aide and now-campaign press secretary Eric Fehrnstrorm told reporters: "Al Gore has been a critic to the president’s policies in regard to the war on terrorism, specifically on the plans with regard to Iraq. Mitt’s position is that he supports the president."

In 2007: When he was running for president. He answered the same question then as Chris Wallace posed today (see the link) in the same way. "I supported the president’s decision based on what we knew at that time." He noted that Saddam Hussein had not allowed UN weapons inspectors in. However, at the time, Media Matters pointed out that by the fall of 2002, U.N. inspectors had entered Iraq, and were making progress taking stock of weapons of mass destruction programs.

Now today: Romney repeats the same false claim that Hussein never allowed inspectors in, adding, "The IAEA was blocked from going into the palaces" even back in March 2003 a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog wrote: "In the past three months they have conducted over 200 inspections at more than 140 locations, entering without prior notice into Iraqi presidential palaces."

Lately, and despite what the Iraqi government wants, Romney says the U.S. "should have left 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 personnel there" as he blames President Obama for a hasty decision to withdraw (which Bush agreed to).

Romney is a man with no core principles: He will do, say, pay, try, lie, or imply anything to win.

Huge Profits; No Taxes; Plenty of Lobbying Money

2011-12-07T18:45:00.000-05:00

People on the right wonder why the 99 percenters are so angry and up in arms. Perhaps this chart sums it up.

In simple terms: Those corporations have made huge profits, paid no taxes, but managed to spend plenty of money to lobby.

Lobby for what, pray tell, one might ask: Why of course, to LOBBY FOR MORE TAX CUTS, hoping the GOP will regain the White House, capture the Senate, and keep their majority in the House next year.

If you see a pattern here, outside of true representative democracy, leave a comment. If not, then you must be a GOPer, carry on.

The story details are from ThinkProgresss.org (here).

Enjoy.

GOP Comic Version of Who's On First

2011-11-29T01:57:00.000-05:00

Romney's "left" foot and Romney's "right" foot (on Monday and then on Tuesday)...

But, never this Mitt Romney

The GOP in this presidential cycle is really in one huge mess about who is up, who is down, and who is next in line for the PR coverage, poll experts, and of course SNL comics.

Latest:

• Bachmann, up after winning the Iowa straw poll, says she is still okay and never made any gaffe that hurt her, even though she is at 4 percent.

• Perry who entered the race with everyone cheering wildly about his entrance has made so many gaffes that big blue (IBM) can't even keep up.

• Cain enters full bore and then, bingo: he hits stone wall of women accusers. This story is still ongoing with his lack of knowledge and poor appearances about Libya and about most things foreign and domestic.

• Gingrich. Now old Newt. What can be said about him other than his trail of lies, deceit, phony video and book scams and oh, yes, disgraceful exit from Congress (who he was booted as Speaker)... his antics make Wall Street crooks look like saints, sort of.

• Romney: Outside in the limo, engine running. ready to go.

Just wait until after the first primary in NH following the Iowa thingy ... Memo for the Republicans out there: Hang on tight and look for the nearest lifeboat.

The GOP: Who Needs Any Priority — Not Us

2011-10-13T13:17:00.003-04:00

Going Against the Public: A Game of Chance for the GOP...

What the public wants vs. What the GOP thinks the public wants??? The public clearly says we need jobs; yet those in office say they want to stay in power. What a deal, right!!!

We see and hear it all the time from the GOP and deeply-entrenched incumbents: "Do it for the American people;" or "Let's do it for the children;" or "It's for our future;" yada yada, yap yap, etc. and so forth. And, we fall for it over and over again - why, I wonder.

Do those we send to office really know what is good or best for the public? I hardly think so and the dismal record of this Congress underscores that point as the above chart clearly shows, and thanks to the Rachel Maddow Show. In this excellent 17-minute clip we can clearly see the GOP's priorities vs. what the public wants. Added to that disconnect on the GOP's part is the this idea of "year-long or permanent campaigns to win or stay in office." It speaks volumes about the state of our electoral process especially in light of the GOP moves to curtail or slow down or just downright suppress voter and their rights at the polls and all just in time for the 2012 season (which may be getting a boost to start next month or so). But, that remains to be seen.

The issue of what the public wants and indeed needs (jobs and a much better employment picture) vs. the moves the GOP makes 180° in the opposite direction is very worrisome. What are the solutions?

• Some advocate for term limits, which I am against for many reasons, but even with term limits the basic question of the massive amounts of money in these now shortened campaigns would not be solved. The same huge amounts of money would still come from the powerful interests to get a few in office for a shorter period of time to do the same amount of damage - nothing gained there except more of same we see now.

• I and many others advocate for public financing of all Federal elections. Let the people have the input (money), control the process (their votes and not the massive amounts of money), and benefit from the outcome (the candidates they want to represent them).

Two good sources to visit on this last point are here from the Brennan Center for Justice and here from Public Campaign. Both address fair elections, clean elections, and less-expensive elections that would benefit the public.

The point is this: what we have tried in the past that was working (to some degree) has all been erased by that awful Citizens United (5-4) ruling last year that took the lid off of big money and opened up the flood gates. More that from Common Cause here and from Open Secrets here.

More later, I am sure. Stop back by.

GOP: 1992 - 2012: Here We Go Again

2011-10-06T14:56:00.000-04:00

VP Dan Quayle ("Murphy Brown" speech about unwed mothers)

Presidential Candidate Pat Buchanan (religious and cultural wars speech)

Presidential Candidate Gary Bauer (sex and violence speech and why our enemies hate us)

Sen. Jesse Helms (NC) )(anti-gay speech on Senate floor during debate against Aids bill)

Watching and listening to the TEA-managed, anti-everything GOP today reminds me of the events back in 1992, and some of which carried over to 1994, when Gingrich's revolt led to the GOP taking control of the House for the first time in 50 years.

Today, however, that same message is a bit more subtle. Nevertheless, their actions are louder than words, for those who bother to listen and/or pay close attention.

An excellent video (16-minutes) is posted here as a review of how the GOP "holier-than-crowd" takes religious, cultural, personal, and individual issues (and rights) and rams them into bills that impact everyone for their narrow focus about "less government control," unless, of course, it's on those issues, or they just toss the rights or ignore them and call it good government.

Enjoy the look back and keep it in mind as we move towards 2012. Sometimes it's the subtle things that impact the most.

Tighten the National Budget by Hanging Our Military Retirees

2011-08-17T18:18:00.002-04:00

The link that holds the nation together are the hands of the Vet, and especially the military retiree: Now under fire.

Background: A Pentagon task force is proposing the largest overhaul of the military retirement system in 50 years that will do away with a traditional pension system, opting instead for a 401(k)-style contribution program. Under the newly proposed Defense Business Board (DBB) plan, all troops would receive yearly retirement contributions if they served at least 20 years — a stipulation of the existing system. The money, however, would not vest until service reached at least three to five years and would then be payable at retirement age. If personnel left before that three- to five-year mark, the time served would be rolled over into Social Security. Story here and numerous other sites like here.

There is not enough space on this blog to even begin to outline my anger and rage about those in office, at any level, who is even thinking seriously about doing this for whatever reason their pea-sized brains tell them.

We have about 2.2 million military retirees and/or their surviving spouses and children and/or others. The population of the entire country is just a hair short of 312 million. You do the math. See what percentage actually serve in uniform and what percentage actually serve in time of war vis-à-vis the overall population. But, you know what — Vets and retirees don't complain. They know their duty and they fulfill that duty both honorably and with dedication. For military retirees who serve loyally for 20 or longer, the sacrifice is even more complex. They do so knowing that the country has a bond with them for a decent retirement at the end of the day - a guarantee that has been there for generations.

Now, however, that bond and that link are about to be broken, if this asinine proposal ever sees the light of day, but which it must not. Not everything should be on the table in political lingo like this. Not like this and more so in time of the conduct of war. To date, we are engaged in 6 wars at different levels of involvement: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and (again) in Somalia.

I will be posting much more on this topic as time proceeds. Check back often and at other reputable sites. Then pitch in help any way you can to us in this new war at home: The War on Veterans and Military Retirees.

Thanks in advance.

More Raw Deal — Unintended Consequences Plus More Pain

2011-08-03T13:10:00.002-04:00

Slide and Thanks from the Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC.com)

(Red Highlights are Mine)

The unintended (or maybe they were intended) consequences of the debt ceiling deal, which is a lousy deal for the entire country in my view, is in part clearly shown on this chart by making things even worse (jobs losses are very worrisome).

The audio and visual part of the Maddow Show can be seen here (15-minutes). It is worth your time.

A couple of points that Maddow mention are worth underscoring - like:

The GOP loves those automatic triggers, but they hate compromise, so we end up with a shitty deal (excuse my French), but the deal stinks to high heaven, like, well, you know a pile of you-know-what. Maybe like horse hockey (as my grandpa used to say).

Background: The trigger will be pulled automatically on spending if no future deals can be agreed to by any plan the "super committee" of 12 comes up with and puts forth for a vote, but no amendments or filibuster will be allowed. That plan will only need 7 votes to move the bill along for the final vote. Seven members of the House and Senate deciding the future of the country and not even the President has a say-so. Some deal, right?

If the the plan, or Raw Deal II that I call it, can't be agreed to, then those automatic, mandatory cuts kick in (the trigger is pulled and we shoot our collective self in the head).

The point is that the DEMS seem to think that negotiations are like a game. If we lose this time, then we are supposed to win next time. Sadly, this is a not a circumstance where if you lose, you are supposed to win, or presuppose, it's your time to win.

I further note that the GOP takes no prisoners in this kind of war -- a sustained war on the entire Federal system of government. They will not be satisfied, and their tactics on this "deal" show clearly beyond any doubt, is to dismantle the entire government and make it fit in a TEA bag.

The GOP are not satisfied with the history and greatness of our country, despite always saying they are, which as worked pretty darn good for over 235 years, until they get the changes to the basics that they want. Funny, I always though the GOP stood for tradition, the basics, and the rock-solid Constitutional framework. Ha - where'd that go? Now, they are content to downsize the entire Federal system including not only the size and cost of government, but axe the role, function, and purpose of government. Funny, but not ha ha funny. I thought those questions were settled in 1776 and 1865.

All I am saying is that the GOP loves automatic triggers and mandatory cuts, but they hate compromise. Those things of course mean they can further duck their sworn duties by passing the buck (assumes there is a buck to be passed).

The GOP hates hard work and positive outcomes unless and until they get their way for their political base and of course, for the upper crust who relies on the GOP to change the rules to benefit the upper crust.

It's a great symbiotic relationship for the GOP and big money and big corporations that apparently are now getting their final way (they think).

It's like that little bird that rides around on the Rhino's back eating the insects that irritate the Rhino all the while getting a free ride and protection. In this case the insects are the DEMS and the public (i.e., Unions, public employees, teachers, seniors, students and the less-fortunate), and the Rhino is well you know who the Rhino is.

What I see unfolding is not the country I have known all my life, nor served proudly for over 40 years, and it's probably not yours, either. The question is: What do we intend to do about it?

Square Deal, New Deal, Fair Deal, and now Raw Deal

2011-08-02T14:28:00.001-04:00

In New York State we have our own "Three men and a budget: The Governor along with the Senate and Assembly majority chiefs (I am reluctant to call them "leaders"). They always decide the final budget outcome, and all the time ...

That now exists in DC with these three and the "Raw Deal." [story from here - The Ticket].

"The Senate on Tuesday voted to raise the nation's debt ceiling, saving the government from potentially defaulting on its debts and concluding a heated, protracted battle in Washington. Senators voted 74-26 to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling this afternoon following last night's House passage of the bill. The legislation increases the debt ceiling by $2 trillion and is offset by federal spending cuts, some of which will be directed later this year by a select congressional committee." (Note: those cuts will automatic if they can't agree - that my friends is not very democratic and may not pass constitutional muster - wait and see).

So, in the end, it's kinda pathetic and sad at the same time.

BTW: Where's Boehner in this pic? Oh, he stepped out for more TEA and golf.

Space Shuttle Program Done — GOP Has New One Ready

2011-07-18T13:56:00.002-04:00

Again, the cartoonists are way ahead of the rest of us, capturing the moment in as few words as possible.

This just in time for August 2, 2011 — another date that will live in infamy (maybe).

Thanks, GOP, thanks a heluva lot.

Dangerous Road for the GOP — Tread Carefully

2011-06-28T22:13:00.001-04:00

The road to "saving" or "reforming" Social Security is a death ride and dead wish for the GOP.

The GOP plans to dismantle Medicare and/or cancel Medicaid (health care for the poor) with various budget gimmicks. Nothing they propose will do anything except give them away to Wall Street brokers and private firms and will effectively end these very popular and very effective programs.

Social Security has served seniors well for over 75 years - change is not advised.

The Divide is as Wide as Ever

2011-05-25T21:09:00.000-04:00

Wall Street Profits: Up. Main Street Morale: Down

The story headlines says it all: "Bank Profits Soar and Corporate Bonuses Swell as Broader Economy Stagnates

Highlights:

The divide between corporate fortunes and those of ordinary Americans continues to widen, as banks post strong profits and the nation's largest companies boost executive pay.

Banks and corporations are exhibiting a confidence reminiscent of pre-crisis days, even as the broader economy still sputters. Bank profits soared in the first three months of the year, and corporate profits likewise swelled last year. And executives saw ever fatter bonuses.

Continue reading here.

Bartender: I'll have another shot - how about you??

2011-05-17T17:41:00.000-04:00

Guns in Bars: big GOP goal or big GOP nightmare???

Guns in public, guns in church, guns on campus, guns in schools, guns openly carried to public rallies or political events - so why not in bars, right?

STORY here from Ohio:

[snip] ... Republican-controlled state houses across the country appear to be touting a new motto: Allow guns everywhere. At the urging of the gun lobby, state legislatures are welcoming firearms into parks, schools, government buildings, university campuses, churches, and day-care centers.

[snip] ... Ohio’s GOP-led house contributed to the nonsensical effort with a bill that allows Ohioans with concealed-carry permits to bring a gun into a bar, restaurant, or “open air arena” like a sports stadium that serves alcohol. The reasoning? Ohioans should be able to protect themselves.

This "rationale" which is NOT rational at all is madness, shear and utter madness. It's worse than the GOP kowtowing to "cut taxes for the rich and upper crust," they will create jobs.

The Unemployed & Downtrodden Need Help at Home

2011-04-29T13:08:00.001-04:00

Where you stand depends on where you sit ...

Posted originally on 11/23/2009. However, my emphasis remains the same today. Who do our top businesses really help all the while they continue to ask the GOP for more tax breaks to "create jobs." This story underscores the growing anger, and rightly so.

This story : India may get $1 billion in IT outsourcing contracts needs to be tracked closely over the next few months. But, a lot of damage dates back to 2003 and before that in some cases. Below will address that era.

MUMBAI, INDIA(Reuters) – Leading Indian outsourcers such as Tata Consultancy; Infosys; and Wipro stand to gain contracts worth about $1 billion in the next one or two years as U.S. banks emerge from the troubled asset relief program (TARP).

JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have received approval to buy back government stake worth $68 billion earlier this year are among the firms seeking operational efficiencies by outsourcing non-core IT and back-office projects to India. American Express, Bank of New York Mellon, and Capital One, which have started repaying government debt, were also considering outsourcing.

This story back in 2003 from Forbes.com. The highlights:

IBM plans to move some of its software design jobs to India and they say they are simply following its rivals.

Dozens of blue-chip companies, including Microsoft; Oracle; Bank of America; JP Morgan Chase; and GE have all set up shop in India.

Consulting firm Forrester Research predicts that 3.3 million service-sector jobs will move from the United States to India and other nations by 2015.

Remember this story is from 2003.

Kinda scary isn't it? So, what is our government doing about the obvious disconnect? Not much. The Taxpayers? Taking it in the shorts [again].

I am not advocating protectionism, not a all, but a little help at home would sure make the home town folks happy to see their government actually working for them for a change (and just small change, either).

So, we can assume that TARP worked ? At least for India.

Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way

2011-04-29T12:56:00.001-04:00

“Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”

I am re-posting some issues that need continued focus. Leadership is one. A member of congress may not vote the way we want them to vote, or vote when we want them to vote, and some issues linger without ever seeing a vote - - but the member still has their voice to speak out on important issues. That is leading, too. The assault on Unions, Public Employees, Teachers, the new Health Care law, vouchers for Medicare and more burden on the poor - all the while more and more breaks flow to the top 2-3 percent is plainly not right. Speaking out against those things is leading. The following was originally posted on 1/6/2010.

