The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty
by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven
How can the poor be organized to press for relief from poverty? How can a broad-based movement be developed and the current disarray of activist forces be halted? These questions confront, and confound, activists today. It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.
The strategy is based on the fact that a vast discrepancy exists between the benefits to which people are entitled under public welfare programs and the sums which they actually receive. This gulf is not recognized in a society that is wholly and self-righteously oriented toward getting people off the welfare rolls. It is widely known, for example, that nearly 8 million persons (half of them white) now subsist on welfare, but it is not generally known that for every person on the rolls at least one more probably meets existing criteria of eligibility but is not obtaining assistance.
The discrepancy is not an accident stemming from bureaucratic inefficiency; rather, it is an integral feature of the welfare system which, if challenged, would precipitate a profound financial and political crisis. The force for that challenge, and the strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.
The distribution of public assistance has been a local and state responsibility, and that accounts in large part for the abysmal character of welfare practices. Despite the growing involvement of federal agencies in supervisory and reimbursement arrangements, state and local community forces are still decisive. The poor are most visible and proximate in the local community; antagonism toward them (and toward the agencies which are implicated with them) has always, therefore, been more intense locally than at the federal level. In recent years, local communities have increasingly felt class and ethnic friction generated by competition for neighborhoods, schools, jobs and political power. Public welfare systems are under the constant stress of conflict and opposition, made only sharper by the rising costs to localities of public aid. And, to accommodate this pressure, welfare practice everywhere has become more restrictive than welfare statute; much of the time it verges on lawlessness. Thus, public welfare systems try to keep their budgets down and their rolls low by failing to inform people of the rights available to them; by intimidating and shaming them to the degree that they are reluctant either to apply or to press claims, and by arbitrarily denying benefits to those who are eligible.
A series of welfare drives in large cities would, we believe, impel action on a new federal program to distribute income, eliminating the present public welfare system and alleviating the abject poverty which it perpetrates. Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be con-strained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.
The ultimate objective of this strategy--to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income--will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income. Instead, programs are demanded to enable people to become economically competitive. But such programs are of no use to millions of today's poor. For example, one-third of the 35 million poor Americans are in families headed by females; these heads of family cannot be aided appreciably by job retraining, higher minimum wages, accelerated rates of economic growth, or employment in public works projects. Nor can the 5 million aged who are poor, nor those whose poverty results from the ill health of the wage earner. Programs to enhance individual mobility will chiefly benefit the very young, if not the as yet unborn. Individual mobility is no answer to the question of how to abolish the massive problem of poverty now.
It has never been the full answer. If many people in the past have found their way up from poverty by the path of individual mobility, many others have taken a different route. Organized labor stands out as a major example. Although many American workers never yielded their dreams of individual achievement, they accepted and practiced the principle that each can benefit only as the status of workers as a whole is elevated. They bargained for collective mobility, not for individual mobility; to promote their fortunes in the aggregate, not to promote the prospects of one worker over another. And if each finally found himself in the same relative economic relationship to his fellows as when he began, it was nevertheless clear that all were infinitely better off. That fact has sustained the labor movement in the face of a counter pull from the ideal of individual achievement.
But many of the contemporary poor will not rise from poverty by organizing to bargain collectively. They either are not in the labor force or are In such marginal and dispersed occupations (e.g., domestic servants) that it is extremely difficult to organize them. Compared with other groups, then, many of today's poor cannot secure a redistribution of income by organizing within the institution of private enterprise. A federal program of income redistribution has become necessary to elevate the poor en masse from poverty.
Several ways have been proposed for redistributing income through the federal government. It is not our purpose here to assess the relative merits of these plans, which are still undergoing debate and clarification. Whatever mechanism is eventually adopted, however, it must include certain features if it is not merely to perpetuate in a new guise the present evils of the public welfare system.
