Solidarity April 4, 2011-- Lets Turn This Moment Into A Movement

Dave Grohl & Taylor Hawkins - Under Pressure 6/29/13

2013-07-02T17:07:00.001-04:00

ID99U.png (693×636)

2011-07-25T01:08:00.000-04:00

ID99U.png (693×636)

How the the conversation went that led to the Bill-To-Kill-Grandparents , Maybe

2011-04-21T15:21:00.001-04:00

How the War on Grandparents Started, Maybe

Posted on April 19, 2011 by Godless Admin

by Colin Crews

I’ve been trying to figure out how the GOP came to Paul Ryan’s Medicare-throw-granny-from-the-train budget. But I couldn’t come up with any good reason why the Republicans (the Tea People too) would back a plan that attacks the elderly and still doesn’t balance the budget. I pondered the question and ultimately conjured my own scenario. What follows is fiction. As far as we know.

INT: BULLFEATHER’S BAR, WASHINGTON, DC. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE JOHN BOEHNER, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER ERIC CANTOR AND SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL ARE AT A TABLE.

BOEHNER: Damn it fellas we have to come up with a plan. A real plan. Not just issuing another Reagan postage stamp.

MCCONNELL: We could do what we did under Clinton and demand a balanced budget amendment. That was easy and we didn’t have to worry about it ever happening.

BOEHNER: Damn it, Mitch, we need something bigger, like when “W” tried to privatize Social Security and tie it to the stock market.

MCCONNELL: That didn’t work out for us.

CANTOR: (TO MCCONNELL.) We’ve got to make a splash. I don’t want to do this public servant thing forever. I want Steve Doocy’s job on Fox and Friends. I could do the weather and be a Right Wing lackey at the same time. Watch… (CANTOR POINTS TO IMAGINARY MAP. PRETENDS TO READ THE WEATHER.) In Abilene, Kansas we’ll see a high of 78 degrees today while in Kogelo, Kenya, birthplace of President Obama, the high will be 115 with no chance for rain. Ever. (BACK OUT OF CHARACTER.) Besides, I hate Steve Doocy.

BOEHNER: What’ve you got against Doocy? He’s on our side.

CANTOR: He looks like Big Bird. I hate Sesame Street.

MCCONNELL: Ummm…(PAUL RYAN ENTERS IN WORKOUT CLOTHES WITH A GYM BAG AND SITS.)

RYAN: What’s up my peeps?

BOEHNER: (TO RYAN) You’re late, junior.

RYAN: Sorry, boss. Got held up by a super-hot-insurance-lobbyist-babe who wouldn’t take “yes” as an answer. I get it. Obamacare is bad; the uninsured aren’t trying hard enough, blah, blah, blah.

BOEHNER: You were in your office like that? (GESTURES TO RYAN’S CLOTHES)

RYAN: No, no, but she made me late for my workout.

CANTOR: I hate exercise.

MCCONNELL: I enjoy the stationary bicycle.

RYAN: Pffft… it’s not just a workout; it’s P90X! It’s the ultimate fitness routine.

CANTOR: How often do you do that thing?

RYAN: Everyday! Today was Back and Legs plus Ab Ripper. Ab Ripper is a bitch. (RYAN UNZIPS GYM BAG AND REMOVES A TUPPERWARE BOWL CONTAINING BLUEBERRIES.)

CANTOR: What’s up with the blueberries?

RYAN: If I only tell you guys one thing today, this will be the most important. (THE OTHERS LEAN IN) If you eat blueberries right after you workout, you know, while your motab is still up, you keep burning calories. That’s some serious shit, huh?

BOEHNER: Okay, Jack Lalanne…

RYAN and CANTOR: Who?

MCCONELL: I saw him at a weight lifting exposition in Barlow in 1950…

RYAN: Don’t worry about it, Uncle Jessie. (RYAN PATS MCCONNELL ON THE ARM.)

CANTOR: The Dukes of Hazard were from Georgia.

RYAN: Where’s Jefferson Davis here from? (POINTS TO MCCONNELL.)

MCCONNELL: The great state of…

BOEHNER: Kentucky! Mitch is from Kentucky for the love of Jesus Christ and all his deadbeat-hippie disciples, can we please get on subject?

CANTOR: Sorry, Big B.

RYAN: You bet, boss.

BOEHNER: Now that the brain trust is all here we’ve got to do something. We need a plan. Something we can put in a book. Like a manifesto.

MCCONNELL: I’m not comfortable with Soviet metaphors.

CANTOR: Like Ayn Rand! I was the only kid in my fifth grade class to read The Fountainhead.

RYAN: Does it have to be a long book? I don’t really read. I’m mean… I read magazines… well, Men’s Health and Entertainment Weekly.

MCCONNELL: I once read Gone With the Wind cover to cover on a train to…

BOEHNER: Ryan’s on to something. Keep it short. Easy to understand. Something we can repeat. Something Glenn Beck can wrap his head around.

CANTOR: It has to be about making cuts. Big cuts. Historic cuts.

RYAN: The mother of all cuts!

MCCONNELL: You know you’re quoting Saddam…

BOEHNER: Cut what? Going after public broadcasting and cancer screenings for women is wearing thin.

RYAN: It’s soooo played. What if we sell the Grand Canyon?

MCCONNELL: I don’t…

CANTOR: That’s not bad… we do it like a reality show. We get the richest corporations in America to bid for it. We could get a celebrity panel of judges to decide on the best offer. I hate nature.

BOEHNER: Okay, kids, we’re planning a budget for the United States not resurrectingThe Gong Show.

RYAN and CANTOR: The what?

BOEHNER: Nevermind.

RYAN: (SNAPS FINGERS.) I’ve got it! We kill Medicare. The old won’t be around to vote for much longer anyway. End Medicare as we know it. There’s a slogan for you!

BOEHNER: Not bad, junior. Not bad.

MCCONNELL: The elderly vote is…

BOEHNER: (TO MCCONNELL.) Calm yourself, Colonel Sanders. The kid’s on to something. Besides, my grandfather was a miserable old coot.

RYAN: Yeah, boss man, screw the grandparents! What did they ever do for us?

BOEHNER: My grandfather used to call me “little boner.” Son of a bitch said I was pasty. How do you like me now, old man? I’m a golden god!

CANTOR: My grandfather was a Democrat. He smelled like old newspapers and pee.

BOEHNER: But we can’t just kill Medicare. We have to come up with something to replace it. But not provide the same benefits.

RYAN: I’ve got one word for you. (RYAN LEANS INTO THE GROUP CONSPIRATORIALLY) Vouchers.

CANTOR: My grandfather used to say “pull my finger” then you know what he’d do? Pass gas. You know… (WHISPERS) Fart.

RYAN: (IGNORING CANTOR) We could do something old school. Retro stuff is very hip, like those pre-faded KISS t-shirts at Old Navy.

