A Pension for Security, Not Politics
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Stupid reason #3916 for fooling around with stock investments
..................................................................................................................................
A Pension for Security, Not Politics
A Pension for Security, Not Politics
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Which Second Amendment do you want?
...............................................................................................
"We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now" -- Gabby Giffords
..................................................................................................................................
Shifting the Gun Control Debate From Hunting to Black Helicopters
By Carl Golden, January 29, 2013
Coming to the realization that insisting automatic weapons with high capacity magazines be available for sporting use wasn’t gaining much traction among the general public, gun rights advocates have shifted their rationale to argue that private ownership of such weapons is necessary to protect against a tyrannical government, either our own or from somewhere else in the world.
They interpret the Constitution’s Second Amendment reference to a “well-regulated militia” as proof that the original intent of the nation’s founders was to assure an armed populace ready and willing to take up weapons in defense of the country.
But, in the 21st Century world of government’s stockpile of sophisticated weaponry of unimaginable power — not to mention unmanned aircraft capable of delivering widespread destruction — how compelling is an argument that a homeowner standing in his doorway holding an automatic rifle is a match for the overwhelming forces of official tyranny, no matter the source?
Is it any more compelling, for instance, than claiming that shredding a deer with a few dozen slugs from an automatic weapon is a personal right deserving of constitutional protection?
Besides, we have a standing military with responsibility for keeping the country safe from invasion. Taxpayers shell out some $600 billion a year for it and, given history, it’s been pretty successful in turning back external threats from nations which have sought to impose their will or control on the United States.
Today, a 22-year-old in uniform sitting before a computer console in an underground bunker in Nebraska can, with the touch of a button, unleash profound devastation on an enemy half a world away.
As for tyranny from within, our 237-year history reveals no effort to do so. We live in a society where governmental change comes about through peaceful means — voting, the judicial system, citizen protest and petitions, for instance. The necessity to arm private individuals to stave off the actions of a government gone rogue is an argument without historical basis.
Warning darkly of government agents kicking in doors in the middle of the night and carting off innocent, law-abiding citizens never to be seen again is not only a diversion from the issue at hand, but is a likelihood that the overwhelming majority of people in this country reject entirely.
If accounts coming from Washington, D. C. are accurate, legislation to prohibit the manufacture and sale of certain classes and types of automatic weapons will not become law. The system is designed to work that way: Elected representatives of the people debate, consider and vote on public policy issues, the very qualities which for 237 years have blocked the kind of tyrannical acts that guns rights advocates warn of.
Gun right groups would do better to throw their support behind proposals for universal background checks for those who purchase a firearm, for stricter enforcement of existing laws on so-called “straw buyers,” for greater scrutiny of our system of caring for mentally ill persons to prevent their access to weapons, for determining if any links exist between simulated violence in films or video games and real-life violence.
And, yes, even for considering limiting the ammunition capacity of automatic weapons.
The alternating incendiary and condescending rhetoric from National Rifle Association executive director Wayne LaPierre doesn’t help or advance the advocates’ cause, either.
Gun advocates only invite criticism and derision when they continue to insist that hunting with an automatic rifle is a sport and or that brigades of black-clad government storm troopers are in secret training eagerly awaiting official word to launch their assault on their fellow citizens.
The advocates are in possession of legitimate and sound arguments for their positions. Blowing up deer or other game or taking potshots from a bedroom window to prevent an apocalypse from an invading force, however, aren’t among them.
..................................................................................................................................
Shifting the Gun Control Debate From Hunting to Black Helicopters
By Carl Golden, January 29, 2013
Coming to the realization that insisting automatic weapons with high capacity magazines be available for sporting use wasn’t gaining much traction among the general public, gun rights advocates have shifted their rationale to argue that private ownership of such weapons is necessary to protect against a tyrannical government, either our own or from somewhere else in the world.
They interpret the Constitution’s Second Amendment reference to a “well-regulated militia” as proof that the original intent of the nation’s founders was to assure an armed populace ready and willing to take up weapons in defense of the country.
But, in the 21st Century world of government’s stockpile of sophisticated weaponry of unimaginable power — not to mention unmanned aircraft capable of delivering widespread destruction — how compelling is an argument that a homeowner standing in his doorway holding an automatic rifle is a match for the overwhelming forces of official tyranny, no matter the source?
Is it any more compelling, for instance, than claiming that shredding a deer with a few dozen slugs from an automatic weapon is a personal right deserving of constitutional protection?
Besides, we have a standing military with responsibility for keeping the country safe from invasion. Taxpayers shell out some $600 billion a year for it and, given history, it’s been pretty successful in turning back external threats from nations which have sought to impose their will or control on the United States.
Today, a 22-year-old in uniform sitting before a computer console in an underground bunker in Nebraska can, with the touch of a button, unleash profound devastation on an enemy half a world away.
As for tyranny from within, our 237-year history reveals no effort to do so. We live in a society where governmental change comes about through peaceful means — voting, the judicial system, citizen protest and petitions, for instance. The necessity to arm private individuals to stave off the actions of a government gone rogue is an argument without historical basis.
Warning darkly of government agents kicking in doors in the middle of the night and carting off innocent, law-abiding citizens never to be seen again is not only a diversion from the issue at hand, but is a likelihood that the overwhelming majority of people in this country reject entirely.
If accounts coming from Washington, D. C. are accurate, legislation to prohibit the manufacture and sale of certain classes and types of automatic weapons will not become law. The system is designed to work that way: Elected representatives of the people debate, consider and vote on public policy issues, the very qualities which for 237 years have blocked the kind of tyrannical acts that guns rights advocates warn of.
Gun right groups would do better to throw their support behind proposals for universal background checks for those who purchase a firearm, for stricter enforcement of existing laws on so-called “straw buyers,” for greater scrutiny of our system of caring for mentally ill persons to prevent their access to weapons, for determining if any links exist between simulated violence in films or video games and real-life violence.
And, yes, even for considering limiting the ammunition capacity of automatic weapons.
The alternating incendiary and condescending rhetoric from National Rifle Association executive director Wayne LaPierre doesn’t help or advance the advocates’ cause, either.
Gun advocates only invite criticism and derision when they continue to insist that hunting with an automatic rifle is a sport and or that brigades of black-clad government storm troopers are in secret training eagerly awaiting official word to launch their assault on their fellow citizens.
The advocates are in possession of legitimate and sound arguments for their positions. Blowing up deer or other game or taking potshots from a bedroom window to prevent an apocalypse from an invading force, however, aren’t among them.
..................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Scalia-- a "scared (and scary) clown"
.................................................................................................................................
One of the commenters on this posting wrote, appropriately: "... One's level of distaste or disgust in another's behavior is not a reasonable argument for constitutional interpretation. By the way, I have always seen Scalia for the scared (and scary) clown that he is." -- Daniel Smith
..................................................................................................................................
Scalia on ‘living’ Constitution: ‘It’s dead, dead, dead!’
January 29, 2013
Supreme Court Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia used a Monday lecture at Southern Methodist University to go after those who argue that the U.S. Constitution is a “living document” subject to interpretation in light of lessons from history and the intent of lawgivers.
“It’s not a living document: It’s dead, dead, dead,” Scalia said, as reported by The Dallas Morning News. Scalia is an outspoken conservative and a self-described “textualist” who believes texts should be interpreted by their literal meaning.
Scalia was appearing with SMU law professor Bryan Garner, with whom he has coauthored a book: ”Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text. ”
“I will tell you my political beliefs are different from those of Justice Scalia,” Garner joked. He is a supporter of same-sex marriage and stricter gun control laws.
“I haven’t expressed my views of either of those: You’re a bleeding heart,” Scalia shot back.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in two landmark cases involving marriage equality, namely legal challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage and to California’s Proposition 8, a voter-passed measure which rolled back same-sex marriage in America’s largest state.
The “living document” debate has come to the fore in recent days.
In a recent interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “there are some things in the Constitution that are black and white,” but added that there are “provisions that are very general in the Constitution.” She cited its prohibition against “unreasonable search and seizure.” “What does ‘unreasonable’ mean? What’s a search and seizure?” Sotomayor asked.
“To talk about ‘strict interpretation’ those are not words I use and not words that I think have much meaning,” Sotomayor added, citing the elements of facts, precedent and history that go into the Supreme Court’s decision-making.
Scalia has actually been heard, repeatedly, particularly on the subject of gay and lesbian rights.
He wrote a furious dissent in the 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas case, in which a 6-3 Supreme Court majority threw out sodomy laws and reversed a decision made 17 years earlier. Scalia called it a furthering of the “homosexual agenda,” and wrote: “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their businesses, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
And, in a Princeton University lecture in December, he argued: “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
..................................................................................................................................
One of the commenters on this posting wrote, appropriately: "... One's level of distaste or disgust in another's behavior is not a reasonable argument for constitutional interpretation. By the way, I have always seen Scalia for the scared (and scary) clown that he is." -- Daniel Smith
..................................................................................................................................
Scalia on ‘living’ Constitution: ‘It’s dead, dead, dead!’
January 29, 2013
Supreme Court Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia used a Monday lecture at Southern Methodist University to go after those who argue that the U.S. Constitution is a “living document” subject to interpretation in light of lessons from history and the intent of lawgivers.
“It’s not a living document: It’s dead, dead, dead,” Scalia said, as reported by The Dallas Morning News. Scalia is an outspoken conservative and a self-described “textualist” who believes texts should be interpreted by their literal meaning.
Scalia was appearing with SMU law professor Bryan Garner, with whom he has coauthored a book: ”Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text. ”
“I will tell you my political beliefs are different from those of Justice Scalia,” Garner joked. He is a supporter of same-sex marriage and stricter gun control laws.
“I haven’t expressed my views of either of those: You’re a bleeding heart,” Scalia shot back.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in two landmark cases involving marriage equality, namely legal challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage and to California’s Proposition 8, a voter-passed measure which rolled back same-sex marriage in America’s largest state.
The “living document” debate has come to the fore in recent days.
In a recent interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “there are some things in the Constitution that are black and white,” but added that there are “provisions that are very general in the Constitution.” She cited its prohibition against “unreasonable search and seizure.” “What does ‘unreasonable’ mean? What’s a search and seizure?” Sotomayor asked.
“To talk about ‘strict interpretation’ those are not words I use and not words that I think have much meaning,” Sotomayor added, citing the elements of facts, precedent and history that go into the Supreme Court’s decision-making.
Scalia has actually been heard, repeatedly, particularly on the subject of gay and lesbian rights.
He wrote a furious dissent in the 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas case, in which a 6-3 Supreme Court majority threw out sodomy laws and reversed a decision made 17 years earlier. Scalia called it a furthering of the “homosexual agenda,” and wrote: “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their businesses, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
And, in a Princeton University lecture in December, he argued: “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
..................................................................................................................................
Monday, January 28, 2013
Avoidance is preferred to pain
..................................................................................................................................