First, adequate levels of income must be assured. (Public welfare levels are astonishingly low; indeed, states typically define a "minimum" standard of living and then grant only a percentage of it, so that families are held well below what the government itself officially defines as the poverty level.) Furthermore, income should be distributed without requiring that recipients first divest themselves of their assets, as public welfare now does, thereby pauperizing families as a condition of sustenance.
Second, the right to income must be guaranteed, or the oppression of the welfare poor will not be eliminated. Because benefits are conditional under the present public welfare system, submission to arbitrary governmental power is regularly made the price of sustenance. People have been coerced into attending literacy classes or participating in medical or vocational rehabilitation regimes, on pain of having their benefits terminated. Men are forced into labor on virtually any terms lest they forfeit their welfare aid. One can prize literacy, health and work, while still vigorously opposing the right of government to compel compliance with these values.
Conditional benefits thus result in violations of civil liberties throughout the nation, and in a pervasive oppression of the poor. And these violations are not less real because the impulse leading to them is altruistic and the agency is professional. If new systems of income distribution continue to permit the professional bureaucracies to choose when to give and when to withhold financial relief, the poor will once again be surrendered to an arrangement in which their rights are diminished in the name of overcoming their vices. Those who lead an attack on the welfare system must therefore be alert to the pitfalls of inadequate but placating reforms which give the appearance of victory to what is in truth defeat.
How much economic force can be mobilized by this strategy? This question is not easy to answer because few studies have been conducted of people who are not receiving public assistance even though they may be eligible. For the purposes of this presentation, a few facts about New York City may be suggestive. Since practices elsewhere are generally acknowledged to be even more restrictive, the estimates of unused benefits which follow probably yield a conservative estimate of the potential force of the strategy set forth in this article.
Basic assistance for food and rent: The most striking characteristic of public welfare practice is that a great many people who appear to be eligible for assistance are not on the welfare rolls. The average monthly total of New York City residents receiving assistance in 1959 was 325,771, but according to the 1960 census. 716,000 persons (unrelated or in families) appeared to be subsisting on incomes at or below the prevailing welfare eligibility levels (e.g $2,070 for a family of four). In that same year, 539,000 people subsisted on incomes less than 80 per cent of the welfare minimums, and 200,000 lived alone or in families on incomes reported to be less than half of eligibility levels. Thus it appears that for every person on welfare in 1959, at least one more was eligible.
The results of two surveys of selected areas in Manhattan support the contention that many people subsist on incomes below welfare eligibility levels. One of these, conducted by Greenleigh Associates in 1964 in an urban-renewal area on New York's upper West Side, found 9 per cent of those not on the rolls were in such acute need that they appeared to qualify for emergency assistance. The study showed, further, that a substantial number of families that were not in a "critical" condition would probably have qualified for supplemental assistance.
The other survey, conducted in 1961 by Mobilization for Youth, had similar findings. The area from which its sample was drawn, 67 square blocks on the lower East Side, is a poor one, but by no means the poorest in New York City. Yet 13 per cent of the total sample who were not on the welfare rolls reported incomes falling below the prevailing welfare schedules for food and rent.
There is no reason to suppose that the discrepancy between those eligible for and those receiving assistance has narrowed much in the past few years. The welfare rolls have gone up, to be sure, but so have eligibility levels. Since the economic circumstances of impoverished groups in New York have not improved appreciably in the past few years, each such rise increases the number of people who are potentially eligible for some degree of assistance.
Even if one allows for the possibility that family-income figures are grossly underestimated by the census, the financial implications of the proposed strategy are still very great. In 1965, the monthly average of persons receiving cash assistance in New York was 490,000, at a total cost of $440 million; the rolls have now risen above 500,000, so that costs will exceed $500 million in 1966. An increase in the rolls of a mere 20 per cent would cost an already overburdened municipality some $100 million.