CANTOR: (CONTINUING.) Then he’d wave the fart at me. I hate farts.

RYAN: What if we give the old people tickets as vouchers? Like those tickets you got for school lunch.

MCCONNELL: Reagan said ketchup is a vegetable.

CANTOR: Peepaw made me eat beets. They taste like dirt. (CANTOR PUTS FACE IN HANDS.)

BOEHNER: Ryan, you’ve got it! We can order those lunch tickets cheap from China.

MCCONNELL: I remember when President Nixon went to…

RYAN: And we’ll get them in different colors for the various stuff the geezers will need. Four purple tickets get grandma a trip to the eye doctor, twelve green tickets gets her a yearly check up, you save the red tickets for heart surgery or cancer.

BOEHNER: But we’d limit the number of tickets they get.

RYAN: Definitely. We can’t just give them all the tickets they want. After all they could get a job as a Wal-Mart greeter or collect cans or something. Get out there! Storm the beach! Be active.

CANTOR: PeePaw wanted me to throw football with him. Kept hitting me in the face with the ball. Broke my glasses four times. Four times! I hate football. (CANTOR PUSHES GLASSES UP ON HIS NOSE.)

RYAN: Jesus, Eric, you’re such a nerd. Go Redskins!

BOEHNER: Go Redskins. (BOEHNER AND RYAN CLICK GLASSES.)

MCCONNELL: I’m a grandfather.

BOEHNER: Pipe down, He-Haw. Okay, guys, I’ve got to get to a meeting with Darrell Issa.

RYAN: Issa, what a nightmare.

BOEHNER: I know, but if I’m five minutes late he’ll start some fucking investigation about it.

— Okay, maybe it didn’t go down like that. But it makes as much sense as anything else. Also, I think I deserve some credit for not making Boehner cry. Not even once.

Colin Crews is a writer living in Alabama.

GodlessCommie.com | Satire and opinion from the heart of America, left ventrical.

Video of President Obama's Town Hall Meeting on Facebook

2011-04-20T22:41:00.000-04:00

The Presidents Live Facebook Townhall in its entirety.

Part 1:

Part 2:

facebookguests on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

Watch live streaming video from facebookguests at livestream.com

Karma's a Bitch DONALD TRUMP: SHOW US YOUR DRAFT CARD!

2011-04-20T22:15:00.000-04:00

Original Story by Gordon Duff· <posted here @ veteranstoday.com>

MILITARY CADET GRAD IN 64, COLLEGE IN 68 YET NO SERVICE
OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER…and, when homeless vet activists asked for his support (not money) he answered…“Mr. Trump is in receipt of your business presentation. While he appreciates your bringing this opportunity to his attention, regretfully, it is of no interest to him.”

At first glance this would seem like anyone's right to choose to react this way, let alone a cold callous billionaire's. However, when Donald's response is viewed in light of the fact that a man seemingly on course to enter the military, magically never served in the war occurring when a draft was issued that should have affected him.

When other kids of millionaires were ducking into reserve units or faking diseases to avoid the Vietnam War, Donald Trumps CV goes blank and stays that way for years, in fact Donald Trump may not have been on earth at all at that time. We want to see his draft card and his deferment records. When Trump became eligible, there was no lottery for the draft, everyone went, Though Trump had attended a military academy where he had been a star athlete, when it came to facing military service, first after his academy graduation and then after college…

Where did “the Donald” go????

EXACTLY...WHERE WERE YOU DONALD?? WE would all like to know if it was influence peddling that kept you out, or were you legitamately excused from service? Really easy to prove...I would expect someone running for POTUS, would quickly provide us with these answers. Especially the same someone asking for documents of proof from the current, sitting POTUS.

For someone wanting to run the “free world,” at the most critical time in his life when 2.9 million American served in Vietnam and millions more in the military, for no reason known to anyone, and in direct contradiction to the laws of man and the United States, Donald Trump managed to “slide on by.” The generation that served, some surviving, many more not, isn’t ready to welcome “the Donald” until he explains exactly where and why. Where were you Donald? Why didn’t you serve?

Put UP OR SHUTUP!!! Choice is your's Donny Boy!

—————————————————-

Ronald Reagan..Godfather OF ALL CONSERVATIVES, Equates Collective Bargaining to Freedom..PERIOD!

2011-04-20T19:21:00.002-04:00

Wow ....I wonder how this little revelation will be rationalized by the Tea-Baggers. I can here it now..." He was only talking about the Polish Solidarity movement... Not Labor Unions in general.." Save it... Listen to the part where he says:

They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children and it will disappear everywhere in the world.

Could not be any clearer than that. I believe this to be a rare occasion that i both agree with Reagan and trust his sincerity.

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

2011-04-19T20:30:00.001-04:00

Well As we knew and said all along... It was about OIL after all in IRAQ...BIG surprise here:

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".
But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.
Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.
The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.
Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."
The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.
The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

This is at odds with statements made by several at the time, and since. We all knew they were lying, and that it was just a matter of time...

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion
* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."
* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."
* BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."
* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."
* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."

At the time these talks were occurring, my peer group and I talked about how much money the oil companies and rich people were about to make. Low and behold if we weren't right. We just didn't figure on them getting Greedier and wanting to keep that much money all for themselves, even if it meant everyone else having to pay more while they pay less.

Diary of a Mad Whiteman Volume 1 Entry 3 April 18, 2011

2011-04-18T22:07:00.001-04:00

I couldn't put into words anything better than this...

"There's a reason education SUCKS, and it's the same reason that it will never, ever, ever be fixed. It's never going to get any better, don't look for it, be happy with what you've got. Because the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the REAL owners, now. The REAL owners, the BIG WEALTHY business interests that control things and make all the important decisions -- forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. YOU DON'T. You have no choice. You have OWNERS. They OWN YOU. They own EVERYTHING. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations; they've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State houses, the City Halls; they've got the judges in their back pockets, and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear. They gotcha by the BALLS. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying -- lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want -- they want MORE for themselves and less for everybody else. But I'll tell you what they don't want. They DON'T want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that, that doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting FUCKED by system that threw them overboard 30 fuckin' years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want OBEDIENT WORKERS. OBEDIENT WORKERS. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passably accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And now they're comin' for your SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY. They want your fuckin' retirement money. They want it BACK. So they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it ALL from you sooner or later -- 'cuz they OWN this fuckin' place. It's a big CLUB. And YOU AIN'T IN IT. You and I are NOT IN the big club. By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long, beating you over the in their media telling you what to believe -- what to think -- and what to buy. The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-workin people -- white collar, blue collar -- doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-workin people CONTINUE -- these are people of modest means -- continue to elect these RICH COCKSUCKERS who don't GIVE a fuck about them. They don't give a fuck about you, they don't GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU. T HEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU -- AT ALL. AT ALL. AT ALL. You know? And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care ... that's what the owners count on, the fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes every day. Because the owners of this country know the truth -- it's called the American Dream ... 'cuz you have to be asleep to believe it." George Carlin's Final Words To The World...