Wimping Out on Tough Votes
By Charlie Cook, January 29, 2013
Liberals enthused by President Obama’s soaring inauguration rhetoric and conservatives fearful of an impending socialist takeover should all take a deep breath. Much of what liberals passionately want and conservatives deeply fear is unlikely to ever make it to a vote on the House or Senate floors.
For the past two decades, one of the least understood but most important unwritten job requirements for congressional leaders has been to protect their members from difficult and potentially politically costly votes, either in committee or on the floor. Some of the most pressing policy issues of the day are never voted on or are so diluted that one would be hard-pressed to use voting records to nail down how any member feels about anything of real consequence.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner both understand that sparing their members from casting difficult votes is now part of their jobs—and, in their caucus members’ eyes, a very important part. Maybe it’s a vote that would force some members to choose between their party’s base and swing voters, or maybe it’s one that would alienate a key constituency: Avoidance is preferred to pain. Even if many in the party are chomping at the bit to take on an issue, they usually end up deferring to party leaders who will sideline a vote if it endangers enough members, particularly if a party’s majority in a chamber is on the line.
In the old days, senators would disdainfully look down on the House, the “lower body,” in part because the House Rules Committee so thoroughly regulated floor debates and amendments. In recent years, however, the Senate has grown more restricted as constant threats of filibuster prevent consideration of controversial legislation. These days, the Senate majority leader often resorts to a tactic employed by the late Sen. Robert Byrd and former Sen. Bob Dole called “filling the amendment tree,” which prevents the minority from offering troublesome amendments. It’s now commonplace for House members to refer to the Senate as a legislative cemetery, a place where bills go to die.
A top priority for Reid, who clearly has the upper hand in the Senate on scheduling and allowing (or not allowing) votes, is protecting incumbents facing potentially tough reelection fights in 2014, such as Max Baucus in Montana, Mark Begich in Alaska, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, and, if he seeks another term, Tim Johnson in South Dakota. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney carried Pryor’s Arkansas by 24 percentage points, Landrieu’s Louisiana by 17 points, Johnson’s South Dakota by 18 points, and Begich’s Alaska and Baucus’s Montana by 14 points each. Democratic incumbents running in purple states include Kay Hagan in North Carolina, where Romney won by 2 points, and Mark Warner in Virginia, where Obama won by the same margin.
Although all of the other Democratic incumbents up next year are in states that Obama carried by at least 5 points, there are probably a few issues that, for instance, Mark Udall would rather not contend with as he runs again in Colorado (Obama by 5 points). The same goes for Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire (Obama by 6 points). Should Tom Harkin seek a sixth term, he might prefer to sidestep some tough votes—but, then again, Harkin rarely avoids a fight if one is handy.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is not situated so well to dictate what votes will be held. But because he has only one incumbent up in a state that Romney carried by less than 8 points—Susan Collins in Maine—he will be under considerably less pressure from his members.
Boehner’s debt-ceiling vote strategy is to force Senate action on a budget—to return to “regular order”—thereby setting up votes that not only give Republicans more say in the outcome but also make it impossible for Reid to protect his members who are vulnerable in 2014, 2016, and even 2018.
At the same time, Republicans are seeking to slow things down, in the same way a coach whose team has fallen behind will often call a time-out, to regroup, rethink, and calm the players down. Most congressional Republicans realize how badly the election hurt their party and how much their brand suffered during the campaign and even since the election. Although the GOP has not yet settled on a course of action, Republican leaders see a disadvantage in tackling entitlement issues before the public better understands the threat of budget deficits and debt. That education will take some time.
All of this is a departure from the old days when tough votes were considered an unpleasant but necessary responsibility of serving in Congress. If you don’t want to cast tough votes, don’t run for Congress, the thinking went. Today, members’ avoidance of tough votes means kicking the proverbial can farther down the road.
..................................................................................................................................
Wimping Out on Tough Votes
By Charlie Cook, January 29, 2013
Liberals enthused by President Obama’s soaring inauguration rhetoric and conservatives fearful of an impending socialist takeover should all take a deep breath. Much of what liberals passionately want and conservatives deeply fear is unlikely to ever make it to a vote on the House or Senate floors.
For the past two decades, one of the least understood but most important unwritten job requirements for congressional leaders has been to protect their members from difficult and potentially politically costly votes, either in committee or on the floor. Some of the most pressing policy issues of the day are never voted on or are so diluted that one would be hard-pressed to use voting records to nail down how any member feels about anything of real consequence.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner both understand that sparing their members from casting difficult votes is now part of their jobs—and, in their caucus members’ eyes, a very important part. Maybe it’s a vote that would force some members to choose between their party’s base and swing voters, or maybe it’s one that would alienate a key constituency: Avoidance is preferred to pain. Even if many in the party are chomping at the bit to take on an issue, they usually end up deferring to party leaders who will sideline a vote if it endangers enough members, particularly if a party’s majority in a chamber is on the line.
In the old days, senators would disdainfully look down on the House, the “lower body,” in part because the House Rules Committee so thoroughly regulated floor debates and amendments. In recent years, however, the Senate has grown more restricted as constant threats of filibuster prevent consideration of controversial legislation. These days, the Senate majority leader often resorts to a tactic employed by the late Sen. Robert Byrd and former Sen. Bob Dole called “filling the amendment tree,” which prevents the minority from offering troublesome amendments. It’s now commonplace for House members to refer to the Senate as a legislative cemetery, a place where bills go to die.
A top priority for Reid, who clearly has the upper hand in the Senate on scheduling and allowing (or not allowing) votes, is protecting incumbents facing potentially tough reelection fights in 2014, such as Max Baucus in Montana, Mark Begich in Alaska, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, and, if he seeks another term, Tim Johnson in South Dakota. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney carried Pryor’s Arkansas by 24 percentage points, Landrieu’s Louisiana by 17 points, Johnson’s South Dakota by 18 points, and Begich’s Alaska and Baucus’s Montana by 14 points each. Democratic incumbents running in purple states include Kay Hagan in North Carolina, where Romney won by 2 points, and Mark Warner in Virginia, where Obama won by the same margin.
Although all of the other Democratic incumbents up next year are in states that Obama carried by at least 5 points, there are probably a few issues that, for instance, Mark Udall would rather not contend with as he runs again in Colorado (Obama by 5 points). The same goes for Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire (Obama by 6 points). Should Tom Harkin seek a sixth term, he might prefer to sidestep some tough votes—but, then again, Harkin rarely avoids a fight if one is handy.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is not situated so well to dictate what votes will be held. But because he has only one incumbent up in a state that Romney carried by less than 8 points—Susan Collins in Maine—he will be under considerably less pressure from his members.
Boehner’s debt-ceiling vote strategy is to force Senate action on a budget—to return to “regular order”—thereby setting up votes that not only give Republicans more say in the outcome but also make it impossible for Reid to protect his members who are vulnerable in 2014, 2016, and even 2018.
At the same time, Republicans are seeking to slow things down, in the same way a coach whose team has fallen behind will often call a time-out, to regroup, rethink, and calm the players down. Most congressional Republicans realize how badly the election hurt their party and how much their brand suffered during the campaign and even since the election. Although the GOP has not yet settled on a course of action, Republican leaders see a disadvantage in tackling entitlement issues before the public better understands the threat of budget deficits and debt. That education will take some time.
All of this is a departure from the old days when tough votes were considered an unpleasant but necessary responsibility of serving in Congress. If you don’t want to cast tough votes, don’t run for Congress, the thinking went. Today, members’ avoidance of tough votes means kicking the proverbial can farther down the road.
..................................................................................................................................
No religion needed in politics
..................................................................................................................................
Group’s goal: Take religion out of politics and policy
By Patrick Gavin, January 22, 2013
There were plenty of references to God during Monday’s presidential Inauguration, and one group is hoping that’ll change soon.
Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, thinks that the decision to take the presidential oath with one hand on a Bible seems a bit outdated.
“It’s a bit of an outdated process,” Rogers said. “I would love to see the U.S. progress and eliminate some of those traditions.”
While the president outlined a second-term vision on such issues as the environment and immigration, Rogers has a different plan for the next four years: gaining greater progress and access for nonbelievers in the realm of public policy. Her effort is bolstered by a Pew poll out this month that reported an increase in the number of members of Congress who don’t specify a religious affiliation. Although Rogers’s cause suffered a setback when the first openly atheist member of Congress — Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) — left Congress this year, a new member — Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) — says she has no religious affiliation.
“It’s definitely a trend,” Rogers told POLITICO. “People are wanting to keep [religion] separate, they’re wanting to keep it personal, and you’re starting to see it finally spill over into Congress.”
For the next four years, Rogers has specific issues she wants to focus on — getting religion out of such places as public school science classes, sex education, health care policy and tax policy — but she also wants to persuade more politicians to admit that they are unaffiliated with a religion (a CQ-Roll Call study found 10 members of the 113th Congress who did not specify a religious affiliation, but only Sinema has been public about it).
Rogers believes the reluctance “has to do with the fact that, in order to get elected, you need to be in as many groups and coalitions as you can possibly be in, so having that religion box and that affiliation and getting those people to vote for you is very helpful in an election or a reelection.” She says there is also a perception, which she believes to be false, “that perhaps you don’t have the same morals or the same beliefs and that you’re not as good of a person or as ethical” if you aren’t affiliated with a particular religion.
But Rogers thinks patience will prove she is correct.
“I think it will slowly go away” Rogers said of the political system’s embrace of religious symbols and language. “I think you’ll see us move away in the United States from feeling like God has to be mentioned in everything and anything.” She sees a bit of that momentum, however slowly, in the current president.
“When he talks about religion, he also talks about nonbelievers and includes them in his speeches.”
..................................................................................................................................
Group’s goal: Take religion out of politics and policy
By Patrick Gavin, January 22, 2013
There were plenty of references to God during Monday’s presidential Inauguration, and one group is hoping that’ll change soon.
Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, thinks that the decision to take the presidential oath with one hand on a Bible seems a bit outdated.
“It’s a bit of an outdated process,” Rogers said. “I would love to see the U.S. progress and eliminate some of those traditions.”
While the president outlined a second-term vision on such issues as the environment and immigration, Rogers has a different plan for the next four years: gaining greater progress and access for nonbelievers in the realm of public policy. Her effort is bolstered by a Pew poll out this month that reported an increase in the number of members of Congress who don’t specify a religious affiliation. Although Rogers’s cause suffered a setback when the first openly atheist member of Congress — Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) — left Congress this year, a new member — Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) — says she has no religious affiliation.
“It’s definitely a trend,” Rogers told POLITICO. “People are wanting to keep [religion] separate, they’re wanting to keep it personal, and you’re starting to see it finally spill over into Congress.”
For the next four years, Rogers has specific issues she wants to focus on — getting religion out of such places as public school science classes, sex education, health care policy and tax policy — but she also wants to persuade more politicians to admit that they are unaffiliated with a religion (a CQ-Roll Call study found 10 members of the 113th Congress who did not specify a religious affiliation, but only Sinema has been public about it).