Special grants: Public assistance recipients in New York are also entitled to receive "nonrecurring" grants for clothing, household equipment and furniture-including washing machines, refrigerators, beds and bedding, tables and chairs. It hardly needs to be noted that most impoverished families have grossly inadequate clothing and household furnishings. The Greenleigh study, for example, found that 52 per cent of the families on public assistance lacked anything approaching adequate furniture. This condition results because almost nothing is spent on special grants in New York. In October, 1965, a typical month, the Department of Welfare spent only $2.50 per recipient for heavy clothing and $1.30 for household furnishings. Taken together, grants of this kind amounted in 1965 to a mere $40 per person, or a total of $20 million for the entire year. Considering the real needs of families, the successful demand for full entitlements could multiply these expenditures tenfold or more and that would involve the disbursement of many millions of dollars indeed.
One must be cautious in making generalizations about the prospects for this strategy in any jurisdiction unless the structure of welfare practices has been examined in some detail. We can, however, cite other studies conducted in other places to show that New York practices are not atypical. In Detroit, for example, Greenleigh Associates studied a large sample of households in a low-income district in 1965. Twenty per cent were already receiving assistance, but 35 per cent more were judged to need it. Although the authors made no strict determination of the eligibility of these families under the laws of Michigan, they believed that "larger numbers of persons were eligible than receiving." A good many of these families did not know that public assistance was available; others thought they would be deemed ineligible; not a few were ashamed or afraid to ask.
Similar deprivations have been shown in nation-wide studies. In 1963, the federal government carried out a survey based on a national sample of 5,500 families whose benefits under Aid to Dependent Children had been terminated. Thirty-four per cent of these cases were officially in need of income at the point of closing: this was true of 30 per cent of the white and 44 per cent of the Negro cases. The chief basis for termination given in local department records was "other reasons" (i.e., other than improvement in financial condition, which would make dependence on welfare unnecessary). Upon closer examination, these "other reasons" turned out to be "unsuitable home" (i.e., the presence of illegitimate children), "failure to comply with departmental regulations'' or "refusal to take legal action against a putative father." (Negroes were especially singled out for punitive action on the ground that children were not being maintained in "suitable homes.") The amounts of money that people are deprived of by these injustices are very great.
In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.
Ignorance of welfare rights can be attacked through a massive educational campaign Brochures describing benefits in simple, clear language, and urging people to seek their full entitlements, should be distributed door to door in tenements and public housing projects, and deposited in stores, schools, churches and civic centers. Advertisements should be placed in newspapers; spot announcements should be made on radio. Leaders of social, religious, fraternal and political groups in the slums should also be enlisted to recruit the eligible to the rolls. The fact that the campaign is intended to inform people of their legal rights under a government program, that it is a civic education drive, will lend it legitimacy.
But information alone will not suffice. Organizers will have to become advocates in order to deal effectively with improper rejections and terminations. The advocate's task is to appraise the circumstances of each case, to argue its merits before welfare, to threaten legal action if satisfaction is not given. In some cases, it will be necessary to contest decisions by requesting a "fair hearing" before the appropriate state supervisory agency; it may occasionally be necessary to sue for redress in the courts. Hearings and court actions will require lawyers, many of whom, in cities like New York, can be recruited on a voluntary basis, especially under the banner of a movement to end poverty by a strategy of asserting legal rights. However, most cases will not require an expert knowledge of law, but only of welfare regulations; the rules can be learned by laymen, including welfare recipients themselves (who can help to man "information and advocacy" centers). To aid workers in these centers, handbooks should be prepared describing welfare rights and the tactics to employ in claiming them.
Advocacy must be supplemented by organized demonstrations to create a climate of militancy that will overcome the invidious and immobilizing attitudes which many potential recipients hold toward being "on welfare." In such a climate, many more poor people are likely to become their own advocates and will not need to rely on aid from organizers.