Tea party fizzle across the nation..Iced Tea Anyone?

2011-04-18T20:40:00.000-04:00

b Jed Lewison FollowforDaily Kos

Michele Bachmann's TP rally drew half-dozens of people (Photo: FITSNEWS.com)

South Carolina:

Politicians, political operatives and members of the media came close to outnumbering attendees at a much-hyped Columbia, S.C. Tea Party rally starring U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley on Monday.
Only 300 people (including a horde of Palmetto political operatives) attended the event in downtown Columbia, S.C. – which is a generous estimate in our book. That attendance figure – confirmed by other media outlets – amounts to less than one-tenth the size of multiple crowds that have gathered at the S.C. State House in recent years in support of parental choice.
It’s also roughly a tenth the size of the crowd that attended this same event in 2009.

Nevada:

The police estimate of 250 attendees in Carson City was far short of the record 2,000 who attended a similar, but much more rowdy rally in front of the Legislative Building on Tax Day in 2009.
In Las Vegas, police estimated the crowd at about 250 people. Two years ago, the Tax Day rally drew from 1,500 to 2,000 people at Sunset Park.

Adding insult to injury, tea partiers in Carson City were subjected to this "musical" performance: Sharron Angle singing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless The USA."

Compared to those events, today's tea party rally in Chicago was a smashing success: "several hundred" showed up according to the Chicago Tribune. But even there, turnout was abysmalrelative to expectations and past performance (emphasis added):

Steve Stevlic, head of the Chicago Tea Party, told FoxNews.com that he hasn't seen any signs of the movement fading. His tax day protest drew up to5,000 people last year and, if decent weather prevails, he's expecting the same size this year, perhaps even larger.
His event will be held Monday at noon in Daley Plaza. Among the speakers will be presidential candidate Herman Cain, Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill, and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Well, at least Grover Norquist showed up, even if the crowd was fraction of what organizers had hoped. And he looked fantastic:

Diary of a Mad Whiteman Volume: 1 Entry: 2

2011-04-16T12:17:00.001-04:00

Again THE POTUS stands up and in the nice congenial manor he has, when he KNOWS the mic is on, and SLAMS Paul Ryan with his JOKE of a "budget bill"(I refuse to call it a deficit reduction plan because it does not reduce a single deficit).

"Now, one plan put forward by some Republicans in the House of Representatives aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years. But while I think their goal is worthy, I believe their vision is wrong for America.
It’s a vision that says at a time when other nations are hustling to out-compete us for the jobs and businesses of tomorrow, we have to make drastic cuts in education, infrastructure, and clean energy – the very investments we need to win that competition and get those jobs.
It’s a vision that says that in order to reduce the deficit, we have to end Medicare as we know it, and make cuts to Medicaid that would leave millions of seniors, poor children, and Americans with disabilities without the care they need.
But even as this plan proposes these drastic cuts, it would also give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans–an extra $200,000 for every millionaire and billionaire in the country.
I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think it’s right to ask seniors to pay thousands more for health care, or ask students to postpone college, just so we don’t have to ask those who have prospered so much in this land of opportunity to give back a little more."

The POTUS continues on to point by point show how it is possible to be THRIFTY and SAVE, by making EVERYONE that BENEFITS from society, PAY AN EQUAL SHARE OF THEIR BENEFIT....A simple request, one would think....

But no... the TEABAGGING nutjobs on the right, can't see that the only ones that would lose out is... NO ONE.... PEOPLE have more available money to spend , they CONSUME like rabbits f@ck... We are AMERICANS after all, that is what we were born and Bred to do CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME...
But I digress...That is a Rant for another day...

Obama Has Taken Off the Gloves and Put on the Brass Knuckles and Says: If you think you can overturn my Veto, TRY IT!

2011-04-15T22:21:00.000-04:00

Goldman Sachs Admits Record Speculation To Blame For Skyrocketing Gas Prices

2011-04-15T22:11:00.001-04:00

Saying that “net speculative positions are four times as high as in June 2008,” investment banker Goldman Sachs “issued a warning that the price of oil has grown out of control due to excessive speculation.” The world’s largest commodity trader, Goldman Sachs told its clients that it believed speculators like itself had artificially driven the price of oil at least $20 higher than supply and demand dictate. They even admitted that their work to drive up prices has harmed the American economic recovery, pointing to “nascent signs of oil demand destruction in the US.”
Ed Schultz, who’s been one of the few voices in the media sounding the alarm about unregulated speculators, yesterday bashed Fox News for selling the “drill baby drill” line in response to the surge in the oil markets. Former commodities trader Dan Dicker explained to Schultz that the CFTC is failing its mandate to control Wall Street:

Bottom line, it is not supply and demand.

2011-04-15T17:16:00.003-04:00

Diary Of A Mad Whiteman Volume I Entry I

2011-04-15T14:04:00.001-04:00

IF you just glance at the chart below it will make you cry tears of sorrow, not joy....But it easy to see the correlation between the drop of the influence of unions over the last 40 years. LABORS influence has declined, they thought they had us on the ropes.

However, these fools do not understand the day and age we live in... They use the internet, and other new-age digital tools themselves, and then forget that Youtube exists, when they attempt to DENY

..So sad... Time and time again these fools attempt to rewrite history, only to run Smack into the wall of truth, documented for all eternity to view and compare to the cesspool of filth and lies spewing forth from their lips...NOW THEY GONE AND DONE IT... It's kind of like when the bad guy leaves just enough way for Popeye to eat his spinach at the last minute to save the day!!!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Progressives, Unions, Democrats(seen an an astonishing $17million approx. in contributions the first quarter), Are all seeing a renaissance that shows the nation and sellout media what a real POPULIST MOVEMENT is all about.... Again, it's like a DUMB child(Teaparty's Puppet-master Koch Bros) that keeps poking a SLEEPING BEAST(LABOR DEMOCRATS PROGRESSIVES) through the fence, provoking it over and over, till one day the BEAST jumps the fence, and eats the little DUMB boy for dinner, and the world lives Happily ever after....THE END

Kucinich Slams Lord Walker : The truth hurts, Especially when someone smacks you so hard with it you blurt it out yourself.....

2011-04-15T10:23:00.002-04:00

At no other time in recent memory has any politician, other than Paul Ryan, received such an in-your-face-with-fact-not-hate-SMACKDOWN. This CLOWN thought he would be cheered the champion hero on this pathetic, thinly-veiled, fundraising junket. He is being held to ridicule throughout the national, and international press both. Yesterday April 14, 2011, The Walker Express ran head-on into the immovable wall of truth and fact, derailing the happy little whistlestop tour in a jarringly public admission...