Rogers believes the reluctance “has to do with the fact that, in order to get elected, you need to be in as many groups and coalitions as you can possibly be in, so having that religion box and that affiliation and getting those people to vote for you is very helpful in an election or a reelection.” She says there is also a perception, which she believes to be false, “that perhaps you don’t have the same morals or the same beliefs and that you’re not as good of a person or as ethical” if you aren’t affiliated with a particular religion.
But Rogers thinks patience will prove she is correct.
“I think it will slowly go away” Rogers said of the political system’s embrace of religious symbols and language. “I think you’ll see us move away in the United States from feeling like God has to be mentioned in everything and anything.” She sees a bit of that momentum, however slowly, in the current president.
“When he talks about religion, he also talks about nonbelievers and includes them in his speeches.”
..................................................................................................................................
Dare we hope that we won't have Palin to kick around any more?
..................................................................................................................................
Why Fox News dropped Sarah Palin
By Brad Knickerbocker, January 26, 2013
After John McCain picked Sarah Palin out of relative obscurity to be his vice presidential running mate, she became a political force of nature. Since then, however, her star has lost its luster within the GOP, and she’s parted ways with Fox News.
When the history of US politics in the early 21st century is written, two figures will stand out: Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.
The election of Mr. Obama to the highest elective office – the first African-American to win the presidency – did not necessarily signal a new era of post-racial politics. But coming just a generation after federal troops in the South (and a federal judge in Boston) were necessary to desegregate public schools, it was a huge milestone.
Sarah Palin was not the first woman to win a major political party’s vice presidential nomination; that was US Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale’s running mate way back in 1984.
But the presence of the former Alaska governor on the GOP ticket headed by Sen. John McCain in 2008 invigorated the party – at the time, at least. And although they lost to Obama and Joe Biden, it wasn’t the blowout that Mondale and Ferraro suffered against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Ferraro went on to relative political obscurity, twice losing Democratic Party primaries for the US Senate. Ms. Palin, on the other hand, was just getting started when the returns for the 2008 presidential race were being counted.
Over the next few years, she became a political force of nature – stirring a tea party base that thronged to her appearances, scaring GOP incumbents deemed too willing to find common ground with Democrats, and building a very lucrative business that included (for one season, at least) her own “reality” TV show while launching one of her five children – daughter Bristol – on her own entertainment career.
Meanwhile, as with some other conservative ex-elected officials like Mike Huckabee, Palin was given a sinecure of sorts as a commentator for Fox News, which built a studio in her home in Wasilla, Alaska, from which she railed against the “lamestream media” and anything Obama proposed or did as President.
No matter that Mrs. Palin became the butt of liberal jokes, driving left-leaning bloviators nuts, and giving a huge boost to the acting career of Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey. Her “Grizzly Mama” persona – a sharp-edged folksiness with the occasional rhetorical stumble – attracted at least as many people as it turned off. “Run, Sarah, Run!” echoed among adoring throngs urging her to run for the White House.
Although not every candidate she endorsed in 2010 won, her record was respectable.
In competitive primaries,” Politics Daily correspondent Sandra Fish wrote at the time, “Palin is 7-2 for Senate endorsements; 7-6 for House endorsements; and 6-3 in endorsements of gubernatorial candidates.” Eventually, there were notable loses – Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Joe Miller in Palin’s home state – but she also helped send Kelly Ayotte to the US Senate representing New Hampshire.
Since then, Republicans lost the presidency – again to Obama. In Charlotte, North Carolina, this week, GOP higher ups are trying to figure out whether it’s the party’s message or the (largely) white, (largely) older, (largely) male profile that’s the problem as US political demographics move away from them to a younger, more diverse electorate. The tea party has not folded, but neither is it the force it once was.
Meanwhile, establishment Republicans continue their move away from Palin. Her feuds with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney made news, as did her apparent snubbing by organizers of Mitt Romney’s nominating convention in Tampa last summer.
More recently, Colin Powell criticized Palin for using a “racial-era slave term” in describing the nation’s first African-American president.
“When I see a former governor say that the president is ‘shuckin’ and jivin’ — that’s a racial-era slave term,” Mr. Powell said, referring to Palin’s characterization of Obama’s response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the US ambassador and three other Americans.
Such comments, Powell said on “Meet the Press” last Sunday, indicate a “dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party.”
If this is sounding like a political obituary for Sarah Palin, it may well be.
It was reported this week that Palin will no longer be a paid commentator on Fox News. Whether she jumped or was pushed is not entirely clear, but the news was not surprising. She has not appeared on Fox since December, and she complained on Facebook when some earlier appearances were canceled.
Her relationship with Fox News CEO Roger Ailes – who hired her because “she was hot and got ratings” – are reported to have been pricklish.
As Jill Lawrence writes in the National Journal, “She could land somewhere else, and she still has her Facebook friends, but it’s hard to imagine she’ll find a more visible or influential platform than Fox.”
UPDATE – Howard Kurtz reports on the Daily Beast Saturday:
“Fox News offered Sarah Palin a new contract before she decided to part ways with the network where she has held forth as a commentator for the last three years.
“However, it would be hard to describe it as a generous contract….
“The new contract offered by Fox, say people familiar with the situation, would have provided only a fraction of the million-dollar-a-year salary. It was then, they say, that Palin turned it down and both sides agreed to call it quits.”
..................................................................................................................................
Why Fox News dropped Sarah Palin
By Brad Knickerbocker, January 26, 2013
After John McCain picked Sarah Palin out of relative obscurity to be his vice presidential running mate, she became a political force of nature. Since then, however, her star has lost its luster within the GOP, and she’s parted ways with Fox News.
When the history of US politics in the early 21st century is written, two figures will stand out: Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.
The election of Mr. Obama to the highest elective office – the first African-American to win the presidency – did not necessarily signal a new era of post-racial politics. But coming just a generation after federal troops in the South (and a federal judge in Boston) were necessary to desegregate public schools, it was a huge milestone.
Sarah Palin was not the first woman to win a major political party’s vice presidential nomination; that was US Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale’s running mate way back in 1984.
But the presence of the former Alaska governor on the GOP ticket headed by Sen. John McCain in 2008 invigorated the party – at the time, at least. And although they lost to Obama and Joe Biden, it wasn’t the blowout that Mondale and Ferraro suffered against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Ferraro went on to relative political obscurity, twice losing Democratic Party primaries for the US Senate. Ms. Palin, on the other hand, was just getting started when the returns for the 2008 presidential race were being counted.
Over the next few years, she became a political force of nature – stirring a tea party base that thronged to her appearances, scaring GOP incumbents deemed too willing to find common ground with Democrats, and building a very lucrative business that included (for one season, at least) her own “reality” TV show while launching one of her five children – daughter Bristol – on her own entertainment career.
Meanwhile, as with some other conservative ex-elected officials like Mike Huckabee, Palin was given a sinecure of sorts as a commentator for Fox News, which built a studio in her home in Wasilla, Alaska, from which she railed against the “lamestream media” and anything Obama proposed or did as President.
No matter that Mrs. Palin became the butt of liberal jokes, driving left-leaning bloviators nuts, and giving a huge boost to the acting career of Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey. Her “Grizzly Mama” persona – a sharp-edged folksiness with the occasional rhetorical stumble – attracted at least as many people as it turned off. “Run, Sarah, Run!” echoed among adoring throngs urging her to run for the White House.
Although not every candidate she endorsed in 2010 won, her record was respectable.
In competitive primaries,” Politics Daily correspondent Sandra Fish wrote at the time, “Palin is 7-2 for Senate endorsements; 7-6 for House endorsements; and 6-3 in endorsements of gubernatorial candidates.” Eventually, there were notable loses – Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Joe Miller in Palin’s home state – but she also helped send Kelly Ayotte to the US Senate representing New Hampshire.
Since then, Republicans lost the presidency – again to Obama. In Charlotte, North Carolina, this week, GOP higher ups are trying to figure out whether it’s the party’s message or the (largely) white, (largely) older, (largely) male profile that’s the problem as US political demographics move away from them to a younger, more diverse electorate. The tea party has not folded, but neither is it the force it once was.
Meanwhile, establishment Republicans continue their move away from Palin. Her feuds with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney made news, as did her apparent snubbing by organizers of Mitt Romney’s nominating convention in Tampa last summer.
More recently, Colin Powell criticized Palin for using a “racial-era slave term” in describing the nation’s first African-American president.
“When I see a former governor say that the president is ‘shuckin’ and jivin’ — that’s a racial-era slave term,” Mr. Powell said, referring to Palin’s characterization of Obama’s response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the US ambassador and three other Americans.
Such comments, Powell said on “Meet the Press” last Sunday, indicate a “dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party.”
If this is sounding like a political obituary for Sarah Palin, it may well be.
It was reported this week that Palin will no longer be a paid commentator on Fox News. Whether she jumped or was pushed is not entirely clear, but the news was not surprising. She has not appeared on Fox since December, and she complained on Facebook when some earlier appearances were canceled.
Her relationship with Fox News CEO Roger Ailes – who hired her because “she was hot and got ratings” – are reported to have been pricklish.
As Jill Lawrence writes in the National Journal, “She could land somewhere else, and she still has her Facebook friends, but it’s hard to imagine she’ll find a more visible or influential platform than Fox.”
UPDATE – Howard Kurtz reports on the Daily Beast Saturday:
“Fox News offered Sarah Palin a new contract before she decided to part ways with the network where she has held forth as a commentator for the last three years.
“However, it would be hard to describe it as a generous contract….
“The new contract offered by Fox, say people familiar with the situation, would have provided only a fraction of the million-dollar-a-year salary. It was then, they say, that Palin turned it down and both sides agreed to call it quits.”
..................................................................................................................................
Sunday, January 27, 2013
The usual misdirection by the NRA
...............................................................................................
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Guess this falls into the category of "better late than never"
...............................................
PairExtraordinaire
Martini Music
PairExtraordinaire
At
Little Creek Casino's
Skookum Spirit Lounge
February 22, 23, 2013
7pm to 11pm
Friday, January 25, 2013
Piling on
..................................................................................................................................
Haley Barbour: ‘Stupid’ comments hurt GOP
By Katie Glueck, January 25, 2013
Former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour said on Friday that “stupid” and “offensive” comments made by one candidate can have a negative effect on others in the same political party.
“The comments they made were stupid comments, offensive comments and in today’s world when a candidate in one state says something, the negative effect of that can spill over to other candidates,” Barbour, the former GOP governor of Mississippi, said on “CBS This Morning.”
He was referencing former GOP Senate hopefuls Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin, who both saw their campaigns go down in flames after making controversial comments related to rape.
Barbour’s tough comments echoed those of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who said Thursday night at a gathering of Republicans that the GOP has to “stop being the stupid party.”
..................................................................................................................................
Haley Barbour: ‘Stupid’ comments hurt GOP
By Katie Glueck, January 25, 2013
Former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour said on Friday that “stupid” and “offensive” comments made by one candidate can have a negative effect on others in the same political party.
“The comments they made were stupid comments, offensive comments and in today’s world when a candidate in one state says something, the negative effect of that can spill over to other candidates,” Barbour, the former GOP governor of Mississippi, said on “CBS This Morning.”