As the crisis develops, it will be important to use the mass media to inform the broader liberal community about the inefficiencies and injustices of welfare. For example, the system will not be able to process many new applicants because of cumbersome and often unconstitutional investigatory procedures (which cost 20c for every dollar disbursed). As delays mount, so should the public demand that a simplified affidavit supplant these procedures, so that the poor may certify to their condition. If the system reacts by making the proof of eligibility more difficult, the demand should be made that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare dispatch "eligibility registrars" to enforce federal statutes governing local programs. And throughout the crisis, the mass media should be used to advance arguments for a new federal income distribution program.
Although new resources in organizers and funds would have to be developed to mount this campaign, a variety of conventional agencies in the large cities could also be drawn upon for help. The idea of "welfare rights" has begun to attract attention in many liberal circles. A number of organizations, partly under the aegis of the "war against poverty," are developing information and advocacy services for low-income people [see "Poverty, Injustice and the Welfare State" by Richard A. Cloward and Richard M. Elman, The Nation, issues of February 28, 1966 and March 7, 1966]. It is not likely that these organizations will directly participate in the present strategy, for obvious political reasons. But whether they participate or not, they constitute a growing network of resources to which people can be referred for help in establishing and maintaining entitlements. In the final analysis, it does not matter who helps people to get on the rolls or to get additional entitlements, so long as the job is done.
Since this plan deals with problems of great immediacy In the lives of the poor, it should motivate some of them to involve themselves in regular organizational activities. Welfare recipients, chiefly ADC mothers, are already forming federations, committees and councils in cities across the nation; in Boston, New York, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles, to mention a few. Such groups typically focus on obtaining full entitlements for existing recipients rather than on recruiting new recipients, and they do not yet comprise a national movement. But their very existence attests to a growing readiness among ghetto residents to act against public welfare.
To generate an expressly political movement, cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the churches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that is, by Saul Alinsky), and from other groups on the Left. These activists should be quick to see the difference between programs to redress individual grievances and a large-scale social-action campaign for national policy reform.
Movements that depend on involving masses of poor people have generally failed in America. Why would the proposed strategy to engage the poor succeed?
First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America's poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests. Since radical movements in America have rarely been able to provide visible economic incentives, they have usually failed to secure mass participation of any kind. The conservative "business unionism" of organized labor is explained by this fact, for membership enlarged only as unionism paid off in material benefits. Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members. Although leaders have increasingly acted in political spheres, their influence has been directed chiefly to matters of governmental policy affecting the well-being of organized workers. The same point is made by the experience of rent strikes in Northern cities. Their organizers were often motivated by radical ideologies, but tenants have been attracted by the promise that housing improvements would quickly be made if they withheld their rent.
Second, for this strategy to succeed, one need not ask more of most of the poor than that they claim lawful benefits. Thus the plan has the extraordinary capability of yielding mass influence without mass participation, at least as the term "participation" is ordinarily understood. Mass influence in this case stems from the consumption of benefits and does not require that large groups of people be involved in regular organizational roles.
Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the dram on local resources persists indefinitely. Other movements have failed precisely because they could not produce continuous and cumulative influence. In the Northern rent strikes, for example, tenant participation depended largely on immediate grievances; as soon as landlords made the most minimal repairs, participation fell away and with it the impact of the movement. Efforts to revive tenant participation by organizing demonstrations around broader housing issues (e.g., the expansion of public housing) did not succeed because the incentives were not immediate.
Third, the prospects for mass influence are enhanced because this plan provides a practical basis for coalition between poor whites and poor Negroes. Advocates of low-income movements have not been able to suggest how poor whites and poor Negroes can be united in an expressly lower-class movement. Despite pleas of some Negro leaders for joint action on programs requiring integration, poor whites have steadfastly resisted making common cause with poor Negroes. By contrast, the benefits of the present plan are as great for whites as for Negroes. In the big cities, at least, it does not seem likely that poor whites, whatever their prejudices against either Negroes or public welfare, will refuse to participate when Negroes aggressively claim benefits that are unlawfully denied to them as well. One salutary consequence of public information campaigns to acquaint Negroes with their rights is that many whites will be made aware of theirs. Even if whites prefer to work through their own organizations and leaders, the consequences will be equivalent to joining with Negroes. For if the object is to focus attention on the need for new economic measures by producing a crisis over the dole, anyone who insists upon extracting maximum benefits from public welfare is in effect part of a coalition and is contributing to the cause.