In this post I can't, won't or don't intend to speak for all Democrats – I speak for only myself, or perhaps for a few who feel the same way I do about the events over the past year in Congress.

I am a lifelong Democrat, having first voted in 1964 while I was still on active duty in the Marine Corps. I have voted every election since, missing only a couple due to military deployments. I believe in the party foundation, principles, values and goals; but for the life of me, I think we have lost our way, or at least in the way we govern in the majority since wins in 2006 and bigger wins in 2008.

The people have twice given the DEMS the reins of power – in 2006 and again even bigger in 2008. The Democrats have the power and majorities to lead. After eight miserable years of the Bush-Cheney and poor GOP administration, the country said “No. No more. Here are the reins of government, do something and reverse our course and do some good for a change.”

However, thus far, the Democrats have failed. Much of that failure has been due to the massive GOP resistance on practically every bill or proposal in the House and Senate. Roadblocks and potholes and obstruction are the GOP's middle name – that is a fact and most people know it, too.

But, the Democrats have willingly in some cases fallen into those holes and got steamrolled and asphalted over in the process. That is not what the public wants or needed. Democrats should always work and try to get cooperation from the GOP, and vice versa, but when that fails, they have to move on and do the people’s work and leave the road blockers behind.

Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, and a few other DEM “leaders” have not done a very good job of leading as far as I can assess, and I am very good at assessing these things. How did this happen? More importantly, why did this happen? What lies ahead? The why is the easy part to answer: It has been a total lack of focus and leadership.

For example, we all know that George W. Bush lost the focus in Afghanistan (which initially was the right goal) as he changed direction and guided us into Iraq ... Iraq has been a total disaster. Meanwhile back in Afghanistan, the problem was never solved, and now it is getting worse.

Many others would say that those events (Iraq mostly) has caused more terrorists to spring up and spread (Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan to name three) -- and they would be right.

What did the invasion of Iraq produce, other than dead and destruction and misery for eight years? It looks like more of the same that has now led us to the brink of perpetual war around the globe with the United States deep inside that loop. To me, this is unacceptable. More so is the lack of leadership in Congress.

Nasty campaigns and big spending are a way of life as many claw their way (or buy their way) into Congress, and after they get there what do they do? Roll up their sleeves and work hard as promised, or work hard to stay in office anyway possible. That answer is self-evident.

Now, some Democrats in Congress are leaving the party and joining the GOP.

Long-time senators: Byron Dorgan and Chris Dodd are retiring. Two DEM seats: one in Delaware and one in Illinois will have to be defended. Sen. Byrd from WV is very ill. The question is, can the DEMS hold these DEM seats, or better yet, do they deserve to hold these seats?

Finally, what is pathetically ironic about everything that has happened since November 2008 did not have to happen. Now, the GOP has mastered the PR game (organized and funded the Tea Party rascals, guided and disrupted Town Hall meetings, and now they say they are moving in for the Coup d’gras to finish off the DEMS).

Sadly, the GOP owns all the steamrollers. Just as sadly, they are not popular, either, even with their own base (cite: the special election win in our own 23rd district). Put that aside, the GOP continues to do their nasty deeds as the DEMS stand by and watch. The worst part is watching the DEMS waiting to be steamrolled.

All this has made DEMS like me very angry and upset. Many are silent, or won't speak out like I do, but that is their problem, not mine; I will speak out, and as loudly as possible. Those who are silent show me that they, local or state-wide DEMS, also need to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

The GOP gave us disaster and misery for eight long years and now they are basking in the sun as they fry the DEMS in their own oil.

That is not leading – not one bit.

Cry wolf when wolf is at your door

2011-04-29T12:45:00.004-04:00

USSC 5-4 gave us this (Wolf at our door)???

Note: I am updating several previous posting to reflect a continued emphasis some issues that just will not go away - this is one. The following was originally posted 1/2/2010.

The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision invalidated a sixty-three year-old ban on corporate money in federal elections.

The ruling gives corporations essentially the same rights as individuals in their ability to spend freely on political advertising, even if those advertisements explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate.

One consequence of this decision is that foreign corporations with U.S.-subsidiaries are likely to be able to now spend unlimited amounts on American elections

Many say we who oppose this are just crying wolf... well... okay, but when the wolf is at your doorstep with a moving van full of money, it's kinda late to cry anything except "Help..."

How about this tip? “The concern over foreign influence in our political system is a red herring,” said Nancy McLernon, the head of OII, who previously worked for Citizens for a Sound Economy, a stealth “grassroots” corporate lobbying group now known as Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks. Saudi Arabia has already signaled that the progressive effort to build a clean energy American economy is its “biggest threat”: Saudi Arabia’s economy depends on oil exports so stands to be one of the biggest losers in any pact that curbs oil demand by penalizing carbon emissions.

How about this from the Saudis:

“It’s one of the biggest threats that we are facing,” said Muhammed al-Sabban, head of the Saudi delegation to U.N. talks on climate change and a senior economic adviser to the Saudi oil ministry. [...] Climate talks posed a bigger threat, Sabban said, and subsidies for the development of renewable energy were distorting market economics in the sector, he said.

Presumably because of the Citizens United ruling, Saudi Arabian-owned subsidiaries operating in the United States can now spend unlimited amounts advocating the defeat of candidates who support clean energy legislation.

So, who is crying wolf now? Unless and until Congress and the courts work to reverse this, I believe our entire electoral system is in jeopardy.

Wolf, wolf, wolf ...

Citizens United Ruling: The fallout just keeps on coming

2011-04-28T18:54:00.001-04:00

Contest Winner: Draw the New American Flag

The story comes from here, and in part:

[snip] ... in Tennessee, GOP lawmakers are trying to replicate the corporate takeover of the federal government by lifting the state’s own ban on direct corporate contributions and raising the amount of money PACs can contribute. The bill was sponsored by three Republican legislators and was approved by committees in both the House and Senate on party-line votes -- the Knoxville News-Sentinel reports.

We had to have known this was coming, and just in time for 2012.

Appointment of big donors to plum jobs: Shocking

2011-04-25T22:18:00.001-04:00

Gov. Andrew Cuomo

The story from the AP here -- in part:

ALBANY, NY (AP) — Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s historic panel charged with making government more efficient began its work Monday (April 25, 2011) with introductions, although a number of the business leaders may have already met at Cuomo campaign fundraisers.

Seven of the more than 20 members to the prestigious panel are among Cuomo’s biggest contributors. State records show they donated more than $245,000 to his campaigns dating to his attorney general race in 2006.

My View: What do people expect, or want; a bunch of $250.00 donors placed on these prestigious panels working to solve government problems, or to make recommendations to their elected leader(s) about how to fix Albany, or even how to reform Washington, DC. Such talk is nearly total and complete heresy ... besides, what would the big donors get for their money (which certainly exceeds any minor $250.00 contribution)?

All joking aside, and this is not a joking matter: it is the money, never forget that. Those with the big money are the only ones who can think about solutions to our problems, and besides all the heavy lifting is left to the people later on after all those recommendations are put into law with new mandates, and of course, at election time when they are needed most.

GOP fallacy: Cut upper level taxes — jobs will follow

2011-04-19T18:33:00.000-04:00

This the only thing that will work - not more tax cuts for the upper crust - who continue to fail on their promises.

The story highlights from here:

A Washington Post/ABC News poll just released finds that 44 percent, a plurality, of Americans think the economy is getting worse, rather than staying the same or getting better. With unemployment hovering around 9.6 percent while economic inequality is at levels not seen since the Depression, many Americans feel as if the economy is leaving them behind (they are right to feel this way).

~ more ~

The Wall Street Journal also reports that Corporate America certainly isn’t doing its part to help bring America out of its economic malaise. The paper surveyed employment data by some of the nation’s largest corporations — General Electric, Caterpillar, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Chevron, Cisco, Intel, Stanley Works, Merck, United Technologies, and Oracle — and they found that those corporations have cut their U.S. workforces by 2.9 million people over the last decade while hiring 2.4 million people overseas.

Change We Can Believe In: Later, Maybe; Not Now

2011-04-11T17:07:00.012-04:00

Excellent story about President Obama and his administration thus far in his first term. It comes from a very smart man, and a very liberal Democrat, too [story from AlterNet.org] click here.

Highlights:

"I hope the President decides he has to take a stand, and the sooner the better. Last December he caved in to Republican demands that the Bush tax cut be extended to wealthier Americans for two more years, at a cost of more than $60 billion. That was only the beginning —

"Last week he gave away more than half the sandwich — $39 billion less than was budgeted for 2010, $79 billion less than he originally requested. Non-defense discretionary spending — basically, everything from roads and bridges to schools and innumerable programs for the poor — has been slashed.

"The right-wing bullies are emboldened. They will hold the nation hostage again and again."

Mr. Reich's home page is here — source of the original story. It is worth reading.

Shutdown averted for now . . .

2011-04-09T02:02:00.016-04:00

Sen. Leader Reid, prays for a breakthrough. Pres. Obama, "You're the man, Harry." And, Speaker Boehner warming up to break the news to the House GOP caucus.

Breaking News (half an hour before the midnight deadline).

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama and congressional leaders reached a historic agreement to cut about $38 billion in spending and avert the first federal closure in 15 years. Mr. Obama hailed the deal as "the biggest annual spending cut in history."

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that over the next decade it would cut government spending by $500 billion — and won an ovation from his rank and file, tea party adherents among them. DEM Senate Majority Leader Reid said, "This is historic, what we've done." They each announced the agreement less than an hour before government funding was due to run out, instantly turning hundreds of thousands of furlough notices for federal workers into historical relics.

The Senate will vote on several measures (GOP "riders") out of good faith to seal the deal -- those votes will include:

* An attempt by Republican to curtail the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

* The GOP demand to deny federal funds to Planned Parenthood.

* GOP anti-abortion lawmakers succeeded in winning a provision to ban the use of federal or local government funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia.

* A Boehner priority that lets DC students use federally funded vouchers to attend private schools was included.

* A GOP proposal (one of many) to deny federal funding to implement the year-old health care law, which they refer to as "Obamacare). It is certain to fall short of the required 60 votes but will place Democrats on the record as voting to keep it.

More deals may come to light before and during the Senate vote session needed to seal the deal that was started in the House.

Time will tell, so hang on tight.

Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges

2011-04-04T20:29:00.005-04:00

KSM and AG Holder: To be tried at Gitmo by Military Tribunal

Holder's statement (April 4, 2011) in part, which this blogger totally agrees with, is here:

[snip] " ... since I made that decision (about holding the trials in civil courts), Members of Congress have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the administration from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States, regardless of the venue.

"As the President has said, those unwise and unwarranted restrictions undermine our counter-terrorism efforts and could harm our national security. Decisions about who, where and how to prosecute have always been - and must remain - the responsibility of the executive branch.

"Members of Congress simply do not have access to the evidence and other information necessary to make prosecution judgments. Yet they have taken one of the nation's most tested counter-terrorism tools off the table and tied our hands in a way that could have serious ramifications. We will continue to seek to repeal those restrictions."

Holder's full statement is here [click here].

How so many, and mostly on the political right, can fear our judicial system and not trust it is beyond comprehension... the are vast and huge and critical differences between civil and military trials. The results many not please those who say they seek justice.

A major concern of many is that military tribunals give status to criminals who are nothing more than terrorists -- they are not soldiers, members of any organized military force or country, and they should be treated that way: as a petty criminals. Civil court proves to the world that we are fair, just, and honest brokers for justice. Military tribunals do the exact opposite.

These trials will be watched closely. The outcome may surprise us all.

This post's title translation - (Latin): "In times of war, the law falls silent."

The safest place in America...

2011-04-02T20:41:00.004-04:00

The safest place for your life's savings and perhaps yourself once the meat-axe GOP crowd, now governed by the TEA "party" and not the public, is done with the country. . . tell me I am wrong?

Keep on reading here - a very good article.

Which is more important: Law or Lies

2011-03-21T17:58:00.006-04:00

President or Country First...

The War Powers Act: Did Mr. Obama simply ignore it, or blow it off vis-á-vis Libya military assault?

The Facts: The heart of the War Powers Act follows.

It was passed in 1973 and is codified as 50 U.S.C. 1541–1548. It was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action - two major provisions:

1. Only by authorization of Congress, or

2. If the United States is already under attack, or serious threat.

The law requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, and/or with a further 30 day withdrawal period without an authorization of the use of military force, or a declaration of war.

The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

My View: I think that the law was totally ignored by Obama; maybe not even considered.

He did not as stated above have (1) "congressional authorization" to attack Libya because as 2 states clearly above, "we were not under attack, or a serious threat" (simply did not exist) ...

Seems to me that: "I swear I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God" is a crock, Mr. President. Is it or not?

Gillibrand wants troops home now

2011-03-17T23:41:00.004-04:00

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Updated (March 17, 2011): House votes down by a huge margin a fixed withdrawal date from Afghanistan (called H. CON. RES.28) 93 (Yes) - 321 (No).

Story from Here: Gillibrand wants US troops out of Afghanistan by 2014, and she will formally ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to negotiate a redeployment agreement with fixed time schedule. She wants it to be based on the one developed for Iraq, and she wants the agreement to establish a 2014 end date. She says she'll support legislation that would start drawing down troops on July 1 of this year.

Update (March 17, 2011): The House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected a resolution calling for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The vote was 356 against and 65 in favor of the resolution.

Gillibrand will now have to move back to the drawing board, perhaps to work on the "no-fly" zone over Libya that the UN just approved. Many say such an action will be an act of war. It would be the third for us in the Middle East.

Hypocrites R Us: Signed: the GOP

2011-03-01T20:59:00.004-05:00

Also, do not "cross" the GOP rightwing TEA controllers -- that may be hazardous to your health, too ...

This story is from here [click here].

The question posed is critical and restated this way:

[snip] ... with a recent surge in unprecedented attacks on reproductive rights -- federal assaults on women’s right to use private funding for abortion and the GOP House attempts to defund Planned Parenthood -- it certainly seems like it’s high season for GOP-rightwing-TEA misogyny. In the woman-hating clamor, one story has risen to the top ... "

[more from the link]

So, how do those attacks coupled with proposed cuts in most social programs like education, WIC, food stamps, low-income heating assistance, public assistance, and attacks on Unions help reduce the debt, balance any budget, stop the wild deficit spending, or bring home the troops from the two wars?

I wonder - tic toc, tic toc, tic toc (the proverbial clock is running out on this newest GOP scam).

Health Care: Repeal, De-fund, or Combo

2011-02-18T22:02:00.004-05:00

Cartoon Credit by Chad Lowe at the Florida Sun Sentinel

This cartoon needs no further explanation.

We shall see, so place your bets. The current odds makers are running 5-4 (but, which way)?

Get your government hands off my government program...

2011-02-15T22:43:00.003-05:00

A better/clearer view of this chart can be seen here.

The basic story is here.

A few highlights from the story follow:

"The vast bulk of government spending, which goes to mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare, is completely exempted. And Republicans have effectively exempted the departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs from cuts. This leaves only 16 percent of the budget from which they will extract their pound of flesh to satisfy voters who demand huge budget cuts but also oppose cutting just about any program except foreign aid."

"In coming weeks we could see a dramatic turnaround in public opinion on government spending. Up until now, it has all been theoretical; Republicans could easily pander to the Tea Party crowd with big promises of shrinking government without anyone in that crowd believing that it will affect them in any way."

Remember this historical moment from a TEA town hall meeting when an attendee famously told his congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare?" Apparently that bewilderingly blinkered sentiment is hardly unique.

Finally this link provides a 123-page study title: "WHO PAYS TAXES AND WHO RECEIVES GOVERNMENT SPENDING? AN ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL TAX AND SPENDING DISTRIBUTIONS, 1991-2004."

I post it simply for those so inclined to leaf through the report. However, it does show the huge disconnect in what people want (or need, I would argue) from their government, but at the same time appear ignorant about exactly how government does vs. their desire to get government out of their lives.

Were it that simple. Sadly, far too many are bent on getting government out of their lives and also seem blank about what is the alternative to a well-established governmental system that we have developed in over 200 years of American history.

Perhaps they should take an adult class at night to review the things they say they want to fight for, yet seen ignorant about what those things stand for in reality.

Obama Budget: Post-Mortem not Needed

2011-02-14T16:17:00.004-05:00

Painting: "The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp" by Rembrandt, and the 2012 Federal Budget by President Obama

President Obama will surely take some heat over his 2012 budget proposals (social cuts), and rightly, at least in some corners as reported on here by HuffPost, but little praise from the GOP regarding this story from the WSJ here.