KUCINICH: Let me ask you about some of the specific provisions in your proposals to strip collective bargaining rights. First, your proposal would require unions to hold annual votes to continue representing their own members. Can you please explain to me and members of this committee how much money this provision saves for your state budget?

WALKER: It doesn’t save any. [...]

KUCINICH: I want to ask about another one of your proposals. Under your plan you would prohibit paying union member dues from their paychecks. How much money would this provision save your state budget?

WALKER: It would save employees a thousand dollars a year they could use to pay for their pensions and health care contributions.

KUCINICH: Governor, it wouldn’t save anything. [Goes on to present letter from LRF and is denied unanimous request for it to be placed in the public record by Issa][/blockquote]

WALKER: That and a number of other provisions we put in because if you’re going to ask, if you’re going to put in place a change like that, we wanted to make sure we protected the workers of our state, so they got value out of that. [...]

KUCINICH: Would you answer the question? How much money does it save, Governor?

One of the Greatest Democratic Presidential Addresses in History: Barack Hussein Obama's Legacy!!

2011-04-13T14:55:00.002-04:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama's speech just now, as prepared for delivery:
"What we've been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially profound. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. Its about the kind of future we want. It's about the kind of country we believe in. And that's what I want to talk about today.
"From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America's wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.
"But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we've built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We've laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We've supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.
"Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. 'There but for the grace of God go I,' we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I'll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.
"For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who've done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.
"Now, at certain times – particularly during periods of war or recession – our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities. And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn't going to hurt if it's temporary.
"But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon. They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid. Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation.
"To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation's deficit. They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush and President Clinton; by Democratic Congresses and a Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but they largely protected the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and key investments in our future.
"As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America's finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.
"But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn't pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.
"To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.
"Of course, that's not what happened. And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets. It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.
"So that's how our fiscal challenge was created. This is how we got here. And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s. We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt. And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future.
"Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, 'Why is this so important? Why does this matter to me?'
"Here's why. Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we'll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments.
"Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse. By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt. That's it. Every other national priority – education, transportation, even national security – will have to be paid for with borrowed money.
"Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. We won't be able to afford good schools, new research, or the repair of roads and bridges – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America. Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books. And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.
"The good news is, this doesn'' have to be our future. This doesn't have to be the country we leave to our children. We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.
"But that starts by being honest about what's causing our deficit. You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys. Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research. Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare. And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.
"Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse –that tackling the deficit issue won't require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.
"So here's the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans' benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What's left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That's 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.
"Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won't solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn't require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.
"One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party's presidential candidates. It's a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.
"Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history.
"A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That's what they're proposing. These aren't the kind of cuts you make when you're trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren't the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that's deeply pessimistic.
"It's a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can't afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can't afford to send them. Go to China and you'll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can't afford any of this.
"It's a vision that says America can't afford to keep the promise we've made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you're a 65 year old who's eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn't worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you're on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.
"This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone's grandparents who wouldn't be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down's syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we'd be telling to fend for themselves.
"Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that's who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that's paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm President.
"The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan's own budget director said, there's nothing 'serious' or 'courageous' about this plan. There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There's nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don't have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.
"The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.
"This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don't have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I'm President, we won't.
"Today, I'm proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It's an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It's an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.
"The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We'll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We'll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.
"The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America's interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America's national security is America's debt.
"Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it's complete.
"The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government's health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government's health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.
"Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare's purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.
"Now, we believe the reforms we've proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we're wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.
"But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.
"That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.
"The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.
"Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn't itemize.
"My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That's why I'm calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission's model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.
"This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It's an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future.
"In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code. That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.
"So this is our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.
"Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach. Some will argue we shouldn't even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans. It's just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn't be here without. That some of you wouldn't be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that's done so much for them. Washington just hasn't asked them to.
"Others will say that we shouldn't even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. I'm sympathetic to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December. It's also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don't begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.
"Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn't make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don't make any changes at all, we won't be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.
"Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people's lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.
"Of course, there are those who will simply say that there's no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They'll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart. And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.
"But I also know that we've come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations. The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget. In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts. And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction.
"I believe we can and must come together again. This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June.
"I don't expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I'm eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum. And though I'm sure the criticism of what I've said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground.
"This larger debate we're having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we're living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. That's a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have.
"But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we've always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can't just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what's required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.
"This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn't a partisan feeling. It isn't a Democratic or Republican idea. It's patriotism.
"The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. He started off by telling me he didn't vote for me and he hasn't always agreed with me. But even though he's worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he said,
'I still believe. I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about. I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the "American Dream" is still alive. . .
'We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain. . . We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.'
"I still believe as well. And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America."

The Mudflats | Alaska Governor Sean Parnell’s Big Oil Bailout

2011-04-12T02:01:00.000-04:00

By Thomas Dewar and Jeanne Devon

“Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
—Daniel Patrick Moynihan

“I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”
—Jay Gould, 19th Century Robber Baron

School kids from across Alaska recently took a trip to the Capitol in Juneau to beg for needed classroom resources.

ConocoPhillips just boasted a single year’s profits of $1.75 billion from Alaska alone, and insists it’s not enough, demanding more money from the state.

Guess which of these two groups was told “no,” and which has found a compliant concierge In the Governor’s Mansion? You probably already know the answer, but read on anyway, because you’ll learn other interesting things along the way.

Divide & Conquer

In state capitals across the nation, a calculated strategy seeks to pit neighbor against neighbor, so some of the most profitable corporations in history can abscond with ever more money from already ailing state and local budgets.

Facts, it’s been said, are stubborn things. And from New Jersey to Wisconsin to Alaska, a particular brand of regressive and reactionary dogma is colliding face-first with facts that can be known and proven and ironically, can be supported by the former’s own data.

To fuel a reactionary “divide and conquer” strategy, Wisconsinites are being told that their governor is simply and reasonably asking those pampered state workers to contribute to their own retirement. “Bless his heart,” says Sarah Palin, “that Wisconsin governor is doing all he can to make his state solvent.” Nevermind that their pensions are already self-funded without a dime of taxpayer money. Nevermind that they’ve agreed to accept the financial concessions demanded by the Governor. Sometimes outright lies are what’s required to deflect attention from the hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate giveaways that broke the budget, and shift suspicion onto the working mom next door whose union contract provided her and her kids with a flamboyant amount of health care.

Which brings us to the backlash. Nationally, thinking people began to wonder why, after corporate America’s most profitable quarter in history, and executive compensation skyrocketing north to record-setting levels, was the unemployment needle still stuck just below 10%? If we just did what was good for big business, wouldn’t then (to borrow a Scott McAdams riff) “the capitalist fairy come down and sprinkle us with pixie dust?”

Not so much, it turns out.