The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution. What reason is there to expect that the federal government will enact such legislation in response to a crisis in the welfare system?
We ordinarily think of major legislation as taking form only through established electoral processes. We tend to overlook the force of crisis in precipitating legislative reform, partly because we lack a theoretical framework by which to understand the impact of major disruptions.
By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention. Public trouble is a political liability, it calls for action by political leaders to stabilize the situation. Because crisis usually creates or exposes conflict, it threatens to produce cleavages in a political consensus which politicians will ordinarily act to avert.
Although crisis impels political action, it does not itself determine the selection of specific solutions. Political leaders will try to respond with proposals which work to their advantage in the electoral process. Unless group cleavages form around issues and demands, the politician has great latitude and tends to proffer only the minimum action required to quell disturbances without risking existing electoral support. Spontaneous disruptions, such as riots, rarely produce leaders who articulate demands; thus no terms are imposed, and political leaders are permitted to respond in ways that merely restore a semblance of stability without offending other groups in a coalition.
When, however, a crisis is defined by its participants--or by other activated groups--as a matter of clear issues and preferred solutions, terms are imposed on the politicians' bid for their support. Whether political leaders then design solutions to reflect these terms depends on a twofold calculation: first, the impact of the crisis and the issues it raises on existing alignments and, second, the gains or losses in support to be expected as a result of a proposed resolution.
As to the impact on existing alignments, issues exposed by a crisis may activate new groups, thus altering the balance of support and opposition on the issues; or it may polarize group sentiments, altering the terms which must be offered to insure the support of given constituent groups. In framing resolutions, politicians are more responsive to group shifts and are more likely to accommodate to the terms imposed when electoral coalitions threatened by crisis are already uncertain or weakening. In other words, the politician responds to group demands, not only by calculating the magnitude of electoral gains and losses, but by assessing the impact of the resolution on the stability of existing or potential coalitions. Political leaders are especially responsive to group shifts when the terms of settlement can be framed so as to shore up an existing coalition, or as a basis for the development of new and more stable alignments, without jeopardizing existing support. Then, indeed, the calculation of net gain is most secure.
The legislative reforms of the depression years, for example, were impelled not so much by organized interests exercised through regular electoral processes as by widespread economic crisis. That crisis precipitated the disruption of the regionally based coalitions underlying the old national parties. During the realignments of 1932, a new Democratic coalition was formed, based heavily on urban working-class groups. Once in power, the national Democratic leadership proposed and implemented the economic reforms of the New Deal. Although these measures were a response to the imperative of economic crisis, the types of measures enacted were designed to secure and stabilize the new Democratic coalition.
The civil rights movement, to take a recent case, also reveals the relationship of crisis and electoral conditions in producing legislative reform. The crisis in the South took place in the context of a weakening North-South Democratic coalition. The strains in that coalition were first evident in the Dixiecrat desertion of 1948, and continued through the Eisenhower years as the Republicans gained ground in the Southern states. Democratic party leaders at first tried to hold the dissident South by warding off the demands of enlarging Negro constituencies in Northern cities. Thus for two decades the national Democratic Party campaigned on strongly worded civil rights planks but enacted only token measures. The civil rights movement forced the Democrats' hand: a crumbling Southern partnership was forfeited, and major civil rights legislation was put forward, designed to insure the support of Northern Negroes and liberal elements in the Democratic coalition. That coalition emerged strong from the 1964 election, easily able to overcome the loss of Southern states to Goldwater. At the same time, the enacted legislation, particularly the Voting Rights Act, laid the ground for a new Southern Democratic coalition of moderate whites and the hitherto untapped reservoir of Southern Negro voters.