He was referencing former GOP Senate hopefuls Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin, who both saw their campaigns go down in flames after making controversial comments related to rape.
Barbour’s tough comments echoed those of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who said Thursday night at a gathering of Republicans that the GOP has to “stop being the stupid party.”
Did Palin take her ball and run away home? [snicker]
..................................................................................................................................
Sarah Palin Parts Ways With FOX News
By Scott Conroy, January 25, 2013
After a three-year run as a paid contributor to the nation’s highest-rated cable news channel, Sarah Palin and FOX News have cut ties, according to a source close to the former Alaska governor.
“It’s my understanding that Gov. Palin was offered a contract by FOX, and she decided not to renew the arrangement,” the source close to Palin told RCP. “She remains focused on broadening her message of common-sense conservatism across the country and will be expanding her voice in the national discussion.”
The source declined to say whether Palin would pursue a television contract with another news network, such as CNN.
Bill Shine, Executive Vice President at FOX, subsequently issued a statement to the New York Times confirming the news, saying, “We have thoroughly enjoyed our association with Governor Palin. We wish her the best in her future endeavors.”
After resigning as governor in 2009, Palin became one of the news channel’s marquee on-air assets, appearing frequently across its programming and often generating headlines for her memorable and characteristically provocative commentary.
In 2010, FOX constructed a studio inside Palin’s Wasilla, Alaska, home -- where her husband, Todd, would sometimes act as cameraman and producer during her live television appearances.
Palin’s relationship with FOX appeared to take several rocky turns. In a Facebook post during the Republican convention last August, for instance, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee lamented that the news channel had “cancelled all my scheduled interviews tonight.”
..................................................................................................................................
Sarah Palin Parts Ways With FOX News
By Scott Conroy, January 25, 2013
After a three-year run as a paid contributor to the nation’s highest-rated cable news channel, Sarah Palin and FOX News have cut ties, according to a source close to the former Alaska governor.
“It’s my understanding that Gov. Palin was offered a contract by FOX, and she decided not to renew the arrangement,” the source close to Palin told RCP. “She remains focused on broadening her message of common-sense conservatism across the country and will be expanding her voice in the national discussion.”
The source declined to say whether Palin would pursue a television contract with another news network, such as CNN.
Bill Shine, Executive Vice President at FOX, subsequently issued a statement to the New York Times confirming the news, saying, “We have thoroughly enjoyed our association with Governor Palin. We wish her the best in her future endeavors.”
After resigning as governor in 2009, Palin became one of the news channel’s marquee on-air assets, appearing frequently across its programming and often generating headlines for her memorable and characteristically provocative commentary.
In 2010, FOX constructed a studio inside Palin’s Wasilla, Alaska, home -- where her husband, Todd, would sometimes act as cameraman and producer during her live television appearances.
Palin’s relationship with FOX appeared to take several rocky turns. In a Facebook post during the Republican convention last August, for instance, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee lamented that the news channel had “cancelled all my scheduled interviews tonight.”
..................................................................................................................................
Thursday, January 24, 2013
You know it's bad when the insiders call the GOP "stupid"
..................................................................................................................................
Jindal: GOP must stop being 'stupid party'
By Steve Peoples and Ken Thomas
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called on the Republican Party to "stop being the stupid party" on Thursday as GOP leaders promised fundamental changes to help stave off future losses.
In the keynote address at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting, Jindal said the GOP doesn't need to change its values but "might need to change just about everything else we are doing."
"We've got to stop being the stupid party. It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults," he said. "We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I'm here to say we've had enough of that."
Jindal, thought to be a potential 2016 presidential contender, offered little detail in the 25-minute address. He called on conservatives to shift their focus from Capitol Hill number crunching to "the place where conservatism thrives - in the real world beyond the Washington Beltway."
Hours before the speech, Republican leaders promised to release in March a report, dubbed the "Growth and Opportunity Project," outlining recommendations on party rules and messaging designed to appeal to a rapidly changing American electorate. President Barack Obama's November victory was fueled, in part, by overwhelming support from the nation's Hispanic, Asian and African-American communities.
"Losing is not fun. We want to win," said GOP strategist Sally Bradshaw, who is among five people appointed by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to craft the report.
"I think you're going to see a very renewed, aggressive effort by this party to put on a different face," Bradshaw said. "We are going to go into areas that we do not go into and see folks that we do not see."
Republicans presidential nominee Mitt Romney struggled last fall to win over women and minorities, who overwhelmingly favored President Barack Obama's re-election bid. GOP officials conceded this week that they must change their tone and message, if not their policies, if they hope to expand their appeal in the coming years.
Romney alienated many Hispanic voters by highlighting his support for a fence along the Mexican border and "self-deportation" of illegal immigrants. Down-ticket Republican candidates alienated female voters by backing new abortion laws in a handful of swing states like Virginia and New Hampshire, while Senate candidate Todd Akin of Missouri hurt himself and his party by declaring that women's bodies could prevent pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape."
GOP strategist Ari Fleischer suggested that his party could learn an important lesson from Democrats on messaging: "Republicans talk policy and Democrats talk people. Republicans can learn a little bit from Democrats on how to make those people connections with our policies."
Asked whether he was considering a presidential bid in 2016, Jindal brushed aside the question. "Any Republican that's thinking about talking about running for president in 2016 needs to get his head examined," he said. "We've got a lot of work to do."
He called on conservatives to stop fighting with Democrats on their terms about the size of government in Washington and focus instead on connecting with voters across the nation.
"Today's conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs," he said. "We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play."
Jindal's comments come a day after the House passed a bill to permit the government to borrow enough money to avoid a first-time default for at least four months, defusing a looming crisis setting up a springtime debate over taxes, spending and the deficit. The House passed the measure on a bipartisan basis as majority Republicans back away from their previous demand that any increase in the government's borrowing cap be paired with an equivalent level of spending cuts.
The Louisiana governor's blunt remarks follow criticism from another high-profile Republican based outside Washington who publicly blasted GOP leadership on Capitol Hill: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
One of the party's most popular voices, Christie earlier in the month criticized his party's "toxic internal politics" after House Republicans initially declined to approve disaster relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy. He said it was "disgusting to watch" their actions and he faulted the GOP's most powerful elected official, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., told reporters on the sidelines of the meeting Thursday that Republicans also need to develop a sound strategy for confronting the Obama administration, suggesting House Republicans could use hearings to expose waste and promote better ideas.
"A lot of Republicans, frankly, spent the last two years saying, 'Oh, gee, we don't have to do much because after Obama loses we'll work with the new Republican president.' Well, that world ain't there," Gingrich said. "So now they have to make adjustments. They've got to understand that this is a different game."
..................................................................................................................................
Jindal: GOP must stop being 'stupid party'
By Steve Peoples and Ken Thomas
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called on the Republican Party to "stop being the stupid party" on Thursday as GOP leaders promised fundamental changes to help stave off future losses.
In the keynote address at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting, Jindal said the GOP doesn't need to change its values but "might need to change just about everything else we are doing."
"We've got to stop being the stupid party. It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults," he said. "We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I'm here to say we've had enough of that."
Jindal, thought to be a potential 2016 presidential contender, offered little detail in the 25-minute address. He called on conservatives to shift their focus from Capitol Hill number crunching to "the place where conservatism thrives - in the real world beyond the Washington Beltway."
Hours before the speech, Republican leaders promised to release in March a report, dubbed the "Growth and Opportunity Project," outlining recommendations on party rules and messaging designed to appeal to a rapidly changing American electorate. President Barack Obama's November victory was fueled, in part, by overwhelming support from the nation's Hispanic, Asian and African-American communities.
"Losing is not fun. We want to win," said GOP strategist Sally Bradshaw, who is among five people appointed by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to craft the report.
"I think you're going to see a very renewed, aggressive effort by this party to put on a different face," Bradshaw said. "We are going to go into areas that we do not go into and see folks that we do not see."
Republicans presidential nominee Mitt Romney struggled last fall to win over women and minorities, who overwhelmingly favored President Barack Obama's re-election bid. GOP officials conceded this week that they must change their tone and message, if not their policies, if they hope to expand their appeal in the coming years.
Romney alienated many Hispanic voters by highlighting his support for a fence along the Mexican border and "self-deportation" of illegal immigrants. Down-ticket Republican candidates alienated female voters by backing new abortion laws in a handful of swing states like Virginia and New Hampshire, while Senate candidate Todd Akin of Missouri hurt himself and his party by declaring that women's bodies could prevent pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape."
GOP strategist Ari Fleischer suggested that his party could learn an important lesson from Democrats on messaging: "Republicans talk policy and Democrats talk people. Republicans can learn a little bit from Democrats on how to make those people connections with our policies."
Asked whether he was considering a presidential bid in 2016, Jindal brushed aside the question. "Any Republican that's thinking about talking about running for president in 2016 needs to get his head examined," he said. "We've got a lot of work to do."
He called on conservatives to stop fighting with Democrats on their terms about the size of government in Washington and focus instead on connecting with voters across the nation.
"Today's conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs," he said. "We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play."
Jindal's comments come a day after the House passed a bill to permit the government to borrow enough money to avoid a first-time default for at least four months, defusing a looming crisis setting up a springtime debate over taxes, spending and the deficit. The House passed the measure on a bipartisan basis as majority Republicans back away from their previous demand that any increase in the government's borrowing cap be paired with an equivalent level of spending cuts.
The Louisiana governor's blunt remarks follow criticism from another high-profile Republican based outside Washington who publicly blasted GOP leadership on Capitol Hill: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
One of the party's most popular voices, Christie earlier in the month criticized his party's "toxic internal politics" after House Republicans initially declined to approve disaster relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy. He said it was "disgusting to watch" their actions and he faulted the GOP's most powerful elected official, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., told reporters on the sidelines of the meeting Thursday that Republicans also need to develop a sound strategy for confronting the Obama administration, suggesting House Republicans could use hearings to expose waste and promote better ideas.
"A lot of Republicans, frankly, spent the last two years saying, 'Oh, gee, we don't have to do much because after Obama loses we'll work with the new Republican president.' Well, that world ain't there," Gingrich said. "So now they have to make adjustments. They've got to understand that this is a different game."
..................................................................................................................................
Delay, delay, delay....
..................................................................................................................................
THE RESET: Delay becoming the norm for US gov't
By Tom Raum, January 23, 2013
Congress often gives itself more breathing room. In other words, it kicks the can down the road.
It's an overused expression nearly everybody scoffs at or denounces. Yet lots of cans litter the road ahead.
The House on Wednesday voted to delay a looming showdown over the government's debt ceiling until May.
"It's not perfect. But perfect may not get passed in this House," said House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas.
Congress and President Barack Obama barely avoided a New Years' Day "fiscal cliff" of mandatory tax increases and spending cuts by scrapping most of the tax hikes and putting off a decision on the spending cuts until March.
The Senate is now weighing a Democratic proposal to put limits on the use of filibusters to delay votes or nominations. Republicans have used the potent tactic to block many Democratic measures - as Democrats did themselves when they were in the minority.