Nowhere is this epic collision between facts and the common good on one side, versus rapacious greed and blatant, easily disprovable lies on the other, on more vivid display than in Alaska—the nation’s most resource rich state, whose residents nonetheless pay more at the pump than motorists in the Lower 48.
Governor Parnell now tells us the most pressing fiscal matter before us is to ensure some of the most profitable corporations on the planet receive additional breaks. Yes, even if those breaks come at the expense of those supplicating apple-cheeked school kids and their teachers. Even if, when pressed on the matter, the oil companies who supposedly need bailing out refuse to commit that their additional loot will actually lead to any more jobs or any investment in the state. “Just give us the money, and we’ll see how it goes,” we’re told. Would you gamble billions on those odds?

ConocoPhillips, mopping their sweaty brow from raking in a single year’s profits of $1.75 billion in Alaska alone, does not believe its share of Alaska’s resources is enough. As a matter of fact, they’d like to shift more of the state’s tax burden to you. Over the past 5 years, and overlapping with ACES (Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share), Conoco CEO James Mulva has had to make do on $95.2 million in compensation. Poor baby. One can see how this would make him have a sad.

If doing whatever was good for Big Oil’s bottom line was inherently good for average Alaskans, why then would this industry need to saturate the state’s airwaves with ads convincing us of it? Why spend that much to blackmail viewers with threats of the ad’s telegenic little girl growing up to find a dry pipeline? Because it costs more to make people believe lies.

The shady socializing of risk and privatizing of profit has been intuited by most Alaskans on a gut level for some time. We even thought for ourselves and voted for a little cruise ship tax despite a zillion dollar ad campaign telling us that nobody would ever come to Alaska if they had to add $50 to the price of their multi-thousand dollar cruise ticket.
But while the issue of oil taxation is more complex than a $50 cruise ship tax, it’s actually easier to grasp than the oil companies and their newly acquired legislators would have you believe. Enter Senator Bill Wielechowski.

On this week’s broadcast of Moore Up North, Alaskans were urged to use their common sense again.

“…and a youth shall lead them.” (Isaiah 11:6)

Facts are stubborn things and Sen. Wielechowski is, it turns out, a stubborn man. And this is a very good thing for Alaskans. From the stage of the Tap Root Cafe, the senator systematically dismantled talking point after talking point from the oil companies, and their lobbyists – including Governor Parnell.

Singular in their devastation of every false premise, assumption, and talking point by Big Oil and its advocate in the Governor’s Mansion were two graphs.

“Refudiating” the premise that Alaska’s tax climate is just too unstable and confiscatory to promote investment and economic growth, take note that the very companies spinning this line are currently investing in Russia, Libya (!) and other, significantly less stable regimes, with tax rates in the 90% range:

And the effective tax rate in the wild, unstable war-torn dictatorial hell hole of Alaska, USA? About 30%. Yes, just 30%.

This might explain why a brand new player has entered the scene under ACES, making a big announcement just yesterday.

Spanish oil major Repsol announced it had acquired a 70-percent stake in several exploration blocks in Alaska, where it plans to invest around 550 million euros.

“This deal forms part of our strategy to incorporate new and high quality exploration sites into our portfolio,” Repsol chairman Antonio Brufau said in a statement released by the group. It is also “part of our strategy to balance our exploration portfolio with low risk assets through onshore opportunities in a stable environment,” he explained.

And then there’s Great Bear Petroleum, another company that has leased half a million acres of onshore exploration sites in Alaska, that also made the announcement this week. The President of Great Bear, Ed Duncan effused about the area which falls under ACES, “Alaska’s resource base is global in scale. It’s an international oil and gas player,” adding that Great Bear “is built around building Alaska back to where it should be … where it was just a few short years ago. Not preoccupied with North Dakota or South Texas or the Northeast U.S.”

If you listen really carefully you can hear the sound of a talking point imploding.

Now to the correlation between tax rates for Big Oil and job growth in the state. As you can see from the next chart, employment was it its low point at the very time of the zero percent tax rate. ZERO. But under ACES, job growth has climbed steadily north over a period of years. And who created this little chart? That would be Governor Parnell’s office. There goes another talking point. >poof<

It would be interesting to hear the industry’s response to these damningly inconvenient facts, but we shouldn’t hold our breath for anything beyond the vapid, content-free spin, no longer distinguishable from overt extortion.

This is not a partisan issue. Former Governor Palin called ACES her “crowning achievement,” and was able to pass it with broad bipartisan support including Democrats who ensured the legislation would become reality. The Anchorage Daily News, furthermore, reports that Republican House Speaker Mike Chenault has doubts & skepticism about the proposed bailout for Big Oil. The ADN piece also reports the Speaker’s fellow Republican, Rep. Paul Seaton of Homer, is voicing doubts about the billions the state will lose:

Seaton disputed the main argument for the tax break—that it would encourage new drilling and other investments on the North Slope.

Drilling activity in years past has never followed changes in Alaska’s tax regime, whether rising or falling, he said. Investments follow oil company plans for field development, not tax codes, he said.

He cited recent proposals by an independent oil company, Great Bear Petroleum, that are going ahead in Alaska without the incentive of tax breaks.

“The tax bill that we’ve got before us, none of that money is going to go there,” Seaton said. “The money is going to go to the current producers who have put not one plan of development, or accelerated development, on the table.”

Tea Party activists, hostile to corporate bailouts and crony capitalism, should likewise be with Senator Wielechowski on this one.

Here is the full broadcast of Moore Up North – must see TV for Alaska’s future. Contact your legislators and tell them you know ACES is working, and that the oil companies don’t need a bailout at your expense.

Wisconsin's Place in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy | Crooks and Liars

2011-04-09T22:06:00.000-04:00

This IS a Post that I will be following intently:

Untangling the hairball of right-wing non-profits is a job worthy of the DuPont family genealogist. First cousins, second cousins, intermarrying, charities that aren't really charitable, you name it, you'll find it in the dark recesses of the back pages of federal disclosures. But if you look long enough, and take the time to get to know the various families and their incestuous patterns, a picture emerges.

@Karoli Goes on to tell us that the Koch connection is only the tip of the Dark Iceberg Ahead:

But the Koch family is only one of several just like them...But don't assume it's the Koch family pulling the strings. They hold one. The Bradley Foundation holds two or three. There are other players too, but that's a topic for another post.

But then @Karoli Goes into the meat of the post:

How Scott Walker got elected

This post began because two questions kept sticking in my head. First, how did a preacher's kid with no college degree manage such a meteoric rise from county executive to Governor? And second, what is it about Wisconsin that has made it such a hotbed of controversy and policy fights? How is it that a state can be so deeply divided, ideologically?

It seems to me that the divide is created by systematically investing huge sums of money in policy "research", media influence, and political causes over a long period of time. This is to say that I think Wisconsin was inherently progressive-leaning and has been pushed right by the institutions funded with conservative, far-right wing money.