The electoral context which made crisis effective in the South is also to be found in the big cities of the nation today. Deep tensions have developed among groups comprising the political coalitions of the large cities--the historic stronghold of the Democratic Party. As a consequence, urban politicians no longer turn in the vote to national Democratic candidates with unfailing regularity. The marked defections revealed in the elections of the 1950s and which continued until the Johnson landslide of 1964 are a matter of great concern to the national party. Precisely because of this concern, a strategy to exacerbate still further the strains in the urban coalition can be expected to evoke a response from national leaders.
The weakening of the urban coalition is a result of many basic changes in the relationship of local party leadership to its constituents. First, the political machine, the distinctive and traditional mechanism for forging alliances among competing groups in the city, is now virtually defunct in most cities Successive waves of municipal reform have deprived political leaders of control over the public resources--jobs, contracts, services and favors--which machine politicians formerly dispensed to voters in return for electoral support. Conflicts among elements in the urban Democratic coalition, once held together politically because each secured a share of these benefits, cannot now be so readily contained. And as the means of placating competing groups have diminished, tensions along ethnic and class lines have multiplied. These tensions are being intensified by the encroachments of an enlarging ghetto population on jobs, schools and residential areas Big-city mayors are thus caught between antagonistic working-class ethnic groups, the remaining middle class, and the rapidly enlarging minority poor.
Second, there are discontinuities in the relationship between the urban party apparatus and its ghetto constituents which have so far remained unexposed but which a welfare crisis would force into view. The ghetto vote has been growing rapidly and has so far returned overwhelming Democratic majorities. Nevertheless, this voting bloc is not fully integrated in the party apparatus, either through the representation of its leaders or the accommodation of its interests.
While the urban political apparatus includes members of new minority groups, these groups are by no means represented according to their increasing proportions in the population. More important, elected representation alone is not an adequate mechanism for the expression of group interests. Influence in urban politics is won not only at the polls but through the sustained activity of organized interests--such as labor unions, home-owner associations and business groups. These groups keep watch over the complex operations of municipal agencies, recognizing issues and regularly asserting their point of view through meetings with public officials, appearances at public hearings and the like, and by exploiting a whole array of channels of influence on government. Minority constituencies--at least the large proportion of them that are poor--are not regular participants in the various institutional spheres where organized interest groups typically develop. Thus the interests of the mass of minority poor are not protected by associations which make their own or other political leaders responsive by continuously calling them to account. Urban party organizations have become, in consequence, more an avenue for the personal advancement of minority political leaders than a channel for the expression of minority-group interests. And the big-city mayors, struggling to preserve an uneasy urban consensus, have thus been granted the slack to evade the conflict-generating interests of the ghetto. A crisis in public welfare would expose the tensions latent in this attenuated relationship between the ghetto vote and the urban party leadership, for it would thrust forward ghetto demands and back them with the threat of defections by voters who have so far remained both loyal and quiescent.
In the face of such a crisis, urban political leaders may well be paralyzed by a party apparatus which ties them to older constituent groups, even while the ranks of these groups are diminishing. The national Democratic leadership, however, is alert to the importance of the urban Negro vote, especially in national contests where the loyalty of other urban groups is weakening. Indeed, many of the legislative reforms of the Great Society can be understood as efforts, however feeble, to reinforce the allegiance of growing ghetto constituencies to the national Democratic Administration. In the thirties, Democrats began to put forward measures to circumvent the states in order to reach the big-city elements in the New Deal coalition; now it is becoming expedient to put forward measures to circumvent the weakened big-city mayors in order to reach the new minority poor.