However, it is safe to say and keep in mind for anyone who thinks that the present all-GOP House, or any new all-GOP Senate (if they win in 2012), or a Republican in the White House after 2012, would work to solve our financial problem and economic mess to improve our collective worth, then they are already dead. A post-mortem is not needed. We already know the cause: Diseased brain due to lack of common sense and fresh air.

Post-Mortem on Reaganomics: That was the theory of economics that contended, and still does in some circles today, that when there are drastic reductions in upper level tax rates that the affect will stimulate productive investment by corporations and the wealthy at the top to the benefit of the entire rest of society at the bottom (i.e., trickle down), and that they will create jobs.

It failed under Ronald Reagan and under George W. Bush. But, we still have not learned our lesson. If that sort of thing worked as promised, then we must ask: "Where are the jobs promised by the two last Bush tax cuts, and what happened in 2008?"

GOP Rightwing View of Facts Passing as Opinion

2011-02-11T16:37:00.003-05:00

I like this story. You might like it, too.

Intro: "As you may have noticed by following their writings, conservatives are not sticklers for historical accuracy, especially when they have a point to defend and not a lot of evidence to support it... "

Enjoy.

GOP Definition of Happines in America...

2011-02-03T21:34:00.002-05:00

Armed to the teeth and loving the crap out of it.

This story by way of Utah . . .

State symbol? Give me a break.

"On a one-time-only holiday honoring Utah gun-maker John Moses Browning (.45 cal. M1911 pistol shown above as well as a number of other guns), a bill that would designate the handgun as a state symbol was endorsed by a state House committee on the way to becoming Utah law."

A nice gesture or madness misplaced? Don't me wrong, Mr. Browning developed some great guns, but as a state symbol? I don't think so, unless Nevada or Tennessee want to adopt the A-bomb as their symbol?

It's not a real hard choice, is it? Unless a few states were to adopt a bullet-ridden target as their next state flag (draft copy above), or has AZ already thought of that? (Psst: don't give them any ideas).

GOP: Unable to practice what they preach

2011-01-28T19:45:00.002-05:00

Part of Rep. Paul Ryan's GOP budget plan to reduce spending and the size of government.

Updated: Sen. GOP Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says Mr. Obama can get what he wants if he acts like a Republican and follows their lead. One thing is for sure, Mr. McConnell, "Arrogance is not a good sign of effective leadership."

GOP tactics are clear, and are shown in this excellent 14:48 minute video from MSNBC.com (click here). The main points are explained by the University of Texas Government Professor and leading Economist, James Galbraith, at about the 11-minute mark.

The bottom line as they say: The GOP preaches smaller government, less spending, reduced taxes, and fewer regulations when it benefits their side, their supporters, or those they try to impress as potential donors and supporters, regardless of the outcome that they often fail to deliver on.

Ryan will also deliver the GOP's response to President Obama's State of the Union address on January 25, 2011. That should be very interesting to watch if for no reason than to see the laundry list of things the GOP plans to do, or says they will do, but probably will not do.

Right now the new GOP motto might as well be "Hypocrites R Us."

They have a record to prove it that starts back from 2001-2007, when they controlled the White House and both branches of Congress. Then they racked up the huge deficits that Mr. Obama inherited in 2009.

Stay tuned. It outta be good to watch.

GOP: Unable to Practice What They Preach

2011-01-22T00:31:00.005-05:00

Part of Rep. Paul Ryan's GOP budget plan to reduce spending and the size of government.

Right now the new GOP motto might as well be "Hypocrites R Us."

Stay tuned. It outta be good to watch.

Americans are Hurting: Some real Reasons

2011-01-18T15:11:00.004-05:00

The Story Headline: Many Americans Face Economic Catastrophe.

The Question Posed: Why Do the Political and Media Establishments Ignore Their Suffering?

The Sub-Issue Obvious: Our leaders appear to be oblivious to the profound economic pain the majority of Americans are experiencing.

My Response: Average Americans are hurting because they do not have a lobbyist working for them on a daily basis in the halls of Congress. They do not have a bunch of well-funded PACs behind them hammering away for their benefits and rights (or favors). They can't rely on a 5-4 USSC rulings to say that they and not "Giant Corporations" are the same.

Their elected officials speak to them in sound bytes and provide easily-broken promises. Their access to government is usually by email, fax, phone, and regular mail . . . seldom if ever can they get into their Representative's or Senator's office. (Lucky is they can even get them on the phone).

In short, they are on the outside looking in for answers, and it is not right or just.

Shameful Bill; Shameful Vote: Shame on Congress

2010-12-17T14:16:00.002-05:00

Tax Cut Deal: Deal for whom?

UPDATE (December 17, 2010): Bill passes the House as agreed to by the Senate - off to Obama's desk for signature on Saturday... story highlights here - the First Responder no-new-funds part is still a sad, sad story as seen on the Daily Show last night here.

Congress loves to remind us that they always look out for middle-income Americans, right - not according to this spread!! The only thing that comes to mind is DUCK!! What duck??

There is so much wrong with this "compromise" that I don't know where to begin or end, but logic tells me that this could be the beginning of the end, to borrow an old cliche.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) nailed it in his nearly 9-hour senate floor speech last week. There is little in what he said that most level-headed people cannot agree with. Sadly, there are not many level-headed members in this Congress, let alone in the Senate. Be on guard, the next Congress (with a huge GOP House majority and slight increase in the Senate) will raise holy hell. Everything up till this point has been to stop Obama - everything from this point on will be to stop Obama. What a deal. I always thought elections were about that all-encompassing word: C H A N G E ?? I'm surprised anyone in Congress can even spell the word let alone understand what change means other than for their own political gain and survival - not the country's.

The worst part in this agreement to many is the impact on Social Security next year after the impact hits home.

The best of Social Security:

1. Social Security undeniably benefits the American people in several categories and has for now for 75 years. The latest data available from the Census Bureau shows that 13 million seniors are kept out of poverty due to Social Security.

2. Without Social Security, the poverty rate for those aged 65 and over would exceed 40 percent in 42 states.
3. Social Security makes up a majority of income for more than half of the seniors in the country, and that right now is particularly important for African-Americans and Hispanic seniors, representing at least 90 percent of income for about one-third of both populations.

We need to keep moving forward and not backwards. The GOP wolves are anxious to jump on social security, chew it to pieces, or worse, give it to Wall Street. Then they will move on to their equally important goal: Repeal health care that just passed.

The worst of this Obama-GOP tax cut deal:

The Obama-GOP “tax cut deal” knocks 2 percentage points off the payroll contributions to Social Security that some 155 million workers in 2011 would normally have to pay 6.2 percent of the total (their share). That lowers it 4.2 percent for all workers for one-year to give them a “tax break.” Their employers would continue to pay their full share of 6.2 percent. Overall though, the amount that would have normally have gone into the trust fund would be reduced by 2 percent for that year – that equals about $120 billion – keep that number in mind.

After one-year, the Federal government (not the states) have to re-deposit that $120 billion back into the the Social Security Trust Fund to make it whole and to make sure that the previous tax holiday (one-year tax break) does not add to the program’s long-term deficit. This about to become a bone of contention – keep that bone of contention in mind, too.Mr. Obama says the tax holiday will enable the average worker to hang on to $1,000 for the year, which sounds good (not a lot of money, $1,000 nevertheless). However, that part of the plan worries a lot of people who track social security. Why? For example, that 2 percent payroll-tax cut would give millionaires $2,236 for the year — hardly an amount to enough to make a difference in their spending lives, but certainly more than the $1,000 for their workers. Keep that in mind, too.

For a year, the average worker earning $40,000, would actually get about $800.00; not even the full $1,000.00. Worse, the typical African-American employee would see less than $700 spread over that same year, and a typical Latino or Native American employee would see only an extra $600 for the entire year. You do the math.

The nasty, sticky political part.

As stated, the Federal government would have to repay the Social Security trust fund the the $120 billion in lost tax receipts – yes, money that otherwise would have been there for the entire year of 2011.

Now, however, many experts and members of Congress, including some Republicans, say the GOP is likely to try and make that 2 percentage-point cut permanent. That is more likely as we move into the 2012 presidential election cycle: They would call it “a tax increase, and that will add to the deficit.” See the madness in their so-called logic of this “tax cut” deal for worker? Keep that in mind, too.

If the GOP were to succeed with that thinking, and you can bet they will pull out all the stops in their Ad campaigns with TEA protesters galore.

Then the hope is that the GOP will add to their numbers in Congress thus fulfilling their long term goal: kill Social Security or at least privatize it. GOP leaders will fight against continuing to pay that $120 billion back to the trust fund, instead not fund it and just let it die a slow death by not being fully funded and making people consider alternatives – as they blame the DEMS along the way. An excellent plan. Keep that in mind (for them), but not for retirees or near-retirees.What would we see would be the doubling of the program’s long-term funding shortfall – an amount that is currently manageable, and would be unmanageable with the replacement of that $120 billion. Were that to happen, which is very likely, then the GOP would realize a long held “self-fulfilling prophecy” – fixing or funding the program is unsustainable, so get if off the government’s back.

The use of the word hoax that Alf Landon called it in 1936 would be realized. One would have to assume he rolled over in his grave and is now laughing up this sleeve as he says, “See, I told you so.” Keep that in mind, too.

When FDR launched Social Security in 1935, he explained that as a universal entitlement, the program would have the support of Americans across the board. He was correct and support remains very high for the program, because people at every income level contribute and benefit.

That philosophy has kept the political wolves at bay for over 75 years, and those wolves were mostly from the GOP pack.

Social Security taxes "ought to be held sacrosanct" say many in Congress, as well as nearly every citizen who draws that monthly check. It has kept seniors out of poverty and helped millions every single year.

Now as we see a signal that says the tax levels needed to fund it are negotiable, then you end up in long-term trouble.

Sen. Schumer is for this bill, and so is Rep. Owens. Sen. Gillibrand voted "No." However, I suspect she checked the wind carrying the votes and then voted "No." I read her press statement. I simply do no follow her rationale or logic - it's too "canned."

Keep all this in mind going into next year, and then 2012: It’s going to be a barn burner.

Tax Deal: Hide and Seek Provisions

2010-12-09T10:38:00.007-05:00

Donkeys through the windshield. Drivers firmly in control: the GOP

A lot is being written and talked about re: the Obama-GOP tax "deal," which in many people's view is not deal at all except for the wealthy (upper 2-3% tax bracket and those with estates over $5 million - which leaves a lot Americans far, far behind).

The AP stats here (extract):

"More than 40,000 estates worth $1 million to $10 million would be expected to escape inheritance taxes next year under the deal struck by Republicans and President Barack Obama. The package would leave only about 3,500 of the largest estates subject to federal taxes next year, a boon for the wealthy that many House Democrats say they can't accept."

Talk about a drop in the bucket - how about a drop in the Pacific Ocean?

For the DEMS in Congress (who will vote for this bill): None of you, and especially for Mr. Obama, can ever say again with a straight face that you stand with Main Street/Mom and Pop/or Middle-class America ... that is flat false, and so are you if you support this bill.

For the GOP in Congress: screw you because you are screwing Americans (again).

We know where and with whom they stand. For the low-income and middle-income Republicans (and yes, there are plenty of them, too, just there are in the DEM party) this short message: You have been had (again).

More Analysis: Paul Krugman (NY Times). Winners and Losers CBS MoneyWatch. The Kansas City Star (Heartland of America)?

The bottom line as I see it: A total lack of leadership on all sides (mostly at the very top).

"Government of, by and for the people?" — How about Congress of, by and for big businesses, Industry off-shore, Wall Street, big Bankers, the top 2-3 percent, and Chinese lenders?

Axes of Evil: What damage is forthcoming

2010-11-30T16:44:00.007-05:00

GOP Sen. Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell; President Obama; GOP Speaker-to-Be John Boehner

The story from Salon.com [here] reveals some interesting points of contention about the Obama-GOP summit in the White House needed for serious public consideration, which we will not see or have.

Mr. Obama: He emerged from Tuesday's morning "summit meeting" with the Congressional leadership (November 30th) from both parties and made a valiant effort to put some lipstick on a lame-duck legislative pig. He said he was happy with a "productive meeting." He called the "first chance to get together face to face since the election.... a good start as we move forward." He said that Americans "did not vote for gridlock, did not vote for unyielding partisanship." He claimed that this new effort to find common ground between Republicans and Democrats would "yield results."

From the GOP:

(Boehner's own words): "Hell no, you can't."

(McConnell's main priority): "Make Barack Obama a one-term president."

Excellent rebuttal from a very smart man, also at Salon.com [here].

I rest my case for now - but stay tuned.

Owens says he might vote for Boehner as Speaker...

2010-11-23T23:49:00.005-05:00

Will the "real" Rep. Bill Owens sign in, please: as a DEM or as a GOPer??

Basic story follows this update (November 27, 2010): Owens now apparently has backpedaled and said he was "just blowing off steam" with the comment about voting for Boehner as Speaker. Bill Owens continues to be flaky and wishy-washy . . . but, now watch his "supporters" rally for him and against me... what a deal??

Original Story: This story is starting to make the rounds from "The Hill" (click here), in part it states:

Quote: "Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) said he voted for current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for minority leader in a House Democratic caucus meeting last week, even though he thinks she is too liberal. But Owens said he is open to supporting John Boehner (R-OH), whom House Republicans designated as the next Speaker, when the full House votes next year." Unquote

My Input: Owens only became a legally-registered Democrat after he was selected to run in and won the 2008 open seat vacated by John McHugh (R) who was picked as President Obama as the new Secretary of the Army. McHugh had been the Rep. for this district since 1993. Up until after that election, Owens was not a registered Democrat.

Now this pops up - why? Whom is he trying to impress? The GOP, surely he jests. They are on record as opposing everything DEMS put forth and more so now with the large majority they will have after January by their wild statements about repealing this, cancelling that, amending this, discording that, etc. etc.

If Mr. Owens does in fact vote for Boehner as the next speaker, which BTW, he is not obligated to do by any stretch, then I am declaring now that I will oppose him for the 2012 race. Then let the GOP support him like he is willing to support their leader, John Boehner.

The DEMS slapped down every lifelong, hardworking DEM when they selected Owens to become a DEM and run in 2008 for the seat over many other highly-qualified DEM candidates, and now Owens returns the favor by slapping down the party with this potential stunt, or blunder in the making?

We shall see.

You did your job: What happened??

2010-11-22T23:40:00.003-05:00

Define Irony:

Update (November 22, 2010): GOP stalls START treaty; GOP sticking to upper class tax cut (top 2-3%); GOP no on any more unemployment extension; GOP threatens to repeal health care.

What's going on here?

Pass all sorts of good bills and get them into law through our established representative government process that benefit and serve millions and millions of Americans. The way things are supposed to work, and then what happened?

They get kicked out of office.

Not only that but the House passed an historic 400 other bills, passed them to the Senate (the way the system is supposed to work) and now those bills linger in the Senate gathering dust due to the "We-need-60-votes" (the filibuster rule) to pass anything and everything -- /signed/ the GOP . . . ! !

The GOP PR machine is perhaps the most effective in history, but not in a positive way. They are the hands down favorite of, by, and for the rich, well-established, insiders, Wall Street, and off-shore entities who thrive as the rest of the country languishes in turmoil and uncertainty.

The GOP blames and wins. The rest of us lose - - What a deal!!

Stay tuned.

The real cost to frack for natural gas??

2010-11-05T18:28:00.006-04:00

Fracking Outcome: (1) Turn on kitchen sink water; (2) light fire; (3) stand back; (4) duck!!

Update: Highlights and key points from [here]:

[snip] "... fracking: using millions of gallons of water brewed with toxic chemicals, that some fear could pollute water above and below ground and deplete aquifers."

[snip] " ... gas drillers swarm to this lucrative Marcellus Shale region and blast into other shale reserves around the country, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking a new look at the controversial fracking technique, currently exempt from federal regulation."

— more to follow.

We were warned: It's now unleashed!!

2010-10-09T00:02:00.002-04:00

USSC 5-4 says "Corporations & Unions (and unlimited money) are just like "individuals."

Update (original post follows): "Surprise, surprise, surprise" (said with Gomer Pyle twang) ...

WASHINGTON – The parent company of the Fox News Channel has donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association and helped the GOP group more than double its fundraising in the second quarter of the year. Well, at least we now know that Fox is "the same as people" and that their parent company, News America Inc., (also a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate News Corp) is the same as Mom and Pop or you and I - just real people. Remember, by a 5-4, "our highest court" said they were. /s/ the USSC.