Look at Scott Walker. Scott Walker is a face. He's a guy carrying out the orders of his keepers. He's got the look and he's got the ambition. Scott Walker is the face of the John Birch society writ large in Wisconsin.

With Mike Grebe at the helm of Walker's campaign, $11.3 million was spent to elect him. Outside donors included the Republican Governors' Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, who spent millions on independent expenditures. Here's a breakdown of individual donors by industry.

Scott Walker, like the policy institutes the Bradley Foundation funds, is another "laboratory". The formula goes like this. Get a guy with the right bio to appeal to independents. The conservative vote is a given, so it's the independent vote they're going after. Walker had the right populist blend for Wisconsin. Son of a preacher who gave up the education for "hard work", he presented himself as an 'ordinary guy' who had trouble even paying for a suit.

Put a ton of money into his campaign. Inundate the state. Get him elected. Then start putting the policy issues so heavily funded, researched and publicized into effect. Bust unions? No problem, because the WPRI laid the foundation with a series of "research papers" on union-busting. Same with tax cuts and the rest.

Now I will Definitely be Following this story as it is Untangled, Check Back for Updates!

Real People v. Corporate “People”: The Fight Is On

2011-04-09T15:11:00.002-04:00

The Supreme Court says corporations can spend as much money as they want on political advertising. Millions of Americans say they've had it.

by Doug Pibel
posted May 27, 2010

In 2009, Riki Ott was on the road for 252 days educating people about the dangers of “corporate personhood.” That’s the legal doctrine that says corporations have constitutional rights, just like human beings. She mostly spoke in academic settings, and there was some interest in the idea, says Ott, but not much.

All that changed on January 21, 2010, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Now interest has skyrocketed, and Ott finds people eager to volunteer, to organize, to meet, to do anything to reverse the Court’s decision.

Rallying Around Citizens United
Supreme Court cases are usually interesting to lawyers, scholars, and those directly affected. Occasionally, a decision makes the news for a few days before disappearing from the public eye. But sometimes there’s a game changer—a decision that is so clearly wrong that it becomes a rallying point. David Cobb, former Green Party presidential candidate and longtime activist on corporate personhood, points to Dred Scott v. Sandford as one such decision. Citizens United, Cobb says, is shaping up as another.

The two cases are mirror images of error. In 1857, the Dred Scott decision said that a flesh-and-blood human being had no constitutional rights because he was black. On January 21, 2010, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, used Citizens United to declare that corporations—legal entities with no human attributes—have the same constitutional free-speech rights that humans have.

Dred Scott was the most notorious Supreme Court decision of its time. It was not a groundbreaking case—it simply took existing law to its logical conclusion. But it so clearly violated both logic and human decency that it forced people to look at what slavery really meant. Rather than legitimizing the status quo, as it was intended to do, the decision galvanized the growing abolitionist movement, and set the stage for the end of slavery. But it took the 14th Amendment to overturn Dred Scott.

To say that a corporation with billions to spend on advertising is no different from a human being with one voice and one vote goes beyond what people are willing to accept.
Citizens United also takes existing law to its logical conclusion. And, like Dred Scott, it is generating tremendous discussion and debate—this time about corporate power and about what role, if any, corporations should play in the political process.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken February 4–8, 2010, found that 80 percent of Americans oppose the Court’s ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it. Opposition cuts across the political spectrum: 85 percent of Democrats oppose the ruling, as do 81 percent of Independents, and 76 percent of Republicans.

Within days of the Citizens United decision, groups formed to undo the Court’s damage. They are pursuing remedies ranging from local ordinances to federal legislation to a constitutional amendment.

Why Should We Care
Citizens United says that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising. The Court declared more than 30 years ago that spending money is a form of speech, and that corporations had a First Amendment right to speak that way. But there were still limits, particularly in the area of political speech, where there is a century-old tradition of controlling the influence of corporations on the electoral process.

Allen Michaan, owner of the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, Calif., routinely exercises his free speech, in this case by sharing his reaction to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The well-known marquee faces the MacArthur Freeway (I-580).

Photo by David Gans

Citizens United takes away those limits. According to the Court, if human beings are allowed an unrestricted right to free speech, then corporations must have the same right.

The Court overturned a key provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law that prohibited corporate- and union-funded campaign advertising within 90 days of a federal election. Now, corporations can spend unlimited money influencing our elections right up to Election Day.

More than $5 billion was spent on the 2008 campaigns with the McCain-Feingold law in place. If that seems like a lot of money, wait for the next election cycle. Citizens United was a case about a corporation spending money to advertise and air a movie that amounted to a hit piece on Hilary Clinton. There are now no limits on the funding of that sort of negative campaign material. Any candidate who doesn’t toe the corporate line can look forward to a flood of opposition cash.

The Humanity of Corporations
Just as Dred Scott was only an extension of existing law, Citizens United merely extends law that has been developing for a long time. But, like Dred Scott, the Court’s conclusion makes clear to most people that the law is wrong. To say that a corporation with billions to spend on advertising is no different from a human being with one voice and one vote goes beyond what a large majority of Americans are willing to accept.

But this is the logical conclusion of the doctrine of corporate personhood, a legal theory that has been developing since the 1800s. Until 1819 the law was clear that corporations had no constitutional rights. In that year, the Court held for the first time that the Constitution applied to corporations.

How to Get Involved

Free Speech for People proposes an amendment to the Constitution that will restore the First Amendment to its original purpose: protecting the people’s right to speak. Its website has plain-language explanations of Citizens United and the issues it raises and a link where you can join 50,000 others petitioning Congress for an amendment. freespeechforpeople.org

Move to Amend is working for an amendment that will revoke all constitutional rights for corporations. Find links to the full text of Citizens United and an exhaustive reading list on the case and on corporate personhood. Check out its “Take Action” page. Nearly 78,000 people have signed its petition. movetoamend.org

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is one of the pioneers in the fight against corporate personhood. Read its articles on Citizens United and dig into resources about community-rights initiatives and the Daniel Pennock Democracy School. celdf.org
The key moment was the 1886 case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific, an unremarkable case about taxes on railroad property. One of the railroad’s arguments was that the tax they were challenging violated the then-relatively new 14th Amendment to the Constitution—the Amendment that specifically overruled Dred Scott.

The railroad claimed that it had been deprived of “equal protection under the law,” which is one of the guarantees of the 14th Amendment. The problem with the argument was that the Amendment said, “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” There is nothing in the language of the Amendment that makes it apply to anyone but humans—it uses the words “person” and “citizen.” The railroad’s argument was that, since a corporation was a legal entity, it was rather like a person and, thus, should enjoy the rights granted by the 14th Amendment.