"Some have suggested that one's view of the filibuster depends on where one sits," says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Not only Congress delays things.
Obama last January postponed until after the election acting on a Canada-U.S. oil pipeline opposed by environmentalists. A decision is still pending.
Sometimes there are valid reasons for delay.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave long-awaited testimony on Capitol Hill on the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, raid on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. She was to appear last month, but illness forced the postponement.
"We have to recognize we're in for a long-term struggle here," Clinton told senators, referring to that volatile part of the world.
The Senate hasn't passed an annual budget in four years.
So House Republicans have proposed withholding pay for either House or Senate members if their respective chamber fails to pass a budget plan.
They're attaching it to the legislation to delay the debt limit.
..................................................................................................................................
THE RESET: Delay becoming the norm for US gov't
By Tom Raum, January 23, 2013
Congress often gives itself more breathing room. In other words, it kicks the can down the road.
It's an overused expression nearly everybody scoffs at or denounces. Yet lots of cans litter the road ahead.
The House on Wednesday voted to delay a looming showdown over the government's debt ceiling until May.
"It's not perfect. But perfect may not get passed in this House," said House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas.
Congress and President Barack Obama barely avoided a New Years' Day "fiscal cliff" of mandatory tax increases and spending cuts by scrapping most of the tax hikes and putting off a decision on the spending cuts until March.
The Senate is now weighing a Democratic proposal to put limits on the use of filibusters to delay votes or nominations. Republicans have used the potent tactic to block many Democratic measures - as Democrats did themselves when they were in the minority.
"Some have suggested that one's view of the filibuster depends on where one sits," says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Not only Congress delays things.
Obama last January postponed until after the election acting on a Canada-U.S. oil pipeline opposed by environmentalists. A decision is still pending.
Sometimes there are valid reasons for delay.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave long-awaited testimony on Capitol Hill on the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, raid on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. She was to appear last month, but illness forced the postponement.
"We have to recognize we're in for a long-term struggle here," Clinton told senators, referring to that volatile part of the world.
The Senate hasn't passed an annual budget in four years.
So House Republicans have proposed withholding pay for either House or Senate members if their respective chamber fails to pass a budget plan.
They're attaching it to the legislation to delay the debt limit.
..................................................................................................................................
Hmmmm, are we assuming that all members of the GOP have souls?
..................................................................................................................................
Soul-searching in focus as GOP gathers in NC
By Steve Peoples, January 3, 2013
Republican soul-searching begins in earnest this week as GOP officials from every state in the nation come together for the first time since their party's November shellacking.
There is broad agreement that the Republican Party needs to undergo fundamental changes to remain competitive as surging minority populations re-shape the American electorate. But there is no clear path forward. And even as they gather in a Charlotte, N.C., hotel this week - just days after President Barack Obama began his second term - Republicans are in some ways as divided as ever.
Facing his first re-election test later in the week, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus is under intense pressure to improve the Republican brand to attract more women and Hispanics, while not upsetting the hard-line conservatives who represent his party's most passionate voters.
"They're really going to have to do full throttle self-examination. They have alienated so many people who are Republicans," said Olympia Snowe, a three-term Republican senator who retired last year, in part because of her party's shift to the right. "It's going to be a mighty challenge. The party's gone astray."
Indeed, the formal theme of the Republican National Committee's winter meeting - "Renew, Grow, Win" - reflects an understanding from party officials that the GOP must grow to survive. In particular, this week's meeting will focus on the need to abandon harsh rhetoric on illegal immigration, women's issues and the social safety net, rhetoric that helped drive moderate voters and minorities toward Democrats last fall.
"We need to renew our values, renew our party, renew what we stand for," RNC spokesman Sean Spicer said.
The push to broaden the party's message is the focus, but not the only business on the agenda for the three-day meeting in North Carolina, a presidential swing state where Democrats hosted their national convention last summer.
Republicans from across the nation will decide Friday whether Priebus deserves a second term after his party lost an opportunity to win the White House and add Senate seats under what appeared to be favorable political conditions. The 40-year-old Wisconsin native is widely expected to win re-election, despite a challenge from Maine National Committeeman Mark Willis, a former Ron Paul supporter who led a brief revolt at the party's national convention last year in Tampa, Fla.
Willis said Wednesday that he did not have the backing of three states needed to ensure a spot on the ballot with Priebus. He acknowledged that he would not likely defeat the sitting chairman even if he qualifies for the ballot. But he and others lashed out at party leaders, saying they were marginalizing grassroots supporters who favored presidential candidates like Paul, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann or Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who is thought to have interest in a 2016 presidential bid.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a conservative favorite, is attending the meeting in an unofficial capacity. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has been mentioned as a possible 2016 presidential candidate, will deliver a keynote address Thursday night.
Ongoing discussions are expected to swirl about the 2016 presidential voting calendar, which sets the first contests for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. While no shifts are expected this week, some party officials have grown increasingly concerned about Iowa's role after its last presidential caucus.
The results were confusing at best. Mitt Romney, who eventually won the nomination, was initially declared the caucus winner by the Iowa GOP. A subsequent tally, however, suggested that Santorum actually won by a handful of votes.
Some Republicans complain that Iowa's socially conservative voters tend to support candidates that represent ideological extremes. Santorum's candidacy was driven in large part by his opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. Four years earlier, Iowa Republicans favored Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and ordained Baptist minister who went on to win just a handful of states.
"I think Iowa is where all eyes are focused," said veteran GOP operative Phil Musser.
But Republicans far from Iowa also hurt their cause in the last election cycle.
Romney helped alienate many Hispanic voters by highlighting his support for a fence along the Mexican border and "self-deportation" of illegal immigrants. Down-ticket Republican candidates alienated female voters by backing new abortion laws in a handful of swing states like Virginia and New Hampshire, while Senate candidate Todd Akin of Missouri hurt himself and his party by declaring that women's bodies could prevent pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape."
Exit polls make clear that Republicans face an uphill battle if they hope to repair their image.
Obama dramatically outperformed Romney among Hispanics last fall, winning 71 percent of the growing demographic compared to Romney's 27 percent. That was the GOP's worst showing among Hispanics since 1996, according to exit polling collected by The Associated Press. It was worse among black voters, who supported Obama over Romney 93 percent to 6 percent.
The disparity is less acute among women - Obama captured 53 percent of the female vote - although two decades have passed since a Republican presidential candidate last hit the 50-percent mark with women.
This week marks the beginning of a substantive discussion, but Priebus has outlined plans to release a "Growth and Opportunity Effort" later in the spring that offers specific paths forward.
It's unlikely to satisfy everyone.
"There's too many people that are either in the Republican Party wondering why they are in the Republican Party because they feel like the party isn't representing them any longer," said Nevada Republican national committeewoman Diana Orrock, a former Paul supporter who worries that grassroots supporters are being taken for granted. "Or we have people who have left the Republican Party and aren't getting a clear message as to why they should come back into the fold."
"We're losing elections," she said. "Something has to change."
..................................................................................................................................
Soul-searching in focus as GOP gathers in NC
By Steve Peoples, January 3, 2013
Republican soul-searching begins in earnest this week as GOP officials from every state in the nation come together for the first time since their party's November shellacking.
There is broad agreement that the Republican Party needs to undergo fundamental changes to remain competitive as surging minority populations re-shape the American electorate. But there is no clear path forward. And even as they gather in a Charlotte, N.C., hotel this week - just days after President Barack Obama began his second term - Republicans are in some ways as divided as ever.
Facing his first re-election test later in the week, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus is under intense pressure to improve the Republican brand to attract more women and Hispanics, while not upsetting the hard-line conservatives who represent his party's most passionate voters.
"They're really going to have to do full throttle self-examination. They have alienated so many people who are Republicans," said Olympia Snowe, a three-term Republican senator who retired last year, in part because of her party's shift to the right. "It's going to be a mighty challenge. The party's gone astray."
Indeed, the formal theme of the Republican National Committee's winter meeting - "Renew, Grow, Win" - reflects an understanding from party officials that the GOP must grow to survive. In particular, this week's meeting will focus on the need to abandon harsh rhetoric on illegal immigration, women's issues and the social safety net, rhetoric that helped drive moderate voters and minorities toward Democrats last fall.
"We need to renew our values, renew our party, renew what we stand for," RNC spokesman Sean Spicer said.
The push to broaden the party's message is the focus, but not the only business on the agenda for the three-day meeting in North Carolina, a presidential swing state where Democrats hosted their national convention last summer.
Republicans from across the nation will decide Friday whether Priebus deserves a second term after his party lost an opportunity to win the White House and add Senate seats under what appeared to be favorable political conditions. The 40-year-old Wisconsin native is widely expected to win re-election, despite a challenge from Maine National Committeeman Mark Willis, a former Ron Paul supporter who led a brief revolt at the party's national convention last year in Tampa, Fla.
Willis said Wednesday that he did not have the backing of three states needed to ensure a spot on the ballot with Priebus. He acknowledged that he would not likely defeat the sitting chairman even if he qualifies for the ballot. But he and others lashed out at party leaders, saying they were marginalizing grassroots supporters who favored presidential candidates like Paul, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann or Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who is thought to have interest in a 2016 presidential bid.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a conservative favorite, is attending the meeting in an unofficial capacity. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has been mentioned as a possible 2016 presidential candidate, will deliver a keynote address Thursday night.
Ongoing discussions are expected to swirl about the 2016 presidential voting calendar, which sets the first contests for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. While no shifts are expected this week, some party officials have grown increasingly concerned about Iowa's role after its last presidential caucus.
The results were confusing at best. Mitt Romney, who eventually won the nomination, was initially declared the caucus winner by the Iowa GOP. A subsequent tally, however, suggested that Santorum actually won by a handful of votes.
Some Republicans complain that Iowa's socially conservative voters tend to support candidates that represent ideological extremes. Santorum's candidacy was driven in large part by his opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. Four years earlier, Iowa Republicans favored Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and ordained Baptist minister who went on to win just a handful of states.
"I think Iowa is where all eyes are focused," said veteran GOP operative Phil Musser.
But Republicans far from Iowa also hurt their cause in the last election cycle.
Romney helped alienate many Hispanic voters by highlighting his support for a fence along the Mexican border and "self-deportation" of illegal immigrants. Down-ticket Republican candidates alienated female voters by backing new abortion laws in a handful of swing states like Virginia and New Hampshire, while Senate candidate Todd Akin of Missouri hurt himself and his party by declaring that women's bodies could prevent pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape."
Exit polls make clear that Republicans face an uphill battle if they hope to repair their image.
Obama dramatically outperformed Romney among Hispanics last fall, winning 71 percent of the growing demographic compared to Romney's 27 percent. That was the GOP's worst showing among Hispanics since 1996, according to exit polling collected by The Associated Press. It was worse among black voters, who supported Obama over Romney 93 percent to 6 percent.
The disparity is less acute among women - Obama captured 53 percent of the female vote - although two decades have passed since a Republican presidential candidate last hit the 50-percent mark with women.