Sadly, it will get worse.

Update: I has gotten worse (October filings and spending proves this point)!!

Original Post Starts Here: It is worth recalling that in its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the conservative nonprofit group Citizens United, which had argued that its free speech rights were impinged by decades of law restricting political spending by corporations, unions and other organizations. Citizens United’s president David Bossie afterward proclaimed the bill a cynical effort to tamp down advertising targeting their reelection campaigns by saying: “This should be seen by the American people — and will be seen by the American people — as nothing than that – an incumbent protection bill that chills free speech. And this is all about free speech.”

Meanwhile across town, most Democrats, including President Obama, decried the ruling as giving unprecedented power to corporations, in particular, to influence elections.

Most Republican and conservative leaders in particular have largely celebrated it as a victory for the First Amendment.

A sample of what to expect is from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (a strong ally of the GOP). They filed a brief in the case supporting Citizens United and since have announced plans to for its largest and most aggressive election campaign in its history -- targeting congressional Democrats. The Chamber attacked the legislation as “nothing more than a brazen attempt to tilt the playing field in favor of the incumbent party in this fall’s elections, silence constitutionally protected speech, and abridge First Amendment rights.”

Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue pointed out that Democrats are expected to endure substantial losses in the midterm elections and added, “nothing in any ill-conceived and one-sided piece of legislation will change that outcome. We will fight any and all attempts to muzzle and or demonize independent voices from the election discussion.”

Update (October 8, 2010): The Chamber may be mixing foreign money in their General Fund and then using it to fund their promised $75 million anti-Obama/anti-DEM candidate Ads. Stay tuned.

My View: So, it is the money after all? As if we didn't already know. The GOP is afraid of the DEMS and their deep pockets (Unions) and the DEMS are scared of the GOP and their deep pockets (Corporations). What deal.

Another KBR Deal. More Corruption. More Waste.

2010-03-30T19:06:00.001-04:00

Uncle Sam, on our behalf, is forking over more billions to KBR...

UPDATE (as of March 13, 2010): A rather long piece, but it fits here. Enjoy.

My Thesis: "Corruption in the Aftermath of the Invasion of Iraq is America’s Legacy: Was it worth it? It depends on whom you ask."

One example among the hundreds or more examples of the wide corruption can be illustrated in simple terms by the case of Custer Battles and the Heist of Billions saga (from various sources).

Let’s take a look back at corruption in time of war, which was laid out in pretty clear terms by Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler who wrote in his book regarding WW I: “War is a Racket” which is still available from Amazon.

My reading of this still-developing history of corruption unfolds this way:

First let’s begin with Alan Grayson. Yes, that Alan Grayson. Mr. Grayson as many now know is a Rep. in Congress representing a District in FL.

He was an Orlando attorney who prosecuted dozens of cases against crooked contractors. In a Reader’s Digest article he describes a scheme by the U.S. firm Custer-Battles to lease defective trucks to the provisional government at inflated rates. One of these trucks, with faulty brakes, crashed and injured four U.S. servicemen. Grayson said about that, “It's a microcosm of what's happened in Iraq, which is that profiteering has seriously undermined the war effort.” In a whistle blower lawsuit, Grayson won a landmark $10 million verdict against Custer-Battles in April 2006. That was the first time a court has ruled that a U.S. contractor had to pay for fraudulent financial dealings in Iraq.

But, that part of this story and the part Grayson played do not end with that small legal gain.

From the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel, August 25, 2006.

Extract: "In a little-noticed decision unsealed on August 18, US District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III overturned a $10 million fraud verdict against Custer Battles LLC, one of the many crony conquistadors who gorged on the vast pork fest known as “Iraqi reconstruction” during the high and balmy days of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). This judgment effectively provides blanket immunity for the many politically-wired gorgers who made off with almost $9 billion in “unaccounted-for” taxpayer money during the CPA's misrule of Iraq from April 2003 to June 2004 – one of the greatest heists in world history."

So, how did we get to this point? Some of this story background flows from here.

Between April 2003 and June 2004, $12 billion in US currency - much of it belonging to the Iraqi people - was shipped from the Federal Reserve to Baghdad, where it was dispensed by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Some of the cash went to pay for projects and keep ministries afloat, but, incredibly, at least $9 billion has gone missing, unaccounted for, in a frenzy of mismanagement and greed. Following a trail that leads from a safe in one of Saddam's palaces to a house near San Diego, to a P.O. box in the Bahamas, the authors discover just how little anyone cared about how the money was handled.

My View: So, even with the overturning of the Grayson whistle blower award money case, this story is not over. Today we still have the days of Halliburton, KBR, and so many others like the Embassy security guards and others drinking champagne out of each other's butts; and at least one American woman raped and locked in a container to keep her quiet. Quite frankly, Iraq has been destroyed, for the time being, it has made lot of new American millionaires or billionaires in the process. Wow, talk about “job creation!”

How can any success in Iraq be measured when things like this still exist? Can we just look the other way? I guess we can, but I hope we don't. The icing on the proverbial cake might be from this 60 Minutes segment.

This review of the story began in the fall of 2006 when CBS correspondent Steve Kroft first reported that more than a billion dollars from the previous Iraqi Defense Ministry had been wasted, stolen or misappropriated.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq at the time, told Congress there had been substantial progress, but not enough to begin withdrawing American troops. He raised questions about the readiness of the new Iraqi army and the competence of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government, which was fraught with ethnic and religious divisions, and its own corruption, citing for example that electricity was still in short supply, medicines were only available through the black market, and there were long lines for fuel in a country that has the third largest oil reserves in the world.

However, one of the biggest problems was corruption, which was robust even by Middle Eastern standards. According to U.S. and Iraqi officials, bribery and outright theft were flourishing in virtually every Iraqi ministry, and some of those ill-gotten gains were used to kill American troops.

Let me conclude this update this way.

Whether you agree with Grayson and his small legal victory for the whistle blowers, or whether you agree with the Judge who overturned that case, or whether you agree with the premise that “War is a Racket,” or whether you believe the evidence presented, or whether you believe or trust the 60 Minutes exposé about what they uncovered, or that which we read about today, one undisputed fact cuts across the whole issue:

“Where is the money?”

Update (March 8, 2010): DOD Chief Robert Gates says he will review this issue - more as it develops.

Let's set the record straight - KBR does not need another nearly $3 billion of our tax dollars ... they have a dismal record. Some highlights follow:

For starters -- The company received significant media attention in the late 2000s, after an employee, Jamie Leigh Jones, was allegedly gang-raped and held hostage by her co-workers, before evidence disappeared after it was handed to the company.

Then more -- on February 6, 2009, the Justice Department announced that KBR had been charged with paying "tens of millions of dollars" in bribes to Nigerian officials in order to win government contracts, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. A 22-page document filed in a Houston federal court alleged massive bribes in connection with the construction of a natural gas plant on Bonny Island requiring $7.5 billion. KBR officials had no comments. However, KBR was found guilty and ordered to pay $420 million in penalties. Former CEO Albert Jackson Stanley, who ran KBR when it was a subsidiary to Halliburton, agreed to be sentenced to 7 years in prison via plea agreement.

Still more -- KBR's maintenance work in Iraq has been criticized after reports of soldiers electrocuted from faulty wiring. Specifically, KBR had been charged by the Army for improper installation of electrical units in bathrooms throughout U.S. bases. In late January 2009, the Defense Contract Management Agency handed down a "Level III Corrective Action Request" to KBR. This step is taken after a contractor is found being in a state of "serious noncompliance," and is one step from suspending or terminating a contract. Despite these issues, KBR was awarded a $35 million contract for major electrical work.

And, more -- from the Washington Post. U.S. soldiers at a military base in Iraq were provided with treated but untested wastewater for nearly two years by KBR, the giant government contractor, and may have suffered health problems as a result, according to a report released by the Pentagon's inspector general. The IG said that from March 2004 to February 2006, KBR inappropriately distributed chlorinated waste water to 5,000 U.S. troops at Camp Q-West, located at the Qayyarah West airfield about 180 miles north of Baghdad. The waste water had been processed by a reverse-osmosis purification system and treated with chlorine before being distributed to showers and latrines on the base. The report said that from October 2005 to June 2006, sick-call records showed 38 reported illnesses that "an attending medical official said could be attributed to water, such as skin abscesses, cellulites, skin infections and diarrhea." The report said it was impossible to definitively link the treated water to all the illnesses.

And more from these sites [here] and [here].

Health Care and the Reconciliation Process...

2010-03-01T22:17:00.002-05:00

NPR - National Public Radio (npr.org) and their logo is a trusted name in political fairness and reporting.

The GOP thinks they are making hay on the the issue of "reconciliation will kill the Senate as we know it; or it's awful and not to be trusted, let ever be used" -- they are wrong, and as soon as the Democrats start presenting the following facts in a positive fashion to the public, the public will again start to trust the Democrats on this issue.

A History of Reconciliation and Health Care Bills: For 30 years, major changes to health care laws have passed via the budget reconciliation process.

Here are major examples:

1982 — TEFRA: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act first opened Medicare to HMOs.

1986 — COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care.

1987 — OBRA '87: Added nursing home protection rules to Medicare and Medicaid, created no-fault vaccine injury compensation program.

1989 — OBRA '89: Overhauled doctor payment system for Medicare, created new federal agency on research and quality of care.

1990 — OBRA '90: Added cancer screenings to Medicare, required providers to notify patients about advance directives and living wills, expanded Medicaid to all kids living below poverty level, required drug companies to provide discounts to Medicaid.

1993 — OBRA '93: Created federal vaccine funding for all children.

1996 — Welfare Reform: Separated Medicaid from welfare.

1997 — BBA: The Balanced Budget Act created the state-federal children’s health program called CHIP * nowadays, called S-CHIP.

2005 — DRA: The Deficit Reduction Act reduced Medicaid spending, allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid.

Link to this story is here.

Can the GOP & FOX Opinion Dispute This???

2010-02-24T17:51:00.005-05:00

The CBO's economic stimulus report for 2009 is out. Their 21-page non-partisan report is here.

The Bottom Line: The stimulus bill is working ...

Q: How can anyone in the GOP (especially those who lock-step voted "No" on the bill) now disprove this report, and more so, in view of the fact that over 120 members of the GOP, who voted "No," have been raking in stimulus money right and left and bragging about when they go back home with nice fat stimulus checks?

A: Simple answer: they cannot. But, that won't stop them from trying to make political hay and mileage for 210 with their pack of lies. Along that path, look and listen to a string of the weakest of excuses possible, like: "Yes, I voted against it. But, I want to make sure that my district (or state) does not lose out on any money they are properly due in the proper course of wild government spending by this irresponsible Obama administration."

To make sure their finger prints are not on the stimulus bill (to appear strongly anti-Obama) when they go back home to hand out those "prop" stimulus checks and brag about the positive impact for their district (or state), they wear rubber gloves.

Hypocrites.

Bottom, Middle, Top = the Winners and Losers...

2010-02-17T22:25:00.007-05:00

Who's crying about all the wealth lost; or about the folks at the bottom of the proverbial barrel; or the ones who always get the short end of the stick: Is it Ben Bernake, Glenn Beck, or you know who -- that's not that hard to figure out, is it?

The story from Salon.com and a darn good write up (by Joe Conason).

The Highlights:

"Last fall a Census Bureau study found that real median household income had declined from $52,500 in 2000, the last year that Bill Clinton was president, to $50,303 in 2008, George W. Bush's final year -- a period during which Republicans dominated Congress as well."

"Millions of those median households lost their health insurance (and, since the onset of the Great Recession, many of those same families have lost jobs as well)."

"So most of those middle-class Americans who flock to the tea party demonstrations were big losers during the Bush era. So who were the winners, losers, status quo types?"

Read the rest of the story and the answer to that question [here].

And, there are so many in office who say, "It's not the money."

Buying Government Just Got Easier...

2010-02-17T17:03:00.001-05:00

USSC posing for group photo in early 2010.

"Members in whose pocket? Now, 5 to 4: Corporate ownership of the capital and capitol ..."

The recent USSC 5-4 decision is coming back to haunt them in a recent poll which in part part says the Court got it wrong and the mass majority of Americans say so:

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for foreign and domestic corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

Roughly 80% of Americans say they're against the Court's 5-4 decision.

Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

I have tied that recent ruling into this story (from Nation.com). It got me to thinking again about the topic of all the money in politics, but not just the money, but the enormous amounts and sources of the money.

It's not just the fact that a lot of money is needed to run a campaign and compete for elected office; we all know that a lot of it is needed to run an effective campaign. But, in a word: "There is too much. It's ugly. It's corrupting. And, We, the People are simply fed up. It needs to stop." The question now: How?

Score one for the money; zero for the citizens who want change. This quote from that story is worth repeating over and over until change is made: "The democracy is feigned. A feigned democracy breeds cynicism. Cynicism leads to disengagement. Disengagement leaves the fox guarding the hen house."

I tend to rest my case on the premise that the people misjudge themselves and their power to get change. But, if you want change, you have to help make change. The first step would be to stop feeling helpless.

The cynicism expressed by many today is based on an attitude of that it is "politics as usual, and there is nothing we can do about it." That is the helplessness... and it's wrong. People are not if they take matters in their own hands and do it the right way -- what is a "right" way?

One way is to advocate for public financing of all Federal elections. It can work. The first step is to understand why we need it: Why? The present method does not work -- it is broken badly.

Any movement of any kind must be carefully timed and carry meaning and that is not nasty or rabid like the Tea Party movement.... too many insiders took advantage of people's angry and mood and twisted out of shape for their own gain. Plus having a millionaire or billionaire "own" a third party is not the answer, either.

A third party movement is needed and it has to be one that offsets the two main parties and gets them back on track if they want to survive. Any such party has to be fair, open, honest and genuine. Nastiness does not play well -- people on all sides will take advantage of any movement, and any that shows nastiness and signs and anger we saw last summer, will just fade away and be another distant memory.

Such a movement is needed, and candidates for office can start it. It's for sure the incumbents won't -- that would take away their Golden Goose.

What I would do is refuse to take, and not seek, money from outside the area I would be running in (i.e., a congressional district: candidates would only take money from within the district and then only from individuals in the district; no Corporate, Lobbying, Union or PAC money).

Naïve, you say? Probably ... but thinking we cannot change the current system is worse than being naïve if we don't try. It's for sure that the present system no longer works. Do the math. Figure all the money spent in a campaign and divide that by the number serving in Congress. That's a lot of $100 gifts and chicken and peas dinners, isn't it? Just don't look under the table.

Our motto should be: "If we aim at nothing, we're sure to hit it."

Corruption: In the eye of the beholder. Um ...

2010-02-03T13:04:00.003-05:00

Above mural by Elihu Vedder is in the Lobby to the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress in the Thomas Jefferson Building in Washington, D.C. The main figure is seated atop a pedestal saying "CORRUPT LEGISLATION". The artist's signature is dated 1896.

What is corruption, and is it any different from, or how does it ties into cliches such as: "It's politics as usual," or "That's what we have to do to get things done in government" or "It's only horsetrading, or the way to make progress for the people," yada, yada, yap, yap, etc.

Corruption can be defined many ways: One definition is this: Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain.

Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involved with the government. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties.

Forms of corruption vary, but include: bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. While corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and trafficking, it is not restricted to these activities.

Take this story from the Watertown Daily Times [click here]. My attention was drawn to this part of the story:

"Some last-minute wheeling and dealing paved the way for the 8-7 vote by the Jefferson County Board of Legislators passing the Galloo Island Wind Farm payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement. Galloo Island Wind Farm developer Upstate NY Power Corp agreed to put $3 million in a community grant fund and $500,000 in a scholarship fund, made job guarantees and agreed to look at an alternative route for the project's transmission line." (emphasis is mine)

This developer is getting a huge financial deal that they claim will help the people as they get a great PILOT deal which is on top of any Federal tax rebates/or breaks included in this "Green Energy Deal," or whether part or most of the money comes from a nearly-bankrupt government, a stressed out taxpaying public, and then goes to a foreign-owned or partially foreign-owned company matters not it seems. I wonder why not?

I think something is wrong with this deal that the public does not know all the details about (yet). It may or may not be corruption, but it stinks and what the fallout is, remains to be seen.

As "they" say, I post, you decide. In this case, it may be too late?

Where you stand depends on where you sit...