The Court made no official decision on that issue, and it is discussed nowhere in the Court’s opinion. But in the headnotes (an unofficial summary of the case, not written by a judge), the court reporter, a former president of a small railroad line, quoted the Chief Justice as saying that the Court did not want to hear arguments on whether the 14th Amendment applied to railroads because “we are all of the opinion that it does.”

A lawyer who based an argument on a headnote would be laughed out of court. Yet the headnote in Santa Clara has been treated ever since as a statement of the law. From that crack in the door, the Constitution has been broken open to gradually provide corporations more of the rights granted to humans.

We have gone from a Constitution that nowhere mentions corporations, let alone grants them rights, to Citizens United, which says that the Constitution cannot tell the difference between General Motors and a member of the general public.

Corporations are now a sort of super-being: They can live forever, they cannot be jailed, they have no conscience—yet they also enjoy virtually all the rights that humans have.

“[T]he Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense.” But for the style, those words might have come from one of the activists working to abolish corporate personhood. They are actually the words of Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the four dissenters in Citizens United.

A Turning Point
Eighty percent of Americans agree with Justice Stevens, and they’re ready to demand a return to common sense. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), founded by Thomas Linzey in 1995, has long championed abolishing corporate personhood. Citizens United “opens peoples’ eyes,” says Mari Margil, CELDF’s associate director. “Very often we walk into communities and they’ve never heard of corporate constitutional rights, or they think it’s an academic concept that’s not important for their lives. So we have to show through stories, through examples, through breaking down how our structure of law came to be and how it works,” says Margil. “Now Citizens United allows us to speed that process up a bit.”

David Cobb has given more than a hundred presentations on Citizens United and what it means to our democracy.

Photo by Doctress Neutopia

Riki Ott and David Cobb are working under the banner of Move to Amend, a coalition that launched its Web site the day the Citizens United decision came down. In less than three months, says Cobb, without coverage in a single mass media outlet, more than 77,000 people have signed the group’s online petition for a constitutional amendment to reject the Citizens United ruling. Move to Amend now counts among its growing steering committee and key partners more than 20 progressive organizations, including Black Agenda Report, the National Lawyers Guild, Velvet Revolution, and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.

A partnership of Voter Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance launched Free Speech for People (FSFP), also on the day of the decision, and also seeking a constitutional amendment. They worked with Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) on the amendment she has introduced in the House, which restores the right of Congress and the states to regulate corporate spending. They have collected about 50,000 signatures on their petition.

John Bonifaz, legal director of Voter Action, has participated in FSFP presentations. “It’s pretty clear that the public is ahead of Washington,” Bonifaz says. “Washington, D.C. is looking at relatively modest reforms. The people around the country are very clear on the idea that corporations aren’t people. They believe the Citizens United ruling is a threat to our democracy and to the First Amendment.”

Still, all of these activists caution that this is a matter for the long haul. Amending the Constitution is not an overnight process—Dred Scott was accepted law for 11 years; the fight for women’s suffrage was multi-generational.

Cobb says that although we’ve been told that this is a land of liberty, justice, and equality, people are realizing that it’s not. “Rather than just get caught up in despair and anguish, we can make it that land,” Cobb says. “We are going to force this country to live up to its promises and its best ideals. Are you with us?”

Doug Pibel wrote this article for Water Solutions, the Summer 2010 issue of YES! Magazine. Doug, managing editor of YES! Magazine, spent many years as an attorney. This article incorporates original material from David Cobb.

The Strange Politics of Fitzwalkerstan: GOP Clerk "Finds" Votes to Reverse Defeat of Conservative Wisconsin Justice by John Nichols

2011-04-08T21:48:00.000-04:00

by John Nichols
Suppose the Democratic governor of Illinois had proposed radical changes in how the state operates, and suppose anger over those proposed changes inspired a popular uprising that filled the streets of every city, village and town in the state with protests. Then, suppose there was an election that would decide whether allies of the governor controlled the state’s highest court. Suppose the results of that election showed that an independent candidate who would not be in the governor’s pocket narrowly won that election.

Then, suppose it was announced by a Democratic election official in Chicago that she had found 14,000 votes in a machine-controlled ward that overwhelmingly favored the candidate aligned with the Democratic governor. And suppose the Democratic official who “found” the needed ballots for the candidate favored by the Democratic governor had previously been accused of removing election data from official computers and hiding the information on a personal computer, that the official’s actions had been censured even by fellow Democrats and that she her secretive and erratic activities had been the subject of an official audit demanded by the leadership of the Cook County Board.

Now, suppose that the number of additional votes tabulated for the governor’s candidate was precisely the amount needed to prevent the independent candidate from demanding an official recount.

Would even the most naive Illinoisan simply accept at face value that the new count was “legitimate” or that the governor’s candidate should suddenly be presumed to have been “elected”? Not likely.

Wisconsinites should respond with equal skepticism to the news that Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus, a former Republican legislative staffer who worked for Prosser when he served as Assembly Speaker and with Walker when he was a GOP rising star, has found all the votes that justice needs to secure his reelection and that the governor needs to claim a “win” for his agenda.

There is no need for a conspiracy theory. The facts raise the questions that lawyers, campaigners and activists are now asking.

The clerk, who has a history of secretive and erratic handling of election results, says she forgot to count the votes of Brookfield, the county’s second-largest city, in the total for Tuesday’s Supreme Court election.

Nickolaus claims that it was “human error” that caused her to “lose” the Brookfield results on her personal computer where she had secreted away the data. Yet, she apparently knew of the “mistake” for 29 hours before reporting it and then handed the information off to conservative bloggers and talk-radio personalities.

But what is most important to note are the numbers. With Governor Scott Walker’s candidate, Justice David Prosser, essentially tied with his independence-and-integrity challenger, Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, it was all but certain that a recount would be required. And the final unofficial count, as tabulated Wednesday afternoon, put Kloppenburg ahead by several hundred votes, giving the challenger an advantage gloing into the thje count.

Then, two days after the election, Nickolaus found the 7,582 votes needed to put Prosser outside the zone of a state-funded official recount.

Former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager says she’s the developments require inquiry and explanation.

She’s right.

The Kloppenburg campaign has demanded “a full explanation of how and why these 14,315 votes from an entire City were missed.” As part of the search for that explanation, the campaign plans to file open records requests for all relevant documentation related to the reporting of election results in Waukesha County, as well as to the discovery and reporting of the errors announced by the County.”

The open records highlight concerns about the credibility of Nickolaus -- whose secretive and suspicious activities led the Waukesha County Board’s executive committee order an audit of the clerk's use of election equipment and her controversial approaches to counting and tabulating votes.

That’s appropriate. But these requests do not go far enough.

Weeks ago, state Rep. Mark Pocan, the former co-chair of the legislative Joint Finance Committee, suggested that the lawless actions of Governor Walker and his legislative consigliere, state Senator Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, had remade Wisconsin as a rogue state he dubbed “Fitzwalkerstan.”