This week marks the beginning of a substantive discussion, but Priebus has outlined plans to release a "Growth and Opportunity Effort" later in the spring that offers specific paths forward.
It's unlikely to satisfy everyone.
"There's too many people that are either in the Republican Party wondering why they are in the Republican Party because they feel like the party isn't representing them any longer," said Nevada Republican national committeewoman Diana Orrock, a former Paul supporter who worries that grassroots supporters are being taken for granted. "Or we have people who have left the Republican Party and aren't getting a clear message as to why they should come back into the fold."
"We're losing elections," she said. "Something has to change."
..................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Tongue in cheek-- it MUST be Obama's fault!
..................................................................................................................................
Trolling the President
By Michael Kindt, January 23, 2013
THE INTERNET – In what can only be described as a sterling moment of right wing perseverance, internet commenters today managed to tie a large boulder to the Obama presidency.
The story begins in Utah, where a boulder somehow became loose on a ridge, rolled down a hill, and crashed into the bedroom wall of Wanda Denhalter, 63, breaking her jaw and sternum. Since it was an odd story and nothing ever really happens in Utah, it was reported directly on the web almost immediately.
Internet commenters, who are almost always white, male, and smarter than everyone else, pounced on the article as quickly as it had been posted, but their usual crude wit and anger at their growing marginalization failed them—at first.
“It was tough going initially,” said an internet commenter who goes by the handle ‘Individual Liberty’. “I racked my brain but couldn’t come up with any way to blame this freak accident on Obama, even though it was clearly his fault.”
Another commenter—‘Oboy_must_go’—agreed. “This was a tough one. It wasn’t like a bad economic report. Those are easy to blame on Obama. Even good economic reports can be blamed on Obama because they’re obviously lies. But a boulder crashing through a wall? Yeah, it was a tough one.”
A breakthrough finally happened a few hours after the article had been up when commenter ‘Stinky-Stew’ hit upon the gun angle. “Like everyone else, I was having a hard time connecting it to Obama, but then it hit me: guns. ‘What,’ I posted, ‘are the libtards going to ban boulders now?’ Haha. I got a lot of virtual high fives and fist pumps for that and everyone just continued riffing off my gun-boulder epiphany, calling it an ‘assault boulder’ and what not. It was fantastic, truly a shining moment for me.”
Obama, the 44th President of the United States and an open, unapologetic liberal, could not be reached for comment because he was busy leading the free f’ing world.
..................................................................................................................................
Trolling the President
By Michael Kindt, January 23, 2013
THE INTERNET – In what can only be described as a sterling moment of right wing perseverance, internet commenters today managed to tie a large boulder to the Obama presidency.
The story begins in Utah, where a boulder somehow became loose on a ridge, rolled down a hill, and crashed into the bedroom wall of Wanda Denhalter, 63, breaking her jaw and sternum. Since it was an odd story and nothing ever really happens in Utah, it was reported directly on the web almost immediately.
Internet commenters, who are almost always white, male, and smarter than everyone else, pounced on the article as quickly as it had been posted, but their usual crude wit and anger at their growing marginalization failed them—at first.
“It was tough going initially,” said an internet commenter who goes by the handle ‘Individual Liberty’. “I racked my brain but couldn’t come up with any way to blame this freak accident on Obama, even though it was clearly his fault.”
Another commenter—‘Oboy_must_go’—agreed. “This was a tough one. It wasn’t like a bad economic report. Those are easy to blame on Obama. Even good economic reports can be blamed on Obama because they’re obviously lies. But a boulder crashing through a wall? Yeah, it was a tough one.”
A breakthrough finally happened a few hours after the article had been up when commenter ‘Stinky-Stew’ hit upon the gun angle. “Like everyone else, I was having a hard time connecting it to Obama, but then it hit me: guns. ‘What,’ I posted, ‘are the libtards going to ban boulders now?’ Haha. I got a lot of virtual high fives and fist pumps for that and everyone just continued riffing off my gun-boulder epiphany, calling it an ‘assault boulder’ and what not. It was fantastic, truly a shining moment for me.”
Obama, the 44th President of the United States and an open, unapologetic liberal, could not be reached for comment because he was busy leading the free f’ing world.
..................................................................................................................................
Monday, January 21, 2013
What is more important, "optics" or the real record?
..................................................................................................................................
Fussing Over Distaff Staff
By Peter Funt, January 16, 2013
Washington’s latest kerfuffle, at a time when political kerfuffling is epidemic, concerns the number of women in President Obama’s inner circle. Some say there are too few.
A clutch of pundits and editorial writers fears that the latest selections — Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and Jack Lew — reflect a male bias in the Obama Administration. “President Obama ran promoting women’s issues,” notes Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, and so she now asks, “How about promoting some women?”
The criticism is not only baseless in terms of the president’s record; it suggests a ridiculous quid pro quo, as if women cast votes in exchange for political appointments. Women supported the president for myriad social and economic reasons, as reflected in polls, but nowhere in the data is there evidence that female voters were motivated by hopes of gaining more spots in the Cabinet.
Only Bill Clinton placed as many women in Cabinet-level positions as President Obama has, nine, and in Clinton’s case the mark was set during his second term. In the nation’s history, only 43 women have held such posts, and Obama appointed 21 percent of them during his first term.
But as compelling as the numbers are, this isn’t about numbers, nor should it be. At the very time that President Clinton was appointing a record number of women to high-level posts, he, too, was criticized. Clinton’s reply was short and direct: “I don’t believe in quotas.”
Clinton might have added, parenthetically, “…in the nation’s highest and most vital positions.” There is a good case to be made for affirmative-action style hiring in the lower ranks. Only by placing women and minorities in these positions will there ever be enough qualified candidates for the bigger jobs. That’s why, within the entire Obama Administration, the male-female split is about 50-50.
But when it comes to top Cabinet positions and the Supreme Court — where Obama’s two appointments were women — there is no acceptable standard except finding the best person for the job.
Hillary Clinton is vacating one of the most powerful posts in government, Secretary of State, and Obama’s first choice to replace her was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Rice became tangled, unfairly, in the Benghazi affair and Obama shifted to Sen. John Kerry. But other than Rice, few critics have suggested the names of any appropriately qualified women for State — or for that matter, Defense or Treasury.
Kerry and Hagel, both Vietnam vets with Senate experience, are superbly suited for State and Defense. Lew, who has headed the Office of Management and Budget, is on the shortest of lists of Americans qualified to be Treasury Secretary. It is a list that, at the moment, simply has no women.
The New York Times fueled the diversity controversy by running a White House photo on its front page, showing Obama in an Oval Office meeting attended by 10 males and a lone female, key adviser Valerie Jarrett, who was largely hidden from view. But hours later the White House released a photo of another meeting in which most of the staffers were women.
So the focus shifts to what critics like to call “optics.” It doesn’t look good, they argue, to see a photo of the president surrounded by white males; it sends a bad message.
But facts carry more weight than optics. “The person who probably had the most influence on my foreign policy was a woman,” the president reminded reporters, in summing up his first term. “The people who were in charge of moving forward my most important domestic initiative, health care, were women. The person in charge of our Homeland Security was a woman. My two appointments to the Supreme Court were women. And 50 percent of my White House staff were women.”
Women have equal opportunity in the Obama Administration. It’s counterproductive to fuss over optics.
..................................................................................................................................
Fussing Over Distaff Staff
By Peter Funt, January 16, 2013
Washington’s latest kerfuffle, at a time when political kerfuffling is epidemic, concerns the number of women in President Obama’s inner circle. Some say there are too few.
A clutch of pundits and editorial writers fears that the latest selections — Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and Jack Lew — reflect a male bias in the Obama Administration. “President Obama ran promoting women’s issues,” notes Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, and so she now asks, “How about promoting some women?”
The criticism is not only baseless in terms of the president’s record; it suggests a ridiculous quid pro quo, as if women cast votes in exchange for political appointments. Women supported the president for myriad social and economic reasons, as reflected in polls, but nowhere in the data is there evidence that female voters were motivated by hopes of gaining more spots in the Cabinet.
Only Bill Clinton placed as many women in Cabinet-level positions as President Obama has, nine, and in Clinton’s case the mark was set during his second term. In the nation’s history, only 43 women have held such posts, and Obama appointed 21 percent of them during his first term.
But as compelling as the numbers are, this isn’t about numbers, nor should it be. At the very time that President Clinton was appointing a record number of women to high-level posts, he, too, was criticized. Clinton’s reply was short and direct: “I don’t believe in quotas.”
Clinton might have added, parenthetically, “…in the nation’s highest and most vital positions.” There is a good case to be made for affirmative-action style hiring in the lower ranks. Only by placing women and minorities in these positions will there ever be enough qualified candidates for the bigger jobs. That’s why, within the entire Obama Administration, the male-female split is about 50-50.
But when it comes to top Cabinet positions and the Supreme Court — where Obama’s two appointments were women — there is no acceptable standard except finding the best person for the job.
Hillary Clinton is vacating one of the most powerful posts in government, Secretary of State, and Obama’s first choice to replace her was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Rice became tangled, unfairly, in the Benghazi affair and Obama shifted to Sen. John Kerry. But other than Rice, few critics have suggested the names of any appropriately qualified women for State — or for that matter, Defense or Treasury.
Kerry and Hagel, both Vietnam vets with Senate experience, are superbly suited for State and Defense. Lew, who has headed the Office of Management and Budget, is on the shortest of lists of Americans qualified to be Treasury Secretary. It is a list that, at the moment, simply has no women.
The New York Times fueled the diversity controversy by running a White House photo on its front page, showing Obama in an Oval Office meeting attended by 10 males and a lone female, key adviser Valerie Jarrett, who was largely hidden from view. But hours later the White House released a photo of another meeting in which most of the staffers were women.
So the focus shifts to what critics like to call “optics.” It doesn’t look good, they argue, to see a photo of the president surrounded by white males; it sends a bad message.
But facts carry more weight than optics. “The person who probably had the most influence on my foreign policy was a woman,” the president reminded reporters, in summing up his first term. “The people who were in charge of moving forward my most important domestic initiative, health care, were women. The person in charge of our Homeland Security was a woman. My two appointments to the Supreme Court were women. And 50 percent of my White House staff were women.”
Women have equal opportunity in the Obama Administration. It’s counterproductive to fuss over optics.
..................................................................................................................................
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Do you call yourself "middle class"? Then you're being cheated!
..................................................................................................................................
The Five-Step Process to Cheat the Middle Class Worker
By Paul Buchheit, January 15, 2013
It’s so artfully done, and so diabolical, that one can picture secret seminars in subterranean Wall Street meeting rooms, guiding young business recruits in the proven process of taking an extra share of wealth from the middle class. Their presentation might unfold as follows:
1. Boost productivity while keeping worker wages flat.
The trend is unmistakable, and startling: productivity has continued unabated while wages have simply stopped growing. Improved technologies have reduced the need for workers while globalization has introduced the corporate world to cheap labor. In effect, the workers who built a productive America over a half-century stopped getting paid for their efforts.