2010-02-02T21:01:00.003-05:00

Screengrab from Hardball with Chris Matthews (MSNBC.com)

Very disturbing numbers from a poll (Research 2000 sponsored by the DailyKos.com) albeit one poll, but still disturbing nevertheless about people's attitudes of President Obama.

Is this the strategy of the GOP and their aim to win in November: One built on a platform of hate, discontent, fear, hype, uncertainty and pure opinion vs. facts and truth?

Mr. Obama is our duly-elected president who won by 10 millions votes.

DEMS: Failure of leadership — Simple Fact...

2010-01-31T17:23:00.003-05:00

Sens. Lieberman and Nelson: Looking for Leadership, or for a Way Out?

This story comes from TPMMuckraker.com [click here]. Several good point the article. I want to focus on this one:

As they say: "Success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan."

I and I suspect millions of others who are in the "rational-thinkers, logical ideas camp" about government actually working for for us, believe that if health care reform fails now that the people pictured in this this article will all make like John Edwards -- quick-like: Exit stage left as they say. And, they can take their cue from that old cartoon character, Snagglepuss, on their way out the door. And, rightly so.

The root of the problem (many roots, but one I strongly dislike) is this one from the article: "Senate Democrats had a chance, a gift, from the American people -- 60 votes, so they could, for the first time in their life, debate any single issue they chose to debate. And they squandered it."

"With Republicans out of the equation, Democrats needed to stand united -- and they didn't."

"On October 26, 2009, after canvasing his caucus, Sen. majority "leader" Harry Reid declared that he would include a public option in his health care bill. The next day, Sen. Joe Lieberman, former DEM and now an Indy from CT) announced his intent to filibuster. Reid unveiled his bill on November 18, and managed to get it on to the floor. But he couldn't get it off the floor -- passed -- until he rounded up 60. For weeks, liberals and Democrats huddled to find common ground on the public option. At the last possible moment, after they thought they'd come to an agreement, Lieberman rose again: 'No public option; no compromise; either it goes, or I go.' He won."

The rest is now almost history. If the DEMS lose either the House or Senate in November, which I think is possible, then the reason, the main reason, will be that they blew a golden chance to serve the people the way the people intended when they gave power to the DEMS for the people.

They won a majority in 2006 and even a bigger majority and the White House in 2008 -- but they have not acted like or governed like a majority party -- not one bit.

Picture Worth a Thou$and Word$, or Million$...

2010-01-26T20:09:00.004-05:00

Latest dinner guests (un)invited to Congress by the Supreme Court. Gee, thanks guys.

The story, as if no one knew about already, in part:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his conservative colleagues delivered a seismic jolt Thursday. They overturned two of the court's past decisions -- including one made as recently as six years ago -- to upend federal legislation that says corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates and to declare unconstitutional a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act passed in 2002.

The full 183-page decision is here.

Drum sticks are popular at Thanksgiving, for sure. But, this court just took an arm and a leg and gave it to the big Corporations and Labor (to be fair) and said, "Have it boys, just leave some scraps for us (Average Americans who can only give $250.00 in most cases)..."

Democracy at work, right? Right ... Talk about party crashers.

The nasty machine is a liar, too...

2010-01-22T01:17:00.006-05:00

Major Update (January 24, 2010): On ABCNews (This Week with Terry Moran) Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) dodged, ducked, and tried to deceive the public (again). But, his own words (see clip below -- his words, not mine) show differently as Moran pointed out.

Sen. DeMint is a lousy Senator and a bald-faced liar. His slick verbiage and dancing in this update clip were poor and didn't help matters. If indeed as he wishes, he speaks for the people of SC, then ladies and gentlemen, we are in worse shape than anyone ever thought previously. DeMint and and those like him are the faces and voices of ugliness for everything that is wrong in DC. If people are really angry, upset, and disappointed at government, then the first step would be for the people of SC to kick his raggedy ass out of office.

That may sound harsh, but that is exactly how I intend it to be. As the author of this blog, but more importantly as a engaged citizen, I am disgusted at the likes of the people like DeMint who serve in high office. I believe everyone else is, too. I can't do much to get DeMint out of office, or those like him; and that my friends is the problem and the heart of the issue.

The DeMint's of the world are deeply entrenched in office, and unless and until the people who put him there kick him out, it will only get worse -- it will not improve.

Silence on the part of the people in this case is motivation enough for those like DeMint to carry on in their shitty ways. It can't be said any plainer than this: Senator: You are a lousy liar. And, the proof is obvious.

Original Post: We know the words of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) shown above - his words, not mine. And, the article above shows the depth of Tom Donohue and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce in their role in helping kill health care with attacks Ads.

Excellent Exposé by Rachel Maddow on her show at MSNBC.com (video clip is here).

Now, the Supreme Court officially allows these two, and many, many more (Corporate giants and Labor giants,too) to exercise their Freedom of Speech to the Moon and back by lifting the Century old ban on campaign money. Just think, we actually thought the USSC stood for and protected minority rights -- indeed, citizen rights -- things that were right in general -- ha ... the laugh is on us.

Literally, the "Sky is the limit" (but, in fact, there is no limit). The new standard for the country is indeed, no standard at all.

Here is what President Obama said about the ruling. I totally agree:

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

The page at the White House is here.

I would say it is a standard so low that a worm could wear a top hat and not touch the belly of a snake that it crawls under. That is pretty low.

Welcome to Amerika (not taken over by the Russians, but by the Party of "No").

Will Schumer, Gillibrand, and Owens fight this?

2010-01-13T14:11:00.007-05:00

Photo Above (from left): LLOYD BLANKFIEN, Goldman Sachs Group; JAMES DIMON, JP Morgan Chase & Company; JOHN MACK, Morgan Stanley; and BRIAN MOYNIHAN, Bank of America Corporation testify on Capitol Hill (January 13, 2010) before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

CAUSE AND EFFECT? AFFECT THE CAUSE? CAUSE THE AFFECT?

Take your pick ... in the end, of course, old Uncle Sam forks over billions to help/assist/bail out/save the banks -- what a deal (for them). Let's look closer shall we at these "pearls of wisdom from those CEO's:"

“We understand the anger felt by many citizens. We are grateful for the taxpayer assistance we have received.” ~ Brian Moynihan

“Most of our employees took significant cuts in compensation in 2008, and we will continue to pay people in a responsible and disciplined manner to attract and retain top talent. We did make mistakes and there were things we could have done better.” ~ James Dimon

“This was a powerful wake-up call for this firm. I did not take a bonus in 2009 and we will overhaul our compensation practices to discourage excessive risk-taking.” ~ John Mack

“It sounds like selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy on that car.” ~ Phil Angelides, a former Democratic treasurer of California, told Goldman Sachs Blankfein about packaging soured assets into bond-like securities and selling them to investors — even as Goldman Sachs was “shorting” the same securities, or making bets they would fail. These included risky mortgages that were extended to borrowers with poor credit records and helped cause the home-loan bust

“I do think the behavior is improper. We regret the consequence that people have lost money in it. Whatever we did, it didn't work out well. We were going to bed every night with more risk than any responsible manager would want to have.” ~ Blankfein

“If you knew then what you do now, what would you have done differently?” ~ former Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA)

“A crucial blunder was how we just missed that housing prices don’t go up forever.” ~ James Dimon

“We did eat our cooking and we choked on it.” ~ John Mack

I don't know if the word contrition applies here or not; but thus far the CEOs' words seem hollow.

The main point I wanted to make is that Schumer and Gillibrand especially are closely tied to these guys and others on Wall Street with deep pockets. You do the math and research, and I think you will probably reach the same conclusion as I have.

The deals Congress made with them stinks -- all the money should have been tied to the country's growth; and not their bottom line.

Read this and then tell me I am wrong...

2010-01-11T17:49:00.008-05:00

Sen. Schumer, those "little porkies" and his pals = "Let's make a deal..."

Schumer is referred to as "A Champion for Wall Street" in this NYTimes article - a must read. A few highlights.

The businessmen could count on the Democrats to help steer the nation through the financial turmoil that the country faced in 2008 [Schumer told a breakfast crowd of millionaires].

“We are not going to be a bunch of crazy, anti-business liberals,” one executive said, summarizing Schumer’s remarks [following their meeting with him].

“We are going to be effective, moderate advocates for sound economic policies, good responsible stewards you can trust.” [Schumer told them].

His message clearly resonated. The following week, executives at firms represented at the breakfast sent in more than $135,000 in campaign donations to Schumer.

Please read the rest of the story.

"It is the money [and we are stupid]."

Owens, Schumer and Gillibrand: Just say No...

2010-01-09T19:07:00.006-05:00

Blackwater in New Orleans during Katrina - notice their arms - why?

They look like "Jack Bauer from CTU."

"Xe (formerly BLACKWATER) has a record that is not pretty..."

I urge everyone to call their Representative and two Senators and the White House if you choose, and voice strong opposition to the contents of this story.

Tell them to say "No." Do not allow Xe to rape one more penny from the taxpayers for their Mercenary ways...

DANZ VIEW: This is more bad news on top of previous bad news. It must not stand.

SWAG: I totally agree. Their record is long and it sucks to put it mildly.

The reporter in this short 4-minute video is Jeremy Scahill reported extensively on the Bush Administration's dependence on private security forces such as Blackwater, USA (now renamed to Xe) and some of the efforts in Congress to rein them in. Now, they might get help from the Obama TEAM? That is bad, if true, really bad.

This article is adapted from his new book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army (Nation Books).

Let's get the "No" vote straight, shall we???

2010-01-07T11:57:00.002-05:00

"Will the real Bill Owens please stand up ..."

MOVING THIS TOPIC BACK TO THE TOP OF HEAP (January 7, 2010): Now that Mr. Owens is making the rounds in the district, I think he needs to explain his "No" vote in more detail. Shall we ask him? How, or when?

ORIGINAL POST STARTS HERE: No, this question is not from the old TV series, "What's My Line" that featured a real professional, and two imposters. On the TV shows, the audience and a panel of guest stars were challenged to select the real one after a series of questions was posed to all three. Sometimes the audience and panel got it right, but often the imposters were so good that the audience failed to spot the real McCoy.

There appears to be a growing feeling today that the public, like the audience of that show, is being challenged to distinguish between real financial planners, Wall Street bankers, and their own Representatives in Congress.

Take our Rep., Bill Owens, and his recent "No" vote on H.R. 4154, which is explained in more detail below:

* H.R. 4154 passed the House (225-200 vote), and as I said, Mr. Owens voted “No.” That bill has now gone to the Senate.

* The bill's title is: “Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009,” and it makes permanent the 2009 estate tax exemption level of $3.5 million for an individual, and $7 million for a married couple, with a maximum tax rate of 45%.

* Additionally, the bill maintains the so-called step-up in basis tax rules, which protect many heirs from paying additional capital gains taxes on inherited assets (the so-called "death tax"). The House version provides the certainty families need to make long-term decisions and avoid the estate planning roller coaster that will result from current law.

* For calendar year 2009, the estate tax exemption amount is $3.5 million, and $7 million total for a married couple, and the maximum tax rate on estates is 45%, so H.R. 4154 permanently extends this estate tax exemption amount and tax rate.

Impact:

* Absent any change, the estate tax is scheduled to enter one year of full repeal in 2010 followed by a return of the estate tax in 2011 with much lower exemption amount ($1 million) and a much higher maximum tax rate (55%).

* In addition, the one year of estate tax repeal was coupled with enactment of so-called carryover basis tax rules, which will require heirs in 2010 to pay capital gains taxes on inherited assets based on the decedent's original purchase price.

* Under step-up in basis rules, continued under H.R 4154, the value of the asset is calculated at the time of the decedent's death. Preserving the step-up in basis rules will protect small businesses from paying an estimated $34 billion in capital gains taxes.

Summary: This bill is good for farmers and small businesses. According to the United States Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, the $7 million exemption for couples will help the vast majority of family farmers, as the average farm household net worth ranged from $586,000 for small farms to $2.2 million for very large farms in 2008. Only 100 small business and farm estates would owe any estate tax in 2010 if the 2009 rules were extended, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Good News: By making the 2009 estate tax level permanent, it will make the estate tax go away for 99.75 percent of all percent of families, farmers, and small businesses.

So, why did Owens vote “No” since we have lots of farmers in this district who could or could not have been impacted by such a change in the law?

Ironically, or coincidentally, “Freedom Works” sent a plea to members of congress and asked them to vote “No.” Important, or not, and who is Freedom Works?

Take a peek: Freedom Works has two well-known individuals at the top: Former GOP House Majority Leader, Dick Armey (R-TX), and billionaire, Steve Forbes.

FYI: Freedom Works has been behind or along side (and funding) many of the "Tea Party" near riots we saw over this past summer. Does any of that matter in this case? Plainly, we do not know at this time; but we need to find out. Stay tuned.

Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way

2010-01-06T11:24:00.004-05:00

“Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”

I am re-posting some issues that need continued focus. Leadership is one. A member of congress may not vote the way we want them to vote, or vote when we want them to vote, and some issues linger without ever seeing a vote - - but the member still has their voice to speak out on important issues. That is leading, too. The assault on Unions, Public Employees, Teachers, the new Health Care law, vouchers for Medicare and more burden on the poor - all the while more and more breaks flow to the top 2-3 percent is plainly not right. Speaking out against those things is leading.

In this post I can't, won't or don't intend to speak for all Democrats – I speak for only myself, or perhaps for a few who feel the same way I do about the events over the past year in Congress.

I am a lifelong Democrat, having first voted in 1964 while I was still on active duty in the Marine Corps. I have voted every election since, missing only a couple due to military deployments. I believe in the party foundation, principles, values and goals; but for the life of me, I think we have lost our way, or at least in the way we govern in the majority since wins in 2006 and bigger wins in 2008.

The people have twice given the DEMS the reins of power – in 2006 and again even bigger in 2008. The Democrats have the power and majorities to lead. After eight miserable years of the Bush-Cheney and poor GOP administration, the country said “No. No more. Here are the reins of government, do something and reverse our course and do some good for a change.”

However, thus far, the Democrats have failed. Much of that failure has been due to the massive GOP resistance on practically every bill or proposal in the House and Senate. Roadblocks and potholes and obstruction are the GOP's middle name – that is a fact and most people know it, too.

But, the Democrats have willingly in some cases fallen into those holes and got steamrolled and asphalted over in the process. That is not what the public wants or needed. Democrats should always work and try to get cooperation from the GOP, and vice versa, but when that fails, they have to move on and do the people’s work and leave the road blockers behind.

Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, and a few other DEM “leaders” have not done a very good job of leading as far as I can assess, and I am very good at assessing these things. How did this happen? More importantly, why did this happen? What lies ahead? The why is the easy part to answer: It has been a total lack of focus and leadership.

For example, we all know that George W. Bush lost the focus in Afghanistan (which initially was the right goal) as he changed direction and guided us into Iraq ... Iraq has been a total disaster. Meanwhile back in Afghanistan, the problem was never solved, and now it is getting worse.

Many others would say that those events (Iraq mostly) has caused more terrorists to spring up and spread (Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan to name three) -- and they would be right.

What did the invasion of Iraq produce, other than dead and destruction and misery for eight years? It looks like more of the same that has now led us to the brink of perpetual war around the globe with the United States deep inside that loop. To me, this is unacceptable. More so is the lack of leadership in Congress.

Nasty campaigns and big spending are a way of life as many claw their way (or buy their way) into Congress, and after they get there what do they do? Roll up their sleeves and work hard as promised, or work hard to stay in office anyway possible. That answer is self-evident.

Now, some Democrats in Congress are leaving the party and joining the GOP.

Long-time senators: Byron Dorgan and Chris Dodd are retiring. Two DEM seats: one in Delaware and one in Illinois will have to be defended. Sen. Byrd from WV is very ill. The question is, can the DEMS hold these DEM seats, or better yet, do they deserve to hold these seats?

Finally, what is pathetically ironic about everything that has happened since November 2008 did not have to happen. Now, the GOP has mastered the PR game (organized and funded the Tea Party rascals, guided and disrupted Town Hall meetings, and now they say they are moving in for the Coup d’gras to finish off the DEMS).

Sadly, the GOP owns all the steamrollers. Just as sadly, they are not popular, either, even with their own base (cite: the special election win in our own 23rd district). Put that aside, the GOP continues to do their nasty deeds as the DEMS stand by and watch. The worst part is watching the DEMS waiting to be steamrolled.