After a snap 17-second tally that denied most Assembly Democrats a chance to vote on Walker’s anti-labor agenda, after the threats to deny Democratic state senators legislative voting rights, after the attempts to close the Capitol to the people of Wisconsin, after the violations of open-meetings laws, after the flagrant violations of a judges temporary-restraining order, the “Fitzwalkerstan” label seems increasingly apt. And the idea of leaving an inquiry into the Waukesha County scandal to authorities who bow to the governor’s is simply untenable.

The circumstance lends legitimacy to the call by the advocacy group Citizens Action of Wisconsin for “an immediate federal investigation and immediate impoundment of all computer equipment, ballots, and other relevant evidence needed to verify a fair vote count in Waukesha County. “ Citizen Action says this investigation should include an accounting of all communications by “Kathy Nickolaus and anyone in the Waukesha clerk’s office with all outside actors, and all interested parties to the election dispute.”

It also demands a full recount, no matter what the ultimate margin of victory or defeat. Whether David Prosser or JoAnne Kloppenburg is elected, the only way that the high court will retain even a shred of credibility is if every ballot is recounted, every tabulation is reviewed and every citizen is certain that this election was legitimate.

Copyright © 2011 The Nation

John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. A co-founder of the media reform organization Free Press, Nichols is co-author with Robert W. McChesney of The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again and Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy. Nichols is also author of Dick: The Man Who is President and The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism.

Community opposition grows as budget hearings are held around the state

2011-04-08T19:24:00.000-04:00

Community opposition grows as budget hearings are held around the state
As budget hearings move across Wisconsin, communities throughout the state are united and mobilizing in opposition to the drastic cuts proposed by Scott Walker that are out of step with our values. The 2011-2013 budget calls for the most extreme cuts to public education and public services ever proposed in Wisconsin history.

Scott Walker's extreme agenda represents a fundamental threat to the quality of life valued by the people of Wisconsin and is the opposite of shared sacrifice -- balancing the budget by increasing taxes on low-income families while expanding tax giveaways to Walker's wealthy corporate backers.

The more we learn about this budget, the worse it will be for Walker's rapidly-sinking ship and Republicans that have blindly followed him instead of listening to their constituents.

Here is a wrap-up of some of the media coverage:

Wausau Daily Herald, Quotes from the Budget Hearing

Wausau Daily Herald, Concerns over cuts dominate first hearing on Gov Scott Walker's plan

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Citizens ask legislators not to reduce budget

The Northwestern, Wisconsin residents continue to raise concerns over Gov Scott Walker's budget proposal

Wisconsin Rapids Tribune, Wisconsin Legislature's Joint Finance Committee will consider budget ideas, but plan to listen to 'silent majority'

Wausau Daily Herald, Joint Finance committee hearing participants have their say but wonder if committee members listened

Wispolitics Blog, All negative, all the time for budget proposal

Pictures from Wausau Daily Herald

Rachel Maddow On the WI election Shenanigans ..

2011-04-08T00:43:00.002-04:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Walkochernomics? Or Something Darker?

2011-04-07T22:57:00.002-04:00

Walkochernomics? Or Something Darker?
byTruth1968

Dark days are dawning on Wisconsin, with many questions going unanswered or not being asked at all, what could the future of Wisconsin hold? Amist a dispute over why there is this sudden finding of votes for Prossor, a Waukesha clerk, who used to work for Prosser, has now had her reliability of the election data system questioned and the State asking the Supreme Court to step to halt the order blocking Senate Bill 11, that limits collective bargaining, so it may become Law. More of Walkochernomics or something much darker?

I hear you need help counting Some Votes!

Through the show Walker has been Orchestrating since his inauguration, the smoke is starting to clear and he doesn't have many mayors left the play with. As such, Scott Walker feels that a new Economic policy (SB-11) is required to create “A New Order” that consists of the following that then begins to span out for example;
1 Elimination of unemployment loans o $750,000 from the Community Development Block Grant-Economic Development Program administered by the Department of Commerce for 470 new jobs and retaining over 600 jobs.
2 Elimination of hyperinflation Walker practically issued a state of emergency for Wisconsin by continuously stating that Wisconsin will not make it without his Senate Bill 11 (SB-11), the elimination of collective barganing in order to prevent a tax increase in conjunction with almost $900 million from Wisconsin's Education program and eliminated the High Speed Rail System to demonstrate that there would be no need to raise taxes when he could simply make certain people in Wisconsin have no avenue to earn what is needed to acheive is political agenda.
3 Expansion of production of consumer goods to improve middle- and lower-class living standards. Walker's whopping 68 page Jobs Plan done in CenturyGothic 58.5 font shows a lot of promise especially since these jobs were once in Wisconsin and Walker is only giving loans to bring them back, sure hope it's not a temporary fix to problems that these companies have seen before.I will not even go in to the Koch aspect of Walker's agenda but I will say this, all of these policy goals were intended to address perceived shortcomings within the State of Wisconsin. These were also Adolph Hitlers agendas when he was beginning his rise to power.

Still feel there is no corruption? No conspiracy? No political manipulation? Then you should realize that it is beliefs such as these that will only go further to empower Scott Walker. The mere whiff of political corruption and conspiracies that fume everywhere Walker goes should be cause enough to investigate him, his office and those that conspire with him.

Public Policy Polling: Boehner falling out of favor

2011-04-07T18:44:00.000-04:00

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011
Boehner falling out of favor
It hasn't taken John Boehner long to fall out of favor with the American public. His national approval rating has dropped a net 18 points already since the beginning of January. At the outset of the year 35% of voters approved of the job he was doing to 28% who disapproved and 37% who were reserving judgment. Now his approval has declined 10 points to 25% and his disapproval has risen 8 points to 36%.

What's most interesting about Boehner's fall is that you can't pin it to a single voter group- he's down a good deal with everyone. He is, as has been speculated, having trouble with the base. 56% of Republicans gave him good marks at the start of the year but now less than half of them do at 45%. He was on narrowly positive ground with independents in January at 34/30 but now he's in negative territory at 21/34, reflective of the national trend back away from the GOP with independents after a good year for Republicans with them in 2010. And where Democrats were willing to give Boehner a chance starting out- only 39% disapproved of him- that number is now up to 53%.

What might be most remarkable about Boehner's numbers is that Nancy Pelosi now has a higher approval rating than him- 30% to his 25%. Pelosi's disapproval is still a whole lot higher too- 53% to Boehner's 36%- but for as much as Pelosi has been maligned it's interesting to see that there are more voters who like her than her successor.
POSTED BY TOM JENSEN AT 10:55 AM

This Blowhard needs to just forget how many Oxy's he took, and take some more...

2011-04-07T15:54:00.000-04:00