Entries Tagged as 'Politics'

Tax Land Mines

There’s all this talk about how the Republican Party crafted a tax land mine when they put in place the Bush tax cuts with a ten year expiration — that they knew that the laws would force action by the Democratic party (you mean the Republican’s knew that after George W Bush there wouldn’t be another Republican in White House, nor would they be in control of either branch of the legislature?

Hmm… I don’t but it, but if it’s true that’s cause for major concern.

So the rational goes:

  • If the Democrats vote on the issue and they choose not to renew the tax cuts; they are seen raising taxes.
  • If the Democrats vote on the issue and they choose to renew the tax cuts for only those making less than a quarter million dollars; they are seen as raising taxes.
  • If the Democrats vote on the issue and they choose to renew the tax cuts as they are now, the Republican’s get what they want, and they are seen taking no action to address the growing deficit.

I don’t know what alternate Republican reality these analysis came from, but I certainly don’t understand why the Democrats can’t take the reigns and turn this into a political hot potato for the Republicans.

Elections are about votes; and most American’s earn far less than a quarter million dollars per year, so they aren’t effected by renewing the tax cuts for only those who earn less than that (the current strategy favored by the Obama administration)… so leverage that, show how (once again) the Republican’s want to benefit those who are wealthy, and are only providing lip service as to trying to control the deficit (it is, after all, Republican policies of the Bush administration that created the deficit we have now — remember when Bush took office there was the so called budget “surplus”).

Regardless of your political affiliation, the only real way to take control of the deficit is spend less than you take in — it’s not a revolutionary concept, and in the end it’s likely we’re going to have to both increase taxes on at least some American’s, cut waste, and likely reduce spending.

FY2007
FY2007

FY2008
FY2008

FY2009
FY2009

Originally posted 2010-10-02 02:00:45.

Unhealthy lies and the truth about health care reform

On 18 August 2009 John Groom published an article on CreativeLoafing that might give you a little more perspective on the health care reform battle.  It’s dated, but still very relevant.

The article starts off…

For weeks, health insurance companies, Republican political operatives and politicians, and their media cheerleaders have thrown a thick blanket of lies over the national debate of health care reform. By now you’ve heard the one about how Obama is going to pull the plug on your granny. Maybe you also heard that illegal immigrants would soon be enjoying free health care on your dime. Or that new health care policies would be a bonanza for abortion clinics.

Most of the screamers we’ve seen at health care town hall meetings are obviously, at best, very uninformed about details of proposed reforms. What you may not know is that those uninformed views are largely the result of a deliberate, cynical campaign of outright, blatant dishonesty the likes of which this reporter hasn’t seen in nearly 40 years of following politics. Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein summed up the risk the GOP is taking with its current tactics: “By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.”

For the complete article see: Unhealthy lies and the truth about health care reform.

Remember, question everything.

Originally posted 2009-12-29 01:00:56.

Economic Stimulus

It amazes me how the United States Government can make simple things so complicated… and that it always seems that laws to benefit the greater good cannot be passed without benefiting special interests.

I say this is a very simple thing to handle.

The House and Senate need to approve an appropriation bill which allocates a given amount of money to an economic stimulus effort.  With that they can define the types of spending (broadly) that are acceptable.  Further, they can designate that government entities (federal, state, local, etc) can submit a request to a panel composed of four Representatives (two Republican, two Democrat), two Senators (one Republican, one Democrat), and the Vice President to review and approve.

Further, they could specify that each and very request must be for a single project; well specified with goals and measurable objectives.  That each and every proposal submitted must be acted on within ninety days, and that all actions and meeting of the committee must be open to the public (and news media, complete with cameras and microphones).

Congress could allocate more funding to the program as needed, or elect to stop funding it at any point in the future (but couldn’t pull back funds once granted).

Additional there should be a requirement on any entity that receives funds that they will abide by the letter of Federal law in allocating work which is wholly or partially paid for by the funds, and that any failure to use the funds as specified will require repayment with interest.

Look here, in a few hundred words I’ve outlined a framework that is totally transparent, highly adaptable, and fully accountable…

The whole problem is that we’ve changed nothing in Washington.  While I believe that Barrack Obama wants to change the way government governs, most of the individuals in Washington only wish to benefit themselves.

We gave Barrack Obama an overwhelming charter to change America for the better, and if each and everyone of us doesn’t stand up now and tell our Representatives and Senators that they are either part of the solution, or they are part of the problem and will be dealt with severely.

One thing is for sure, things will change — we will either choose to make the changes, or the changes will be the result of social and economic upheaval.  But if we’re going to have the choice, it has to be soon.

Originally posted 2009-02-08 01:00:01.

NO INCUMBENTS!

INCUMBENTS

Originally posted 2010-04-01 01:30:51.

US Auto Makers

The “Big Three” US automobile manufacturers are quick to tell you they’re not looking for a bail out, they’re looking for bridge loans.