All this has made DEMS like me very angry and upset. Many are silent, or won't speak out like I do, but that is their problem, not mine; I will speak out, and as loudly as possible. Those who are silent show me that they, local or state-wide DEMS, also need to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

The GOP gave us disaster and misery for eight long years and now they are basking in the sun as they fry the DEMS in their own oil.

That is not leading – not one bit.

Zero Net Job Creation: 2000-2009 ...

2010-01-05T21:03:00.004-05:00

[Click image for larger view]

This may be a story that you never read; or maybe you read about it, but it skipped your mind; or hopefully, you are like me -- you read it and are very concerned.

What happened during that "lost decade" as the Washington Post.com calls it? From that article, this introduction (the emphasis is mine):

"For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different. The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth."

So, I wonder? What did your member of Congress or the Senate, or a candidate for those offices, say about "Elect me and I will create jobs."

All the while we lost jobs as they shifted to ever expanding economies in China and India thanks to many U.S. companies "going there" for more profits (lower wages and less Union demands). Funny, they always talked about job creation but only occasionally did they address job losses. And, when they did, it was in the context of the losses being the other guy's fault. Incumbents fighting for their own survival always blamed the party in the majority and vice versa.

The only job a political candidate or incumbent created was one in their own office, or on their campaign staff.

This is a serious problem and this chart and story illustrates the seriousness of the issue. No matter what other issues float around a slick PR campaign for any candidate, the bottom line is always the economy and jobs, and it always will be.

Employed people tend to be be happy people, even when they complain about taxes and fewer benefits and such. They are happy if they are working and able to provide for themselves or their family — it's hard to be happy when you are unemployed.

Job creation should have moved in unison with all the stimulus bills that gave billions and billions to banks to stay afloat, to mortgage companies to survive and help stop or slow down foreclosures, and to car manufacturers to stay in business ... but, it did not. Now we are playing catch up.

It might too little too late.

No, No, No, No & No to English, too ...

2010-01-04T13:21:00.003-05:00

Note the sign: Spelling of "Congess" and "Comunist."

This guy needs to repeat the 6th grade, and the next time, sir, leave the guns at home. This is NOT 1775, or a rally in BOSTON about the a new tax on tea. So, please give it a rest. At least for the sake of the country you say you love and will defend.

The photo and story are courtesy of the Alamogordo News (NM).

"Holding a rifle in his hand, Jim Kizer participates in an Obama administration protest rally Saturday (Jan 2, 2010) afternoon at the intersection of White Sands Boulevard and 10th Street. Nearly 350 people from Alamogordo, Las Cruces, Roswell and other New Mexico cities were on hand picketing health care reform and government spending while showing their support for Second Amendment rights." (by J.R. Oppenheim/Daily News)

According to New Mexico law, it is legal to open-carry a holstered firearm by anyone over the age of 19. A person can openly carry in most places, except in a bar, jail or prison, a school and other locations.

I note: where our freedoms are safe and sound, right?

The guy in the photo above said: "I don't like what the Democrats are doing to our country. " [Jim Kizer of Alamogordo said as he carried a .444 Marlin rifle and a holstered .41 Smith and Wesson Magnum. "I'm a Korean vet and I grew up in Alaska during World War II. I've fought Communists all my life, and now our government is being taken over by them. That's why I'm here." He said his weapons were not loaded. "I'm not trying to start a war," he said. "I just want to make a point."

I note: So, if someone started shooting, what would Mr. Kizer do? Hit them with his unloaded guns?

In my view, these so-called Tea Party (Taxed Enough Already) folks are getting out of hand. They say they fear government, more taxes, more gun control, and less freedom, etc. etc. etc. (all GOP-Rightwing hardcore issues). Yes, ironically they can carry a gun in public at a rally (how's that for "gun control"). How about an offensive sign that riles someone less aggressive? How's that for "losing a right?"

Someday, someplace, or somehow one of these lunatics will fire a shot whether on purpose or accidentally, and then all hell will break lose. We have to be better than this -- we used to be better than this. What has happened? It was NOT just the election in 2008, either.

The core issue is not a loss of rights or freedoms or anything of the sort, although it might be the loss of power in Congress.

BTW: Who lost that power and why did they lose it?

Track the Truckers: Keep them Honest....

2009-12-30T15:21:00.000-05:00

Contractor-Truckers in Afghanistan. Armed Xe (formerly Blackwater) Contractors and others (all over the place).

This story has been moved back on top with updates that follow.

Update (December 30, 2009) (original story follows): This part of the update is from The Nation and a few new points are: As President Obama prepares a massive military buildup in Afghanistan, a House subcommittee has launched (see below reference) an investigation into whether Defense Department contractors are paying off the Taliban to protect American supply lines. The investigation was triggered by a Nation cover story [see Roston, "How the US Funds the Taliban," November 30].

Original post starts here:

I am not a big fan of contracting out security forces in the two war zones. We have read and know about horror stories and their high pay, etc., over the past 8 years that is not pleasant news.

Their involvement smacks too much like Mercenary work.

There are numerous reports of violations of not only their written contracts, which we the taxpayers fit the bill for, but cases of Contracting Officers taking bribes, and downright murder and rape, not even counting the wild drinking parties.

The latest report is here. Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) has begun an investigation of eight trucking companies that hold a combined $2.2 billion in DOD contracts in Afghanistan as mentioned in this article, and from here.

Stay tuned. I'm sure more is forthcoming.

Duke DeMint of SC and Obama at Waterloo????

2009-12-30T11:07:00.006-05:00

The Duke of Wellington, defeating Napoleon at Waterloo (Belgium). Sen. Jim DeMint hoping to defeat President Obama in DC.

These post analogies are fun, but I take no delight about the heart of the issue behind this post and issue, but here I go anyway.

In the Battle of Waterloo (Sunday, June 18, 1815) Waterloo, Belgium forces of the French Empire under Emperor Napoleon I and Michel Ney were defeated by those of the Seventh Coalition, including an Anglo-Allied army under the command of the Duke of Wellington and a Prussian army under the command of Gebhard von Blücher.

It was the decisive battle of the Waterloo Campaign and Napoleon's last. The defeat at Waterloo put an end to Napoleon's rule as Emperor of the French, and marked the end of his Hundred Days of return from exile.

Napoleon abdicated, surrendered to the British, and was exiled to Saint Helena, where he died in 1821.

Now, the GOP Senate and House, lead by people like GOP Sen. DeMint of SC, who said in July and who is heard here a second time in this short 1-minute interview, put out the message to make health care reform President Obama's Waterloo. Since then, the entire, lockstep GOP has done all it can in the hopes of causing and making Mr. Obama lose this battle and (I presume) surrender to them in DC, and further return to Illinois in exile where he’ll never be heard from again (say in in 2012)? Several points are important in this debate, if we can call it debate:

First, this is not the way government is supposed to work. It's how politics works, and that is exactly what is wrong with us today: dirty, nasty, rabid partisan politics designed to get and one side in control at any cost.

Second, the GOP is on the wrong side of history trying to kill this historical health care reform just like they were on the wrong side of history when they opposed Social Security back in 1936 when their presidential candidate, Alf Landon, called it a “hoax” on the American people.

Third, the GOP also on the wrong side of history just as they were in 1965 when they opposed Medicare. Both are popular, working programs. So, can this health care reform. As we move along, if things in the bill are wrong or need fixing, then the proper legislative method is to make changes/adjustments.

The GOP has every right to oppose, resist and stand up for their principles on any program or law or piece of legislation, just like the DEMS do, too. Who doesn’t know that. But, the point is this: they have been opposing, resisting and standing against this bill by using tactics and language best left to dictators and tyrants.

As we move through the final process of getting this passed and signed into law and given a change to work, the GOP keeps hoping they can drive down public support and in the end cause Mr. Obama to lose and thus allow them to be propelled back into the majority in 2010 and 2012. If that works, then what? We invade Yemen, Iran, North Korea, or any other country they do not like or whose regime “needs changing?”

Of course, that leaves tens of millions of Americans still without health care, but we'll be safe. Gitmo will still be open and well ... you get the picture. But, we need never return to those days of yesteryear … never again.

Finally, we need to end this rabid partisanship disguised as government working for the people ... that is a false fact and myth, and worse, a flat out lie. Those in office should be ashamed of themselves. I know I am.

Déjà vu gimmick or gaffe [again] ????

2009-12-28T20:57:00.004-05:00

"We are gathered here today to make a pledge to America." /s/ The GOP

Their Pledge: "We will kill the Health Reform Bill, first, you have to send us to DC as the majority party in 2010."

The story: "A growing chorus of Republican officials is pledging to push for a full repeal of health care reform legislation, weeks before a bill actually lands on the president's desk for signing. In an email to the Huffington Post, Alex Conant, a former RNC press secretary and an adviser to possible 2012 candidate Tim Pawlenty, said that while Republicans will push their own health care reform agenda in upcoming elections, they also plan to run on a promise to nullify what Democrats are poised to pass."

That outta work just fine. Let's take a look at few views:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Meet the Press recently that he expects "Every Republican in 2010 and 2012 to run on an absolute pledge to repeal this bill." (Kinda like his Contract for America, flashback: 1994 - how'd that work out, Newt?).

Max Pappas, the Vice President for Public Policy of Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, saying that Republicans were "going to have to prove that they are worthy of their votes by pledging to repeal health care reform."

The DEM retort:

"If a Republican Senate candidate is going to look his voters in the eye next November, and pledge if elected to roll back historic reform which will have ended appalling insurance practices, afforded coverage to hundreds of thousands constituents, brought down costs for families and small businesses and lowered the deficit, then I volunteer to help that campaign make pitch calls to reporters," said Eric Schultz, press secretary for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

I say, go for it. Toss the "Hail Mary" (the last try as in football -- the last long deep pass to try and win the game -- all or nothing effort).

This is pathetic. Those in the GOP now in office should be helping make the bill better and workable just like we have done for Social Security, Medicare, the VA and many other popular programs that people like.

These sustained roadblocks may play well with their base and red meat Tea Party near-rioters, but in the end when it's all said and done, the public will like this health care reform. The GOP is on the wrong side of history [again], and yes, it is Déjà vu all over again.

Healthcare Problems & Solutions: Where???

2009-12-24T12:54:00.010-05:00

Screen grab of "Uncle Sam, the Doc" from CATO.org

The lost art in Congress: Not being able to solve problems very well, lack of strong, determined leadership, and not much concern for the people they say they serve.

There is so much written about the problems with our health care system that a thousand blogs couldn't address them very well, and even if they could, the GOP side would distort things so badly that no one would know whom to believe or trust. Are both sides right, or are both sides wrong? Now that's that real problem to solve.

I found a good source for your consideration -- perhaps you have already followed it. If so, good. I hope you agree that facts matter, but solutions matter more. Here's my report on this issue that may be winding down in the Congress and we might see a bill ready for the President to sign sometime in January or early February (latest projected date).

The original source of this great research piece is written by Rick Weaver at U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT

Introduction (minor editing on my part for this blog):

Health insurers that we love to bash, as it turns out, are underperformers compared with the other parts of the overall health care sector.

For example, among the large, for-profit health insurers, profit margins line up with the industry as a whole: United Health Group (the biggest health insurer) had a profit margin of 4.1 percent. Well Point (the next biggest) had a 4 percent profit margin. Aetna, Cigna, and Humana all came in below 4 percent.

The big gainers are the Pharmaceutical companies (referred to as the Pharmas). The have had a profit margin of over 16.4 percent — which is the 7th highest of the 215 industries that are tracked.

Others segments of the health care industry with margins well above the median include health care information (9.4 percent), home health care firms (8.5 percent), medical labs (8.2 percent), and generic drug makers (6.5 percent).

The big money obviously does not lie necessarily with the insurance companies. It's in the pharmaceutical industry.

Health care firms earning the most are in these five areas [* rated by profit margins]: Biotechnology, Drug Manufacturers, Medical Equipment, Health care Plans, and Health care Services.

1. Gilead Sciences (Biotechnology): 37.6 percent
2. Amgen (Biotechnology): Profit margin, 30.6 percent
3. Celgene Corp. (Biotechnology): 11.9 percent
4. Johnson & Johnson (Drug Manufacturer): 20.8 percent
5. Glaxo Smith Kline (Drug Manufacturer): 17.4 percent
6. Pfizer (Drug Manufacturer): 16.3 percent
7. Baxter International (Medical Equipment): 17.5 percent
8. Medtronic (Medical Equipment): 14.9 percent
9. Covidien (Medical Equipment): 12.3 percent
10. UnitedHealthGroup (Health Care Plans): 4.1 percent
11. WellPoint (Health Care Plans): 4 percent
12. Aetna (Health Care Plans): 3.9 percent
13. Quest Diagnostics (Health Care Services): 8.7 percent
14. Express Scripts (Health Care Services): 3.7 percent
15. Medco Health Solutions (Health Care Services): 2.1 percent

My Note: Those firms develop and manufacture things to keep us running longer (living longer) – so, who are we really mad at or should be taken to task as it were? Maybe we all should check in the nearest mirror?

Weaver provides plenty of links starting at this site that will help with more of your research. He makes this point which is pretty easy to comprehend about why we need change that works:

“As just about everybody knows, the cost of health care is rising much faster than wages, profits, and most other things in the economy. Health care spending accounted for about 11 percent of GDP in 1987; today it's more than 16 percent, and by 2017 it's very likely to be almost 20 percent. We spend more than $2 trillion a year on health care — roughly the same amount we spend on housing — and the cost is rising about five times faster than wages or overall inflation. Exorbitant cost is the main reason 47 million Americans have no health insurance.”

My Note: Sadly the bill working its way through Congress is supposed to cover only 31 million new customers ... logically one must ask: Who are the other left-out 16 million, and why can’t government agree to help them?

It makes no sense, unless of course you have a lot of stocks in the aforementioned companies, or happen to be in the back pocket of special interests like the Pharmas who spent some $190 million in the first 9 months of this year lobbying for "stuff" they wanted or did not want in any final bill -- that's our #1 problem; not people without health care.

Take out the special interest money and put people in office who will lead and work to solve problems and serve the people they say they serve, and the problems will be solved, and we'll all be better off.

So, let a challenger try and run on that platform and see how far they get.

The proverbial health care bill is in the Congressional court. I wonder how clean and steady those hands are?

Get Pregnant? Not on my watch you don't...

2009-12-20T18:46:00.006-05:00

"Are you pregnant, soldier? If so, get off this 'chopper and go to jail instead..." /s/ the Army

New issue developing that some knew was coming — it was just a matter of time ... funny, in an ironic sort of way how war tests another social "norm," isn't it? So, what will Congress, or legal beagles or others do about this story?

A couple of key parts that caught my eye:

1. A top US commander is threatening soldiers who fall pregnant on active service with jail.

2. Under the new policy, troops expecting a baby face court martial and a possible prison term – and so do the men who made them pregnant. And the rule applies to married couples at war together, who are expected to make sure their love lives do not interfere with duty.

3. Usual US Army policy is to send pregnant soldiers home from combat zones within 14 days.

4. Major General Anthony Cucolo, who runs US operations in northern Iraq, issued the new orders because he said he was losing too many women with critical skills.

My Question: How far will this go? I suspect not very far.

But, Rep. Owens (on the House Armed Services Committee): Are you listening?

Bienvenido a América: ilegal o no....

2009-12-19T18:52:00.008-05:00

Which Bill Owens is in office, and on which side does he stand?

The legal one, or the illegal one?

It's all kind of confusing, even for a shrewd lawyer like Mr. Owens, who should know the law, or one assumes he knows the law?

But, according to this story from the Watertown Daily Times (December 19, 2009), one has to wonder. I draw the reader's attention to this quote from Mr. Owens who said in part (emphasis is mine):

“I think if they (illegals now in the country) are otherwise qualified to remain in the country, they should be offered some way to do so.”

His remarks are directed to this: Mr. Owens (D-Plattsburgh) said in an interview that he could agree with giving at least some undocumented immigrants a way to stay in the United States, short of becoming citizens. But he said he does not support the path to citizenship that is the broad aim of the bill introduced by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-TX).

The latest bill addressed by his comments requires "... undocumented immigrants to pay a $500 fine, learn English and undergo criminal background checks [for instance] as a path to citizenship, but does not force them to return home for a period of time, which prior versions have mandated."

I wonder though, Mr. Owens being an attorney and all how can he even address the issue with a straight face by using "illegally here in our country" and "if they are otherwise qualified..." Being here illegally seems to me to make them unqualified to be here since illegal means unlawful, doesn't it and that means against the law.