Recent federal reforms have been impelled in part by widespread unrest in the ghetto, and instances of more aggressive Negro demands. But despite these signs that the ghetto vote may become less reliable in the future, there has been as yet no serious threat of massive defection. The national party has therefore not put much pressure on its urban branches to accommodate the minority poor. The resulting reforms have consequently been quite modest (e.g., the war against poverty, with its emphasis on the "involvement of the poor," is an effort to make the urban party apparatus somewhat more accommodating).
A welfare crisis would, of course, produce dramatic local political crisis, disrupting and exposing rifts among urban groups. Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition. Whites--both working-class ethnic groups and many in the middle class--would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few and, in any event, receiving the beneficent assistance of public welfare, would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe. In New York City, where the Mayor is now facing desperate revenue shortages, welfare expenditures are already second only to those for public education.
It should also be noted that welfare costs are generally shared by local, state and federal governments, so that the crisis in the cities would intensify the struggle over revenues that is chronic in relations between cities and states. If the past is any predictor of the future, cities will fail to procure relief from this crisis by persuading states to increase their proportionate share of urban welfare costs, for state legislatures have been notoriously unsympathetic to the revenue needs of the city (especially where public welfare and minority groups are concerned).
If this strategy for crisis would intensify group cleavages, a federal income solution would not further exacerbate them. The demands put forward during recent civil rights drives in the Northern cities aroused the opposition of huge majorities. Indeed, such fierce resistance was evoked (e.g., school boycotts followed by counter-boycotts), that accessions by political leaders would have provoked greater political turmoil than the protests themselves, for profound class and ethnic interests are at stake in the employment, educational and residential institutions of our society. By contrast, legislative measures to provide direct income to the poor would permit national Democratic leaden to cultivate ghetto constituencies without unduly antagonizing other urban groups, as is the case when the battle lines are drawn over schools, housing or jobs. Furthermore, a federal income program would not only redeem local governments from the immediate crisis but would permanently relieve them of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare--a function which generates support from none and hostility from many, not least of all welfare recipients. We suggest, in short, that if pervasive institutional reforms are not yet possible, requiring as they do expanded Negro political power and the development of new political alliances, crisis tactics can nevertheless be employed to secure particular reforms in the short run by exploiting weaknesses in current political alignments. Because the urban coalition stands weakened by group conflict today, disruption and threats of disaffection will count powerfully, provided that national leaders can respond with solutions which retain the support of ghetto constituencies while avoiding new group antagonisms and bolstering the urban party apparatus. These are the conditions, then, for an effective crisis strategy in the cities to secure an end to poverty.
No strategy, however confident its advocates may be, is foolproof. But if unforeseen contingencies thwart this plan to bring about new federal legislation in the field of poverty, it should also be noted that there would be gains even in defeat. For one thing, the plight of many poor people would be somewhat eased in the course of an assault upon public welfare. Existing recipients would come to know their rights and how to defend them, thus acquiring dignity where none now exists; and millions of dollars in withheld welfare benefits would become available to potential recipients now--not several generations from now. Such an attack should also be welcome to those currently concerned with programs designed to equip the young to rise out of poverty (e.g., Head Start), for surely children learn more readily when the oppressive burden of financial insecurity is lifted from the shoulders of their parents. And those seeking new ways to engage the Negro politically should remember that public resources have always been the fuel for low-income urban political organization. If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses, it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors. At least, they have always done so in the past.
see more at glenn beck
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44024/
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
WHY WE NEED TO LET STATES GO BROKE
WHY WE NEED TO LET STATES GO BROKE
Federal Band-Aids won't cover the fiscal problems of such states as New York, California, Michigan and Connecticut forever. State bankruptcy and fundamental restructuring of state and local finance -- and labor relations -- is at hand.
Take Connecticut. In the current fiscal year, $2 billion in federal subsidies have helped tide it over the recession -- a hefty share of its $15 billion budget. But these infusions are one-shot grants, renewed only if Congress acts affirmatively to do so. Other states depend on similar manifestations of federal largess.