Paul Krugman suggests that a “sharp increase in monopoly power” is another reason for the disparity. As John D. Rockefeller said, “Competition is a sin.” That certainly is the rule of thumb in banking and agriculture and health insurance and cell phones. Yet despite the fact that low-wage jobs are increasingly defining the American labor market, apologists for our meager minimum wage claim an increase will worsen unemployment. So it remains at $7.25. A minimum wage linked to productivity would be $21.00 per hour.
2. Build up a financial industry that has no maximum wage.
This is where the money is. In 2007, before the financial crisis, a Harvard survey revealed that almost half of the school’s seniors aspired to careers in finance. The industry’s share of corporate profits grew from 16% in 1980 to an astonishing 45% in 2002.
And there’s no limit to the earning potential. Hedge fund manager John Paulson conspired with Goldman Sachs in 2007 to bundle sure-to-fail subprime mortgages in attractive packages, with just enough time for Paulson to collect other people’s money to bet against his personally designed financial instruments. He made $3.7 billion, enough to pay the salaries of 100,000 new teachers.
3. Keep accumulating wealth created by the financial industry.
Experienced schemers have undoubtedly observed that over the past 100 years the stock market has grown three times faster than the GDP. The richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of such non-home wealth.
In the last 25 years, only the richest 5% of Americans have increased their share of non-home wealth, by the impressive rate of almost 20 percent.
In just one year, the richest 20 Americans earned more from their investments than the entire U.S. education budget.
4. Tax yourself as little as possible.
The easiest and least productive way to make money – holding on to investments – is also taxed at the lowest rate. In addition to the capital gains benefit, tax ploys like carried interest, performance-related pay, stock options, and deferred compensation allow hedge fund managers and CEOs to pay less than low-income Americans, and possibly even nothing at all.
The richest 400 taxpayers doubled their income in just seven years while cutting their tax rates nearly in half. U.S. corporations can match that, doubling their profits and cutting their taxes by more than half in under ten years. The 1.3 million individuals in the richest 1% cut their federal tax burden from 34% to 23% in just 25 years.
5. Lend out your excess money to people who can no longer afford a middle-class lifestyle.
As stated by Thom Hartmann, “The ‘Takers’ own vast wealth, and loan it out at interest to everybody from students to governments..” Overall, Americans are burdened with over $11 trillion in consumer debt, including mortgages, student loans, and credit card liabilities.
Wealth has largely disappeared for the middle- and lower-income classes. More than $7 trillion has been lost in the decline of home prices since 2006. Young college graduates have an average of $27,200 in student loans, and the 21-35 age group has lost 68% of its median net worth since 1984, leaving each of them about $4,000. Median net worth for single black and Hispanic women is a little over $100.
So we’re hanging on by the frazzled thread of debt that indentures us to the rich and makes it harder and harder to fight back against the theft of our middle-class wealth. As we struggle to support ourselves, the super-rich remain on the take, driving us ever closer to the status of most wealth-unequal country in the world.
..................................................................................................................................
The Five-Step Process to Cheat the Middle Class Worker
By Paul Buchheit, January 15, 2013
It’s so artfully done, and so diabolical, that one can picture secret seminars in subterranean Wall Street meeting rooms, guiding young business recruits in the proven process of taking an extra share of wealth from the middle class. Their presentation might unfold as follows:
1. Boost productivity while keeping worker wages flat.
The trend is unmistakable, and startling: productivity has continued unabated while wages have simply stopped growing. Improved technologies have reduced the need for workers while globalization has introduced the corporate world to cheap labor. In effect, the workers who built a productive America over a half-century stopped getting paid for their efforts.
Paul Krugman suggests that a “sharp increase in monopoly power” is another reason for the disparity. As John D. Rockefeller said, “Competition is a sin.” That certainly is the rule of thumb in banking and agriculture and health insurance and cell phones. Yet despite the fact that low-wage jobs are increasingly defining the American labor market, apologists for our meager minimum wage claim an increase will worsen unemployment. So it remains at $7.25. A minimum wage linked to productivity would be $21.00 per hour.
2. Build up a financial industry that has no maximum wage.
This is where the money is. In 2007, before the financial crisis, a Harvard survey revealed that almost half of the school’s seniors aspired to careers in finance. The industry’s share of corporate profits grew from 16% in 1980 to an astonishing 45% in 2002.
And there’s no limit to the earning potential. Hedge fund manager John Paulson conspired with Goldman Sachs in 2007 to bundle sure-to-fail subprime mortgages in attractive packages, with just enough time for Paulson to collect other people’s money to bet against his personally designed financial instruments. He made $3.7 billion, enough to pay the salaries of 100,000 new teachers.
3. Keep accumulating wealth created by the financial industry.
Experienced schemers have undoubtedly observed that over the past 100 years the stock market has grown three times faster than the GDP. The richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of such non-home wealth.
In the last 25 years, only the richest 5% of Americans have increased their share of non-home wealth, by the impressive rate of almost 20 percent.
In just one year, the richest 20 Americans earned more from their investments than the entire U.S. education budget.
4. Tax yourself as little as possible.
The easiest and least productive way to make money – holding on to investments – is also taxed at the lowest rate. In addition to the capital gains benefit, tax ploys like carried interest, performance-related pay, stock options, and deferred compensation allow hedge fund managers and CEOs to pay less than low-income Americans, and possibly even nothing at all.
The richest 400 taxpayers doubled their income in just seven years while cutting their tax rates nearly in half. U.S. corporations can match that, doubling their profits and cutting their taxes by more than half in under ten years. The 1.3 million individuals in the richest 1% cut their federal tax burden from 34% to 23% in just 25 years.
5. Lend out your excess money to people who can no longer afford a middle-class lifestyle.
As stated by Thom Hartmann, “The ‘Takers’ own vast wealth, and loan it out at interest to everybody from students to governments..” Overall, Americans are burdened with over $11 trillion in consumer debt, including mortgages, student loans, and credit card liabilities.
Wealth has largely disappeared for the middle- and lower-income classes. More than $7 trillion has been lost in the decline of home prices since 2006. Young college graduates have an average of $27,200 in student loans, and the 21-35 age group has lost 68% of its median net worth since 1984, leaving each of them about $4,000. Median net worth for single black and Hispanic women is a little over $100.
So we’re hanging on by the frazzled thread of debt that indentures us to the rich and makes it harder and harder to fight back against the theft of our middle-class wealth. As we struggle to support ourselves, the super-rich remain on the take, driving us ever closer to the status of most wealth-unequal country in the world.
..................................................................................................................................
As long as the supporting cast is dominated by the GOP, guess what?
...............................................................................................
Saturday, January 19, 2013
GOP can't win legitimately, so it wants to game the system
..................................................................................................................................
GOP eyes new election laws
By Steve Peoples, January 18, 2013
After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.
From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders support it, too, suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum. There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party's long-term political prospects.
"It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Priebus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.
Democrats are outraged at the potential change.
Obama won the popular vote with 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 percent, to Romney's 60.9 million, or 47.2 percent, and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. It's unclear whether he would have been re-elected under the new system, depending upon how many states adopted the change.
While some Republican officials warn of a political backlash, GOP lawmakers in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are already lining up behind proposals that would allocate electoral votes by congressional district or something similar.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he "could go either way" on the change and doesn't plan to push it. But he said it's a reasonable issue to debate and that he prefers that leaders discuss it well before the next presidential election.
"It could be done in a thoughtful (way) over the next couple years and people can have a thoughtful discussion," Snyder said.
Republican leaders in the Michigan Statehouse have yet to decide whether to embrace the change there. But state Rep. Peter Lund, a Republican who introduced a bill to change the allocation system two years ago, said some Republicans might be more receptive to his bill this year following the election.
"We never really pushed it before," he said, adding that the bill wasn't designed to help one party more than the other.
Democrats aren't convinced. And they warned of political consequences for Republicans who back the shift — particularly those governors up for re-election in 2014, who include the governors of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, among others.
"This is nothing more than election-rigging," said Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer.
Each state has the authority to shape its own election law. And in at least seven states — Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina — Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.
Already, Maine and Nebraska have moved away from a winner-take-all system to one that allocates electoral votes based on congressional district.
"This is a concept that's got a lot of possibility and a lot of potential," said Washington-based Republican strategist Phil Musser, acknowledging that the debate would "incite different levels of partisan acrimony." Musser also predicted that more pressing economic issues would likely take priority in most Republican-led statehouses.
In Pennsylvania, Senate Republican leader Dominic Pileggi this week renewed his call for the Republican-controlled Legislature to revamp the way it awards electoral votes by using a method based on the popular vote that would have given Romney eight of the state's 20 votes.
Democrats quickly criticized it as partisan scheme.
"It is difficult to find the words to describe just how evil this plan is," said Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democrat. "It is an obscene scheme to cheat by rigging the elections."
Gov. Tom Corbett, who supported a related proposal from Pileggi last year, had not seen the new plan and could not say whether he supports the new version, the Republican governor's spokesman Kevin Harley said.
In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has said that changing how electoral votes are allocated was an "interesting idea" but that it's not one of his priorities, nor has he decided whether he supports such a change.
It's gotten a lukewarm reception in the Republican-controlled Legislature as well. No proposal has been introduced yet and no lawmaker has announced any plans to do so, but the state Assembly speaker, Robin Vos, first proposed the change back in 2007.
"I am open to that idea," Vos said in December as lawmakers prepared for the start of their session. "But I would have to hear all the arguments."
All 10 of the state's Electoral College votes went to Obama last fall under the current system. If they were awarded based on the new system, the votes would have been evenly split between Obama and Romney.
Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett sent an email plea urging people to sign a petition against the change: "We can't sit silently by as they try to manipulate the democratic process for political advantage," Barrett wrote. "We can't let them attack the very democratic institutions and rights that others have sacrificed so much to gain — just because they don't believe they can win in a fair election fight."
So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections. The view is predictably different in states where the Republican nominee is a cinch to win.
"The Electoral College has served the country quite well," said Louisiana GOP Chairman Roger Villere, who doubles as a national party vice chairman.
He continued: "This is coming from states where it might be an advantage, but I'm worried about what it means down the road. This is a system that has worked. That doesn't mean we can't talk about changes, but we have to be very careful about any actions we might take."
..................................................................................................................................
GOP eyes new election laws
By Steve Peoples, January 18, 2013
After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.
From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders support it, too, suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum. There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party's long-term political prospects.
"It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Priebus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.
Democrats are outraged at the potential change.
Obama won the popular vote with 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 percent, to Romney's 60.9 million, or 47.2 percent, and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. It's unclear whether he would have been re-elected under the new system, depending upon how many states adopted the change.
While some Republican officials warn of a political backlash, GOP lawmakers in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are already lining up behind proposals that would allocate electoral votes by congressional district or something similar.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he "could go either way" on the change and doesn't plan to push it. But he said it's a reasonable issue to debate and that he prefers that leaders discuss it well before the next presidential election.