Well… what’s the difference between a bridge loan to a business that’s likely to fail and giving them money for bad assets?

NADA!

It really doesn’t matter what the wording is, bail out, bridge loan, give away… it’s all the same.  The money from hard working American tax payers being given to companies that have made bad decisions and are looking for someone else to pay the price.

And why isn’t part of the $700B we’ve already approved being used?

Why are we gutting a fund that’s been setup to help create automobiles that move us toward energy independence?

Like so many Americans are asking — Where’s my bail out?

It’s great the congress is grilling the auto makers before they hand out more money — but why didn’t they hold Wall Street to the same standards?

This whole thing is very suspect… I mean all the American who are out of work, are we going to extend unemployment benefits for as long as it takes to turn the economy around?  They certainly didn’t contribute to these short sighted decisions… they don’t get $15 million in compensation per year…

I think before any more of the $700B is handed out, or before we approve more money for short sighted businesses we need to lay down a road map that helps us understand how the average American who’s been hit hard by these events is going to survive.

Maybe we need Twisted Sister to sing “We’re not going to take it…” at the opening of ever congressional hearing and session!

Originally posted 2008-12-10 12:00:05.

Legalizing Pot

A government report this past week showed that illegal drug use was up… and immediately the media latches on blaming medical marijuana as being the cause.

Hello… it’s a down economy; and when the economy is bad, and people are out of work, drug use typically increases.

I’m not entirely sure that marijuana should be legalized; I’m more for supporting federal initiatives that require access to alcohol and tobacco to require a doctor’s prescription and making them available only at regulated dispensaries.

After all, the government knew years ago that both tobacco and alcohol were far worse than marijuana… and if there’s any gateway drugs we should be concerned with it’s alcohol and tobacco — after all, I’m willing to bet that an incredibly large number of illegal drug users use or used alcohol and/or tobacco first.

Get a grip America — the double standard in dealing with “harmful” substances is part of the problem… and guess what, prohibition failed (miserably); just read what wealthiest supporters of prohibition said after it was repealed:

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.
· John D Rockefeller, Jr

Originally posted 2010-09-19 02:00:48.

The Republican Front Runners as Imagined by The Simpsons

The Republican Front Runners As Imagined by The Simpsons
by Rob Tornoe

Originally posted 2011-08-27 02:00:22.

Marco Rubio

Politicians are slick, and it’s always difficult (if not impossible) to truly know what they mean when they say anything, not to mention how to know whether or not they mean anything they say.

Marco Rubio, junior senator from Florida (Republican) made an interesting statement recently on his views on big government verses small government.

The success sequence in America says you get an education, you get a good job, you get married, you have children. People who do those four things have an incredible level of economic stability.

Now the question that came to my mind after pondering this statement is:

  • Does Rubio support same gender marriage, or does he believe fundamentally those who would seek a same gender marriage should be denied access to the “success sequence” he’s put forth?

Well, it would seem he’s pandering to his political base, the conservative right, since shortly after he said:

Those who support same sex marriage have a right to lobby their state legislatures to change state laws, but Americans who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage also have a right to work to keep the traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing that overturned by a judge.

While he did indicate that American history was “marred by discrimination against gays and lesbians” it would appear that while he’s willing to let gays drink in a bar, or have a job, he’s unwilling to allow them access to what he considers “the success sequence in America”.

I honestly don’t know what Rubio is trying to say, and perhaps neither does he — he may be so lost in trying to drum up votes from every segment of American society that he has lost or muddied his values… but one thing that is nagging me in the back of my mind is if he would have been a staunch supporter of separate but equal

Originally posted 2014-07-25 17:00:08.

Stuck in the toilet…

If the economy stays stuck in the toilet, I have a shot at beating Obama...
by Mike Luckovich

Originally posted 2011-07-06 02:00:52.

US Health Care Reform

Have you noticed all the advertisements attempting to stop heath care reform in this country?

Mainly the ads seem to be targeted at preventing the reconciliation of the Senate and House plans to include a public option.

If you look into who’s funding these advertisements you probably won’t be surprised that it’s the health care industry looking after their interests (which aren’t your interests unless you’re a major stock holder in one or more of the insurance companies or health care companies in this country).

Patients First is a project of Americans for Prosperity, an organization run by Art Pope (aka “The Knight of the Right”).  Heavily funded by corporate American — heavily funded by the health care industry.

There’s simply nothing grass roots about them — and they do not represent the interests of the average American.  They represent special interests, the extreme right, and the health care industry itself.

Obviously the American health care industry is spending money because they don’t want their lucrative business model changed.

Personally I question any organization’s motives when they attempt to hide where their funding comes from.

Dig deeper, you might not like what you find — and don’t just listen to the rhetoric, learn what’s at stake.

SourceWatch.org

Originally posted 2009-12-28 01:00:59.