So, I'm lost ... or is it just about "jobs?" I sure hope it is not that lame excuse. If so, that is bogus and should not fly any longer. There is but one way to come to the United States, assuming one is not fleeing political persecution and asks for asylum, and that is through the front door, with legal papers and an invitation to come and live or work -- any other way is illegal and unlawful.

We can't sing the praise of being a law-abiding nation of people who stand right and justice and allow 10 million people by some estimates to be here illegally.

That is not right and if Mr. Owens believes otherwise, one wonders why his is in a law-making job? Perhaps designing more loopholes?

Wrong-Way, or Which-Way Bill Owens????

2009-12-10T20:15:00.011-05:00

"Will the real Bill Owens please stand up ..."

I WANT TO MOVE THIS TOPIC BACK TO THE TOP OF HEAP: Now that Mr. Owens is making the rounds in the district, I think he needs to explain his "No" vote in more detail. Shall we ask him? How, or when?

No, this question is not from the old TV series, "What's My Line" that featured a real professional, and two imposters. On the TV shows, the audience and a panel of guest stars were challenged to select the real one after a series of questions was posed to all three. Sometimes the audience and panel got it right, but often the imposters were so good that the audience failed to spot the real McCoy.

Take our Rep., Bill Owens, and his recent "No" vote on H.R. 4154, which is explained in more detail below:

* H.R. 4154 passed the House (225-200 vote), and as I said, Mr. Owens voted “No.” That bill has now gone to the Senate.

Impact:

Good News: By making the 2009 estate tax level permanent, it will make the estate tax go away for 99.75 percent of all percent of families, farmers, and small businesses.

So, why did Owens vote “No” since we have lots of farmers in this district who could or could not have been impacted by such a change in the law?

Ironically, or coincidentally, “Freedom Works” sent a plea to members of congress and asked them to vote “No.” Important, or not, and who is Freedom Works?

Take a peek: Freedom Works has two well-known individuals at the top: Former GOP House Majority Leader, Dick Armey (R-TX), and billionaire, Steve Forbes.

"Health Care is Needed: At what Cost???"

2009-12-10T11:55:00.011-05:00

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

GOP Senate Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Pelosi and Reid were all smiles at one point about the prospect (finally) of health care for everyone that is accessible, affordable and something we all can get and keep no matter what our health conditions are, and not lose (if we are willing to pay for it). Now, however, it looks like they and majority DEMS have failed the test of bold leadership that the public wants.

McConnell with that sign in the background reading: "START OVER" is indicative of the entire lock-step GOP (minus one lonely Rep. in the House and maybe one in the Senate) who oppose any plan as they say will be "government-run or government take-over."

BTW: Why does McConnell always look down in the mouth, like he just ate raw duck?

Anyway, there is no plan or set of plans yet. But, be assured, as always, there will be "winners and losers," and overall the way these things fall out of government, most people will lose, big business (in this case the Insurance industry) will win.

We are told that is not true from one side (the DEM side), but yes, true, but not government-run, private business the way it should be (from the GOP side).

Don't let anyone fool you. We need health care for everyone that is: affordable, accessible, can't be taken away, can be taken from state to state, or from job to job, stays with you even if you lose your job, and does not discriminate against you if you have a pre-condition or simply need a plan, or if you suddenly get very sick and need to sell your home to pay the bills.

That is the outline for a plan that our country needs ... after all, we rank dead last in offering a public plan in the free, industrial world. That is shameful, too.

So, will it happen? Not likely. Am I cynical? Yes, I am. Those in Congress and especially the few who have worked their own deals behind the scenes or with Insurance giants, etc., will come forth and brag about what they did or didn't do and say things like this BS reelection line:

"I fought for you and the American people and our future and our kids and grand kids and that's why I want to stay in office and continue to work to improve this bill. It is not the best, but it is now and I'll work to make it better."

That message will be signed by the likes of Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John Boehner, and of course the 99.9 % of the entire GOP seeking reelection next year, and natch: the Dems also seeking reelection next year.

Campaign for health care looks like it is dead. So, I say, the next campaign should be one to kick out everyone who was against the most-logical solution that the public wanted: A public option.

With what is coming, we still will have 20 million without any care. Of course the ER is still there, right -- and isn't that where we are now?

The winners: all the arrogant incumbents in the pockets of the Insurance giants and apt to win reelection.

The losers: all those who need health care coverage and still won't have any because the incumbents in office didn't listen to them when they told pollsters: "We want a public option."

The Dems will lose big time over this failure, as well they should. They could not get it done.

The GOP will win like they always do, based on fear and hype as they appease big business with more and more big breaks all the while they say they work for you, but don't.

Hypocrites. Plain and simple -- and it basically is both sides, minus few who really are loyal the people.

"New and Innovative War Escalation ..."

2009-12-01T15:30:00.011-05:00

George W. Bush (March 2002) and Barack Obama (today)

Former President George W. Bush on March 15, 2002 in a speech to soldiers gave them a big voice of thanks for their mission in Afghanistan that ended with this summary remark: "The Taliban is out of business."

UPDATE (December 1, 2009): The Taliban are "Out of business?" Um ... take a look:

* This has been the deadliest year (2009) of the conflict for U.S. Forces, with nearly 300 killed, with casualties that started to climb soon after Mr. Obama decided to deploy an additional 21,000 U.S. troops earlier this year.

* NATO forces have also posted a higher death toll in 2009 than in any previous year, with more than 500 killed.

The clip of Mr. Bush's remarks can be seen at the 3-minute mark in this 12-minute video provided from a segment of the Rachel Maddow Show (on MSNBC, November 30, 2009).

President Barack H. Obama will announce on December 3, 2009 in a speech at West Point that 30-35,000 more troops are on their way to Afghanistan to ... to well ... [you fill in the blank] ...

Obviously, the growing Taliban and few remaining al-Qaeda, hiding in caves since 2001 (???), are still a threat, and just as obvious, "they are back in business," or they never left the business in the first place?

Also preparing for the "new" mission are these military personnel already in Afghanistan: Medics and Air Force pilots at their main base are gearing up for the grim reality of this new war strategy —escalation in not only the number of more troops but of new and expected battlefield casualties in this war that is seeing an increasingly bloody battlefield.

Does any of this sound familiar or really necessary? No nation has ever occupied for any effective period of time the territory of Afghanistan... the terrain is God-awful and the consists of Tribes mostly still living in the 18th Century with few paved roads, indoor plumbing or even the desire for such modern conveniences.

Extract from the Financial Times:

"There are probably as many differences as similarities between the US wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. But the parallels in the decision-making processes of two presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson and Barack Obama, as they contemplated escalation in the respective conflicts are striking. In 1965 as today deliberations were protracted, lasting months and, a few leaks apart, mostly closely held. Both policy teams had more hawks than doves and both had field commanders wanting more troops but neither promising success. Both presidents were deeply ambivalent, neither wanting to sacrifice ambitious domestic agendas on the altars of war in far-off lands."

"Mr. Obama, unveiling this new strategy, must be feeling as LBJ did in the summer of 1965 in deciding to send 44 more battalions to Vietnam. Mr. Obama resists the comparison, saying in a September interview:

“You have to learn lessons from history. On the other hand, each historical moment is different. You never step in the same river twice. And so Afghanistan is not Vietnam."

I note: that sounds a whole like the call of way back-when of: "No more Vietnam's..." Sadly, Mr. President, it ain't so.

I know that feeling: I was in one of those 44 battalions (2nd BN, 1st Marines) that LBJ ordered to Vietnam ... I served in combat there from September 1965 - September 1966 (my first tour) at the rifle squad, platoon, and company levels.

Mr. President: This may be your Vietnam. Then coupled with an awful economy, deficit and budgets way out of sight, it could also be your first and last term in office. That, too, is a reality and would be a shame.

But, even with that in mind as a political tool to be used against you (and be assured it will be), politics MUST not enter into this mess ... we have had enough of that already (in 1965 and now today).

It will get worse.

"This Picture Causes Vietnam Flashback ..."

2009-11-30T23:04:00.004-05:00

Photo Caption: "President Obama faces skepticism from his own party as he prepares to commit up to 35,000 more troops to Afghanistan" AP Photo
x

It comes by way of Politico.com - the story is here.

I don't know the details of this photo, things like which unit it is; what their mission was; where they were heading to, or returning from; or any other specific. I do know that as an old timer (Vietnam combat Vet with two tours of infantry duty with two different Marine battalions) that just seeing that photo raised the hair on my neck.

I imagined the Taliban and others on the high ground to the left and right, dug in and ready to ambush this patrol. Look at the terrain. If the patrol were fired upon from either side,or worse, from both sides at the same time (from the high ground) and assuming there were no flank patrols out on the high ground, that the picture does not reveal, then it would be a blood bath. What possible cover could the troops take? They would have one option - charge the enemy. If they hit the deck and fired, they would still be in the open as far as I can see.

Maybe the situation on the ground was different than I see in this picture. If so, good. If not, bad.

We are about to hear the President speak about a new round of escalation of troops to Afghanistan in his speech at West Point (December 1, 2009).

Then time will tell. But, the patrols had better do a better job than that shown in this picture as I describe what I think it shows.

"Potpourri & Tidbits from Around the World..."

2009-11-27T00:02:00.009-05:00

Troops on Patrol in Afghanistan; Cheap Camel Meat (maybe); Dubai on the Brink; and Condi Rice was wrong before, during, and after 9/11 (and still wrong today).

1. U.S. will get out of Afghanistan by 2017 says White House.

Implications? The White House has estimated it will cost $1 million per year for each additional soldier sent to Afghanistan. With the U.S. deficit hitting $1.4 trillion and fueling Americans' concerns about high government spending, sending more troops to Afghanistan could be a politically risky move for Obama. Obama's fellow Democrats, who control the U.S. Congress, face potentially difficult midterm elections in November 2010, with Republicans eager to exploit Americans' unease about the country's ballooning deficit and high unemployment.

The GOP will eat the DEMS alive on the slogan: “Dems are the party of tax and spend.” It has worked well for decades, so why not now? The DEMS are supplying plenty of fresh ammo, too.

2. Be leery of any “good deals on Camel meat from Down Under" over the next few months.

3. Is Dubai on the brink? If so, maybe they should change their name to “Do Not Buy?”

and this story:

4. Assume this story has merit and is true — if so, I wonder: Why our government (government of, by and for the people) can't level with us? We are big enough for the truth. But, I guess they are not, however.

That story got my attention big time: Christopher Meyer, former UK PM Tony Blair's U.S. envoy from 1997-2003 said former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raised Iraq in a telephone call on Sept. 11, only hours after the attacks. Remember how Rice told our Richard Clarke she didn't have much info about 9/11 and stuff (including the August 6, 2001 NIE report that told Bush that "Bin Laden was determined to attack the U.S.")?

The Unemployed & Downtrodden Need Help Too

2009-11-23T02:29:00.015-05:00

Where you stand depends on where you sit ...

MUMBAI, INDIA(Reuters) – Leading Indian outsourcers such as Tata Consultancy; Infosys; and Wipro stand to gain contracts worth about $1 billion in the next one or two years as U.S. banks emerge from the troubled asset relief program (TARP). JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have received approval to buy back government stake worth $68 billion earlier this year are among the firms seeking operational efficiencies by outsourcing non-core IT and back-office projects to India. American Express, Bank of New York Mellon, and Capital One, which have started repaying government debt, were also considering outsourcing.

to the 2003 story from Forbes.com. The highlights:
Flashback

plans to move some of its software design jobs to India and they say they are simply following its rivals.
IBM

Dozens of blue-chip companies, including Microsoft; Oracle; Bank of America; JP Morgan Chase; and GE have all set up shop in India.

Consulting firm Forrester Research predicts that 3.3 million service-sector jobs will move from the United States to India and other nations by 2015.

Remember this story is from 2003.

Kinda scary isn't it? So, what is our government doing about the obvious disconnect? Not much. The Taxpayers? Taking it in the shorts [again].

So, we can assume that TARP worked ? At least for India?

"Raping America — Says: [fill in the blank]..."

2009-11-21T16:34:00.005-05:00

Talk Radio "hosts" and those who listen and opine to and about their filth from the likes of Michael Savage; Rush Limbaugh; Glenn Beck, or Liz Cheney and her video "Say no to Gitmo detainees coming here,"' and others, all peddle basic fear and hype. They obviously distrust government, if it's not GOP-run.

They spread their hate via a ton of misinformation or worse, disinformation. They all have a deep-seated anger and distrust of just about anything regarding the country and our time-tested system.

They are plainly nasty and evil. Worse, all the while they say they are doing what has to be done to keep us safe, free, and united. It is sickening.

This clip (the first few minutes of this 6-minute clip) is a snapshot of the rabid Rightwing and their latest rant ...

My question is simple: "How much more of this can the country tolerate?"

Ladies and gentlemen: This is not free speech -- this is hate speech designed for one purpose and when you figure that out, then you will know what I mean.

It is just as harmful as someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" knowing there is no fire, or passing out anti-government leaflets in time of war to stop the draft. Those forms of "speech are NOT protected."

That which flows over most of Talk Radio, and shown in the clip linked above should not be protected, either.

I believe that speech and the way a lot of Talk Radio "hosts" and certain cable TV "TelePrompter readers" yap the "news" is another example of a "clear and present danger" to our national welfare. You may not believe it, but words do have meaning.

Leadership would be to meet this hate speech head on and say it is harmful and wrong. So, why won't our elected leaders do that?

The answer is simple: Most Talk Radio "hosts" and certain cable TV outlets would fry them on the airwaves and turn right around and call it their "freedom of speech."

So, who is afraid of whom?

"Conservative GOP Death Panel ..."

2009-11-19T12:26:00.009-05:00

Fox "News" (News: Ha); Voices of "Reason" (Ha Ha); Public "Airwaves" (a joke).

Thank goodness for MediaMatters.com - re: the story in part:

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck have linked a recent task force's recommendation that fewer women younger than 50 receive regular mammograms to the widely debunked smear that Democratic health reform bills include "death panels." (This story will not be the last, bet on that as the health care reform bill moves through the legislative process).

As expected and predicted, these three skip over the facts, like "... the panel recommendations are not legally binding on health care providers or insurers." In short, nothing will change. The choice as in the past, is between the woman and her doctor -- the way it should be.

But, these three yahoos are not about to let a good red meat story be overshadowed by the facts, truth, or reality... not when ratings are at stake.

If there are any "death panels" at play here, it would be headed up by these three nitwits, FOX cable, and rabid Talk Radio — who are dealing a death blow to common sense and rational thinking on most topics as they skip the facts and head for irrational spewing of garbage.

Here is what needs to be watch -- not government -- but how will the private insurance companies react to this report (i.e., jack up premiums, not coverage mammograms for any woman under age 50?).

"The task force presented some new evidence for consideration but HHS policies remain unchanged," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Then she added: "Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."

Stay tuned.

"How much more hate can we take????"

2009-11-18T15:19:00.009-05:00

These two screen shots are from the Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC.com) regarding the first slide article in the Christian Science Monitor. The article addresses the latest personal attack on President Obama which asks people to pray for Mr. Obama as they cite Psalms 109:8, which now appears on all sorts of commercial products (for fund raising by the fringe Rightwing of the GOP one presumes).

The exact language of the verse is very unnerving to say the least. It comes at a time when reports from the Secret Service and others like the NY Times say that threats against Mr. Obama is 400 times higher than at any other time in the last 52 years.

The quote is clearly identified on the right slide by Frank Schaeffer, renowned author and former "hardcore Rightwinger" who has since changed direction and writes and speaks out about the various views and actions and tone of the so-called "Christian Right" that he and many others consider wrong and dangerous.

The video segment can been seen here (at about the 3-minute mark of this 10-minute video). It is worth your time. It may not change your view, but it certainly will make you think, or at least it should.

"How much more hate of this can we take????"

2009-11-18T15:19:00.001-05:00

"Dede Scozzafava hits it big time: As a verb..."

2009-11-17T02:04:00.003-05:00

You have to watch this video segment from the Rachel Maddow Show (on MSNBC.com) to get the real flavor of this story - so, enjoy.

The Dede part starts at the 2:17 minute mark of this 5:41 clip.

What a way to become famous, or is it infamous? I post, you decide.

"The War in Afghanistan: No improvement..."

2009-11-13T14:54:00.005-05:00

Recent Army Troop Morale Survey results from the sixth Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) survey of combat units. It's not a pretty picture -- the story from here:

_ Junior enlisted soldiers reported significantly more marital problems than non-commissioned officers, stating they intended to get a divorce or that they suspected their spouses back home of infidelity.