"It could be done in a thoughtful (way) over the next couple years and people can have a thoughtful discussion," Snyder said.
Republican leaders in the Michigan Statehouse have yet to decide whether to embrace the change there. But state Rep. Peter Lund, a Republican who introduced a bill to change the allocation system two years ago, said some Republicans might be more receptive to his bill this year following the election.
"We never really pushed it before," he said, adding that the bill wasn't designed to help one party more than the other.
Democrats aren't convinced. And they warned of political consequences for Republicans who back the shift — particularly those governors up for re-election in 2014, who include the governors of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, among others.
"This is nothing more than election-rigging," said Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer.
Each state has the authority to shape its own election law. And in at least seven states — Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina — Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.
Already, Maine and Nebraska have moved away from a winner-take-all system to one that allocates electoral votes based on congressional district.
"This is a concept that's got a lot of possibility and a lot of potential," said Washington-based Republican strategist Phil Musser, acknowledging that the debate would "incite different levels of partisan acrimony." Musser also predicted that more pressing economic issues would likely take priority in most Republican-led statehouses.
In Pennsylvania, Senate Republican leader Dominic Pileggi this week renewed his call for the Republican-controlled Legislature to revamp the way it awards electoral votes by using a method based on the popular vote that would have given Romney eight of the state's 20 votes.
Democrats quickly criticized it as partisan scheme.
"It is difficult to find the words to describe just how evil this plan is," said Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democrat. "It is an obscene scheme to cheat by rigging the elections."
Gov. Tom Corbett, who supported a related proposal from Pileggi last year, had not seen the new plan and could not say whether he supports the new version, the Republican governor's spokesman Kevin Harley said.
In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has said that changing how electoral votes are allocated was an "interesting idea" but that it's not one of his priorities, nor has he decided whether he supports such a change.
It's gotten a lukewarm reception in the Republican-controlled Legislature as well. No proposal has been introduced yet and no lawmaker has announced any plans to do so, but the state Assembly speaker, Robin Vos, first proposed the change back in 2007.
"I am open to that idea," Vos said in December as lawmakers prepared for the start of their session. "But I would have to hear all the arguments."
All 10 of the state's Electoral College votes went to Obama last fall under the current system. If they were awarded based on the new system, the votes would have been evenly split between Obama and Romney.
Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett sent an email plea urging people to sign a petition against the change: "We can't sit silently by as they try to manipulate the democratic process for political advantage," Barrett wrote. "We can't let them attack the very democratic institutions and rights that others have sacrificed so much to gain — just because they don't believe they can win in a fair election fight."
So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections. The view is predictably different in states where the Republican nominee is a cinch to win.
"The Electoral College has served the country quite well," said Louisiana GOP Chairman Roger Villere, who doubles as a national party vice chairman.
He continued: "This is coming from states where it might be an advantage, but I'm worried about what it means down the road. This is a system that has worked. That doesn't mean we can't talk about changes, but we have to be very careful about any actions we might take."
..................................................................................................................................
Friday, January 18, 2013
What's being said about the debt ceiling
..................................................................................................................................
House GOP agrees to debt ceiling deal
..................................................................................................................................
House Republicans back off from fiscal clash with Obama
..................................................................................................................................
House GOP seeks to win by losing on the debt ceiling
..................................................................................................................................
Poll: Americans want compromise over debt ceiling
..................................................................................................................................
GOP leader: House to vote on debt limit increase
..................................................................................................................................
House GOP agrees to debt ceiling deal
..................................................................................................................................
House Republicans back off from fiscal clash with Obama
..................................................................................................................................
House GOP seeks to win by losing on the debt ceiling
..................................................................................................................................
Poll: Americans want compromise over debt ceiling
..................................................................................................................................
GOP leader: House to vote on debt limit increase
..................................................................................................................................
Aw geez, give it UP!
..................................................................................................................................
Supreme Court to review case on Obama's forged documents
By Marv Dumont, January 10, 2013
Photos
On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9.
As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court's decision to review Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State.
On Feb. 15, all nine justices will gather in conference to review whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void.
The Supreme Court's website shows that docket file no. 12A606 was originally denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, on Dec. 13. On Jan. 9, Chief Justice Roberts sent Dr. Taitz's application to the full court for a review scheduled for Feb. 15.
Despite the lack of exposure from the mainstream media, the issue appears to have gained some steam among conservative bloggers. On Jan. 9, New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi suggested that the president's nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, may have played a role in removing birther evidence from Barack Obama's passport records.
It appears that in 2008, a State Department insider was simultaneously employed by Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va. (then headed by Mr. Brennan) and was reprimanded for accessing (and possibly altering) Obama's passport records.
On Wednesday, Dr. Orly Taitz, who represents the birther cause, posted the following on her website:
Among the aliases Obama allegedly used are Barry Soetoro (used while teaching law at the University of Chicago) and Harrison J. Bounel. Birthers contend that by entering Obama's claimed Social Security number (042-68-4425) into background check systems, the name Harrison J. Bounel shows up in search results. Forgery of government documents is considered a felony.
This is not the first time that Obama has had to contend with the birther issue. On Aug. 21 2008, Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, brought a federal lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to become president. Berg alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and that the "Certification of Live Birth" on Obama's website is a forgery.
The lower federal court dismissed the complaint as "unworthy of further discussion". Soon after, Berg filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was denied by Justice David Souter in Nov. 2008. A second petition was denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
A third petition was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Antonin Scalia. However, the high court rejected the writ of certiorari on Jan. 12, 2009, just eight days away from Obama's first inauguration as the nation's 44th chief executive.
A team of forensic experts organized by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio have looked into Obama's birth certificate. In July 2012, Arpaio told Fox News his team's conclusion that Obama's birth certification is "definitely fraudulent". After months of investigation, his forensic investigators had discovered code errors, computer-generated marks, and manipulated seals on the document.
In April 2011, the White House retracted the Hawaii certificate and replaced it with a long form version. Around the same time, business tycoon Donald Trump sent a team of investigators to the state of Hawaii to question Obama's real place of birth.
Said Trump:
In Oct. 2012, just days before November presidential elections, Mr. Trump offered to donate $5 million to Obama's chosen charity if the commander-in-chief would disclose his college and passport records. Trump had hoped that the disclosures would shed light on where Barack Obama was born, his citizenship status, and whether or not he was admitted to college and law school as a foreign exchange student. President Obama ignored Trump's challenge in media interviews and refused to release the requested records.
However, comedian Bill Maher did issue a challenge to Mr. Trump to produce his birth certificate in exchange for $5 million donated to the latter's favorite charity. Maher made the offer on Jan. 7 on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno". On Tuesday, the real estate tycoon produced a birth certificate showing that he was born in New York City. Trump's lawyer then issued a letter asking the HBO host to make good on his $5 million offer.
Supreme Court to review case on Obama's forged documents
By Marv Dumont, January 10, 2013
Photos
On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9.
As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court's decision to review Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State.
On Feb. 15, all nine justices will gather in conference to review whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void.
The Supreme Court's website shows that docket file no. 12A606 was originally denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, on Dec. 13. On Jan. 9, Chief Justice Roberts sent Dr. Taitz's application to the full court for a review scheduled for Feb. 15.
Despite the lack of exposure from the mainstream media, the issue appears to have gained some steam among conservative bloggers. On Jan. 9, New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi suggested that the president's nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, may have played a role in removing birther evidence from Barack Obama's passport records.
It appears that in 2008, a State Department insider was simultaneously employed by Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va. (then headed by Mr. Brennan) and was reprimanded for accessing (and possibly altering) Obama's passport records.
On Wednesday, Dr. Orly Taitz, who represents the birther cause, posted the following on her website:
The case . . . provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.The Supreme Court reviews about 10,000 petitions annually in regular conferences. About 100 are selected for further judicial consideration. In this filtering process, the votes of four justices are needed to advance a case. On her website, Dr. Taitz argues that Obama has used false identification, an alias, a fake Social Security number, forged birth certificates and Selective Service applications. [ See a comparison of a regular birth certificate versus one submitted by Barack Obama in this photo. ]
Among the aliases Obama allegedly used are Barry Soetoro (used while teaching law at the University of Chicago) and Harrison J. Bounel. Birthers contend that by entering Obama's claimed Social Security number (042-68-4425) into background check systems, the name Harrison J. Bounel shows up in search results. Forgery of government documents is considered a felony.
This is not the first time that Obama has had to contend with the birther issue. On Aug. 21 2008, Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, brought a federal lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to become president. Berg alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and that the "Certification of Live Birth" on Obama's website is a forgery.
The lower federal court dismissed the complaint as "unworthy of further discussion". Soon after, Berg filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was denied by Justice David Souter in Nov. 2008. A second petition was denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
A third petition was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Antonin Scalia. However, the high court rejected the writ of certiorari on Jan. 12, 2009, just eight days away from Obama's first inauguration as the nation's 44th chief executive.
A team of forensic experts organized by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio have looked into Obama's birth certificate. In July 2012, Arpaio told Fox News his team's conclusion that Obama's birth certification is "definitely fraudulent". After months of investigation, his forensic investigators had discovered code errors, computer-generated marks, and manipulated seals on the document.
In April 2011, the White House retracted the Hawaii certificate and replaced it with a long form version. Around the same time, business tycoon Donald Trump sent a team of investigators to the state of Hawaii to question Obama's real place of birth.
Said Trump:
He [Obama] spent $2 million in legal fees trying on to get away from this issue, and if it weren't an issue, why wouldn't he just solve it? I wish he would because if he doesn't, it's one of the greatest scams in the history of politics and in the history, period. You are not allowed to be a president if you're not born in this country. Right now, I have real doubts.The issue gained steam in the midst of a highly contentious election year as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gained favor among the voting public. In May 2012, the president's former literary agent Acton & Dystel produced a previously unpublished leaflet stating that Obama was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii". The promotional booklet was written in 1991 when Obama was at Harvard Law School. It was intended to be part of an Obama autobiography but the project was cancelled.
In Oct. 2012, just days before November presidential elections, Mr. Trump offered to donate $5 million to Obama's chosen charity if the commander-in-chief would disclose his college and passport records. Trump had hoped that the disclosures would shed light on where Barack Obama was born, his citizenship status, and whether or not he was admitted to college and law school as a foreign exchange student. President Obama ignored Trump's challenge in media interviews and refused to release the requested records.
However, comedian Bill Maher did issue a challenge to Mr. Trump to produce his birth certificate in exchange for $5 million donated to the latter's favorite charity. Maher made the offer on Jan. 7 on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno". On Tuesday, the real estate tycoon produced a birth certificate showing that he was born in New York City. Trump's lawyer then issued a letter asking the HBO host to make good on his $5 million offer.
Attached hereto is a copy of Mr. Trump's birth certificate, demonstrating that he is the son of Fred Trump, not an orangutan. Please remit the $5 million to Mr. Trump immediately and he will ensure that the money be donated to the following five charities in equal amounts: Hurricane Sandy Victims, The Police Athletic League, The American Cancer Society, The March of Dimes, and The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute...................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)