_ Exposure to combat, long recognized as a strong factor in mental health problems, was significantly higher this year than rates in 2005 and similar to rates in 2007 for the combat units.

_ Combat units reported significantly lower unit morale in the last six months of their tours of duty, more evidence of the wearing affect of long deployments.

_ Troops in their third or fourth deployment reported significantly more acute stress and other psychological problems, and among those married, reported significantly more marital problems compared to soldiers on their first or second deployment.

_ Soldiers on their third or fourth deployment reported using medications for psychological or combat stress problems at a significantly higher rate than those on their first deployment.

_ It was significantly harder to get behavioral health care this year than in 2005, a finding that may be owing to the fact that troops are spread out at hundreds of posts around the rugged terrain of Afghanistan.

_ Troops who spent two to four hours daily playing video games or surfing the Internet as a way to cope helped lower their psychological problems, but spending time beyond that — three to four hours — had the opposite effect. Those who exercised or did other physical training decreased their mental problems, regardless of the time spent.

_ Troops reported more and better training in suicide prevention and other mental health programs the Army has been increasing over recent years in an unprecedented effort to focus on the force's mental health.

_ The mental health care system in Afghanistan is understaffed based on the Army doctrine of one mental health worker for every 700 troops.

Where does Mr. Owens stand on this survey?

Ironically, he never discussed the two wars during his run for the seat... said he would look out for Vets (which is fine and dandy), but where does he stand on the two wars, torture of detainees in our custody, and things like that?

One wonders, since Owens never said for sure where he stands. I guess it depends on where he sits?

"Line 'em up & count 'em — Rep. Owens votes..."

2009-11-07T16:22:00.005-05:00

Which Owens did you vote for? (The one on the "left" or the one on the "right")?

Rep. William L. "Bill" Owens (D-NY-23) was sworn into office, Friday, November 6, 2009 after winning the seat in a special election on November 3, 2009 against Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

Owens will serve out the remaining term of office left vacant when former Rep. John M. McHugh (R-NY) left to become the 21st Secretary of the Army after he was appointed by President Obama.

One day in office and Owens has already voted on a few bills, namely the House's version of the health care reform bill. Debate may end in a vote on Saturday, November 7, 2009, assuming the House Dems can garnish the necessary 218 votes out of their 258-member caucus. But, rumor has it that the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats (those with more conservative views) may bolt and vote "No" along with the expected entire GOP delegation (177 members). That would ensure defeat.

That final vote will be updated and posted here as it becomes available.

Owens' current string of votes is listed here from the Washington Post which tracks votes by members that are easier to read and analyze than those listed at the House clerk's site [seen here] where you have to click and open each Roll Call vote to see the stats and make comparisons.

"Owens to cast first votes soon..."

2009-11-07T12:44:00.006-05:00

Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) sworn into office as family members watch Speaker Pelosi administer the oath of office.

Now the heavy lifting begins... the House is taking up debate on its version of the health care reform bill.

Mr. Owens says he will support it in this media release. One part needs clarification, however.

"During his campaign for Congress, Owens showed consistent support for legislation that would end pre-existing condition exclusions, reign in spending, protect small businesses and keep middle-class taxes low."

That part may be true, but he never said openly that he would support any public option. If he said it in private then the voters never heard it.

"Last Man Standing - Owens wins 23 Race..."

2009-11-04T20:36:00.003-05:00

Democrat Bill Owens (now official Democrat) beat Conservative Doug Hoffman after Republican Dede Scozzafava dropped out and backed Owens.

Scozzafava drew about 6 percent of the vote and Hoffman lost by 5 points ... ouch.

Now, Rapids can track Owens as the new Rep. from this district to see how he performs in office.

Good luck to him.

"NY 23 - the Focus of the Planet..."

2009-11-03T12:44:00.008-05:00

Conservative HOFFMAN; not yet a DEM (current INDY) OWENS; and former GOPer, SCOZZAFAVA,

dropped out and threw support behind the non-DEM, Dem.

Down to the wire? Doubtful. But, I could be wrong (have been in the past).

DEDE SCOZZAFAVA, the GOP pick, dropped out 3 days before the election and threw her support and asked others to vote for BILL OWENS (the non-DEM who can only be a valid DEM after the election — he is a registered INDY right now). Thus she skipped over the Conservative (a Republican) DOUG HOFFMAN — who BTW, doesn't even live in this District. Now the entire GOP turned on her and rallied behind HOFFMAN.

Meanwhile, she has become persona non grata. The GOP (mostly on the far right led by the likes Limbaugh on the radio ranting as usual) are calling her every name in the book. She may end up leaving the NY assembly or join the majority DEM party in Albany and get some "bennies from them." We shall see. I think she may leave office. This election is one for the history books.

I voted today and voiced my concerns and choices. Click image above for larger view of the new ballot we used today for the first time. Some glitches, but minor. I always vote — I hope everyone does.

"GOP candidate folds her 'Big Tent' ..."

2009-11-01T00:51:00.003-04:00

GOP Candidate Dede Scozzafava gave up on her campaign with only 3 days until election night. Conservative Doug Hoffman (center) will face off against INDY (not yet a legal DEM) Bill Owens.

* Hoffman has caught fire recently thanks to big outside names throwing endorsements and money his way.

* Owens for his part has raised and spent a little over $500,000.00 to date. That amount is in addition to the million or so that the DCCC, DNC and others ( mostly big outside money) have provided for his slick Ads and fancy fliers.

The Tea Party is going nuts about Hoffman, flying in people from all over the country. Oddly enough, Hoffman doesn't even live in the district and legally can't even vote for himself.

Owens can't legally become a Democrat until after this election (e.g., NYS election law) since he is a registered Independent.

What a mess. Scozzafava was too moderate and/or too liberal on a couple of issues. That made the "Big Tent" crowd very uncomfortable.

She was trailing in money and the latest poll put her some 20 points behind Hoffman. Seems the GOP "Big Tent" folks only have room for those who toe the line and stick to GOP mainstream (read: rabid Conservative) principles. Sorry, moderates -- take a hike.

"Myth & Hype vs. Facts & Figures..."

2009-10-28T12:45:00.005-04:00

Tort reform (frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits) vs. Hogs at the trough?

This topic always gets attention (among the GOP mostly still seeking issues that push and keep hot buttons pushed as they seek their way out of the wilderness of "No ideas").

I found this excellent article from a concerned MD, "I'm a doctor, So sue me. No, really."

He hits the subject head on. It is worth your time to read it [HERE].

Will our candidates take to read this -- I wonder. If they read this and further research this "red meat" topic, I hope they keep an open mind and focus in these kinds of facts:

"Researchers reviewed nearly 1,500 claims from five different malpractice insurers. First, they reviewed the merits of each case by determining whether a patient was injured and, if so, whether it was due to physician error. Most of the suits were not frivolous: Almost two-thirds of cases involved errors by doctors. Second, they followed each claim to see if the legal system acted appropriately. The majority of the time, it did. Seventy-three percent of injuries in which a doctor committed an error resulted in payments. Seventy-two percent of cases in which there was an injury not due to physician error did not result in payment. Those conclusions do not paint the picture of a medical-legal system burdened by ambulance-chasing lawyers and their litigious clients. Instead of a swamp of frivolous lawsuits, what the data shows is a system that functions." (emphasis is mine)

"Who started this? Fox or the rest of us???"

2009-10-24T13:05:00.003-04:00

The absolute worst network anywhere that claims to be "Fair and Balanced." The absolute three worst human beings at FOX who live and breath the same air as you do on Planet Earth.

The FOX network and these three guys, as well as a few others, sling their crappy propaganda all day and night, 24/7, and sometimes it's repeated on the weekends.

They stand on the stage of public opinion with crap dripping off them and sheepish grins. They read from a well-prepared narrow-minded, biased scripts that are repeated by other script readers. They have buckets of crap sitting along side them. And, all the while, they have the unmitigated gall to say others made the first move, or worse, "We don't know what's wrong with America and the direction we are heading. But, the blame can be squarely laid at the feet of the Democrat party and their leftist ways leading us to socialism or worse."

They act like the public is stupid, and for those who worship at that alter, I guess they are correct. But, there are a Heluva lot of others who follow this stuff who are not stupid. Media Matters.org is an excellent tracker of these things.

WATCH their short 5-minute video montage of their bullshit here. Then see if you hold the same view about FOX afterwards. Listen closely to the FOX team of speakers shown. Then if you support FOX, that's okay, too. Nothing I write or post or what anyone else says would change your mind.

But, if your view does change, or the video reinforces your previous views about FOX, then pass the video link along to others.

And, then fire off an Email, or fax, or letter, or blog note, or Tweet to FOX and tell them: "This is what is wrong with America — stop blaming others."

"Candidates are Mum - why???"

2009-10-22T14:11:00.006-04:00

CEO pay cuts ordered (those who took public bailout money). The candidates: GOP Scozzafava; Conservative Hoffman; and INDY (not yet a legal DEM) Owens.

The story can be seen here. The candidates can be seen above. So, where to they stand on this?

I suspect, but don't know exactly, but I suspect that the two Republicans (Scozzafava and Hoffman) are against CEO cuts? Owens: who knows really. He ducks most other issues, so ducking this one is not surprising.

The issue is a no-brainer: if anyone wants taxpayers' help (like those 7 did) then they are obliged to play by the rules -- they can't take millions in pay and bonuses (i.e., AIG CEO got $38 million in 2008) and then need bailed out with public help (from the taxpayers) and then snub their snooty noses at the public as they count their private jets and homes in the Hamptons.

The political stance is also simple: They take public money, then they play by the public rules.

The public should ask them. Ooops... they seldom appear in public to address issues and the one TV "debate" they have agreed to - not live. It will be aired a day or so before the election.

The stealth/PR campaign. Why open you mouth and spoil the plan, right? Sad.

"White House Shadows — Your stance???"

2009-10-20T13:12:00.005-04:00

"Shadowy White House (Bush, redux). GOP Scozzafava; Conservative Hoffman; INDY (not yet a DEM) Owens.

The Obama White House seems to be in some critical cases adopting or keeping many Bush left-over policies that many, many people thought were just flat out wrong.

This article from the Nation outlines some of what I mean. This sample illustrates my point:

"The Obama administration makes vague, reassuring noises about constraining executive power and protecting civil liberties, but then merrily adopts whatever appalling policy George W. Bush put in place."

"We appear to be on the verge of doing the same with national security surveillance."

"Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed to abandon hope of bringing any real change to the Patriot Act. A lopsided and depressingly bipartisan majority approved legislation that would reauthorize a series of expanded surveillance powers set to expire at the end of the year. Several senators had proposed that reauthorization be wedded to safeguards designed to protect the privacy of innocent Americans from indiscriminate data dragnets--but behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the Obama administration ensured that even the most modest of these were stripped from the final bill now being sent to the full Senate."

These moves and a few others are very troubling. The question now is: "Where do our candidates stand on this?" Their silence is deafening. So, who exactly will we be sending to DC in this "special election" to represent us, the scared, fearful, but "safe" and hyped public? I wonder.

"The Candidates on Health Care Reform..."

2009-10-17T12:54:00.010-04:00

[click to enlarge]

Hoffman; Owens; and Scozzafava.

Owens in detail here.

Scozzafava in detail here.

Hoffman stands this way:

Q: "Where do you stand on health care reform?"

A: "Although universal health care sounds great in theory, we can’t afford to do everything at once… especially when it means adding an additional trillion dollars to the deficit we are handing to our children and grandchildren. I believe our first step should be to bring the spiraling costs of healthcare under control so the cost of healthcare does not destroy the budgets of hardworking families and retirees. Then, as the economy picks up we can work to insure everyone."

Almost to the member, Labor supports a "public option." Owens does not, or seems evasive enough to show he is against one. Scozzafava, who always has labor support, doesn't even hint at it at her homepage. Hoffman would rather die than even use the word "public option."

On election day, think about that, then vote wisely. If you favor a public option as 77% of the general public does, then who can you support on this number 1 critical issue?

"Know your Enemy!" What enemy????

2009-10-15T13:15:00.010-04:00

(Top): Soldiers on patrol in Afghanistan.

(Middle): Marines on patrol in Afghanistan.

Candidates: Conservative Hoffman; not-yet a DEM, Indy Owens; and GOP Scozzafava.

Let's ramp it up a bit, shall we?

The situation is not only bad and hotly centered in Afghanistan, although that's the attention these days, but also next door in Pakistan (on one side) and Iran (on the other side).

Now, Scozzafava and Hoffman both are playing the “give the General all the troops he wants and let's go get 'em" card. Sadly, that hand has been played before, and it is about 8 years too late.

Former president Bush said: “And as a result of the United States military, the Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free.” (Applause) in a speech Sep 27, 2004 in Springfield, Ohio. So, how'd that work out? Funny way to describe "free" isn't it?

Afghanistan is our second Vietnam any way you measure it. The one difference? The lousy terrain (shown above in the two military screenshots) is the second enemy. By most accounts, we are chasing less than 100 al-Qaeda. So, for Scozzafava and Hoffman, I say: Knock off the fear and hype rhetoric. We’ve heard it all before, and the cost paid has been dear.

Up to date for now: "Rampant government corruption may derail the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan even if as many as 80,000 additional U.S. troops are sent to the war," says the top military commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who has concluded according to U.S. officials briefed on his recommendations. His conclusions are part of a still-secret document that requests more troops even as he warns that they ultimately may not prevent terrorists from turning Afghanistan back into a haven.

So, why are we there? Tell me one more time.

Put that aside for a moment. The most-worrisome and immediate focus should be Pakistan. They have a nuclear arsenal of some 80 weapons, and all the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist group needs is to get their hands on one ... just one.

We are in an almost “no-win” situation — one that greatly benefits the enemy. “Know your Enemy” is a great thought and it works fine, if you actually know your enemy. Right now, our enemy knows us better than we know them or ourselves.

We are losing.

My message for Mr. Owens: Say something ... take a stand that is clear and simple and easy to understand. If you want to go to congress, then you have to take a stand and tell the people what it is. You need to stop this soft shoe tap dancing and fluffiness in your slick expensive Ads. The decision on war is not yours yet. But your view about it is important. So, tell us. You may have to vote on funding for more troops.

"Symbiotic or Mutualism: Political Money..."

2009-10-14T14:09:00.008-04:00

Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman; INDY (not yet a DEM) Democratic candidate, Bill Owens; and GOP candidate, Dede Scozzafava.

Let's get to the heart of this "race" shall we? Well, actually it's more of a PR "race" than anything else in the traditional "race" category or definition (and that favors the candidates: dodge, duck and deceive the voters as much as possible and hope to glide into office on November 3rd).

It may be a special election, but there is nothing special about it at all. My analysis:

Most of those in Congress and most of those seeking a seat in Congress play by the same “Golden Rule” – or set of rules that they write and thus, in turn feel they can break. When they do break the rules, all they do is just make more and better rules (for themselves) believing in this credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I may understand).

“Everyone in office will be insulated and protected by each other this way: If you are in office, remember who helped you get here (lots of big money from outside sources). For those with the big outside money, remember, we are here to help you.”

It’s a bizarre kind of symbiotic relationship best described this way = “If you scratch my back give me tons of money to stay in office, I’ll provide the back scratcher; that is the rules and regulations that will benefit you.”

They live by this simple Golden Rule: “Don’t kill the goose with the gold.”

Don’t falsely assume that just because money comes from either the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) or the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) that it is not big money poured in from those big outside moneyed interests. Also, even though money comes in from other members in office (from their so-called “leadership PAC”), it got there from the big outside donors. It’s all linked into one grand equation: Money and Greed and that equals Power. They win; you lose.

If we were to shut off the all big money (from outside the home district or home state) we’d have a system that favors the people whom those in office and those seeking office always say they serve. But, without major change and complete overhaul of the current laws and mindset (court views), we will continue to be stuck with the current status quo that is badly broken, and when repaired, it is by those in office who still swear to serve the people, all the while they wink and nod and rake in big outside money.

Expecting those in office who broke the system to fix the system is like asking Al Capone to come up with a new income tax solution to help the IRS catch tax cheats like Al Capone.

Locally with these three candidates?

Scozzafava and Owens travel to DC to rake in dough.

Thus far, according to some press reports, Owens has spent $303,000 on television ads, and Hoffman has spent $124,000; Scozzafava lags far behind. We won't the total amounts they have spent or raised from any source until just a few days before election day.

To add insult to insult, these three will not even debate in public (they are too busy fundraising and making new fresh, slick, expensive, and nasty Ads).

Will it work? Probably — it always does.