In Washington, the House is set to pass a $26 billion aid package this week -- fresh federal aid amounting to about 2 percent of state and local spending. But if the Republicans win control of Congress this fall, it is hard to see any legislative willingness to renew these subsidies.
Instead, GOP lawmakers will point to the examples of New Jersey, Virginia and Indiana -- where conservative governors have slashed spending to avoid tax hikes. In Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell has reduced spending to pre-2006 levels.
If Congress fails to renew its subsidies, the more profligate states will face cash shortfalls in the current fiscal year. They'll threaten school closures, prison releases and all manner of mayhem if their subsidies aren't renewed. But the Republicans in Washington are likely to refuse -- asking why the responsible states should bail out the spendthrifts in Albany, Sacramento, Lansing and Hartford.
At that point, the bond markets will start eyeing state (and local) balance sheets more critically -- demanding higher rates or even refusing to lend. California won't be the only one trying to get by on IOUs.
But beyond this tale of woe lies a golden opportunity to reform state governments and redress the imbalance of power between elected officials and public-employee unions.
Absent endless federal subsidies, states will simply no longer be able to afford to give the unions everything that they want. And governors -- many of them newly elected Republicans -- will realize that they can't even afford to honor agreements their big-spending predecessors OK'd.
The GOP Congress should then amend the federal bankruptcy law to provide for a way -- now absent -- for states to declare bankruptcy. (Municipalities can do so under current law, but states have no such relief.)
Here's the key: The reforms must require that states abrogate their public-employee union agreements in the bankruptcy process, just as private corporations like Delta and Chrysler have done. The wage hikes, the work rules, the pension plans all go out the window.
Few states will have the starch to cut benefits for those now receiving them. But most will cut pensions for current workers and all will slice them for future employees. Even the threat will be a powerful bargaining tool.
And beyond the fiscal adjustments, the power of the municipal- and public-employee unions will be broken.
Voters throughout America will loudly applaud if Congress tells the profligate states, "Work it out on your own. Don't look to us for a bailout."
President Obama could veto the bankruptcy reforms -- but a Republican Congress need do nothing to assist states in their plight until he relents. All of the political and financial leverage will be on Congress' side.
The result could be the greatest revolution in state and local governance since public-employee unions came on the scene. The public and the voters would get their local governments back, and the grip of public unions will be weakened. It would be the state and local equivalent of President Ronald Reagan's tough stand against the air-traffic controllers' strike.
Politically, the unions that fund and fuel the Democratic Party would be emasculated, dramatically shifting the national balance of power.
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's prediction about socialism will have come true for America's states: "Sooner or later, they run out of other peoples' money."
by DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on August 10, 2010
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Federal Band-Aids won't cover the fiscal problems of such states as New York, California, Michigan and Connecticut forever. State bankruptcy and fundamental restructuring of state and local finance -- and labor relations -- is at hand.
Take Connecticut. In the current fiscal year, $2 billion in federal subsidies have helped tide it over the recession -- a hefty share of its $15 billion budget. But these infusions are one-shot grants, renewed only if Congress acts affirmatively to do so. Other states depend on similar manifestations of federal largess.
In Washington, the House is set to pass a $26 billion aid package this week -- fresh federal aid amounting to about 2 percent of state and local spending. But if the Republicans win control of Congress this fall, it is hard to see any legislative willingness to renew these subsidies.
Instead, GOP lawmakers will point to the examples of New Jersey, Virginia and Indiana -- where conservative governors have slashed spending to avoid tax hikes. In Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell has reduced spending to pre-2006 levels.
If Congress fails to renew its subsidies, the more profligate states will face cash shortfalls in the current fiscal year. They'll threaten school closures, prison releases and all manner of mayhem if their subsidies aren't renewed. But the Republicans in Washington are likely to refuse -- asking why the responsible states should bail out the spendthrifts in Albany, Sacramento, Lansing and Hartford.
At that point, the bond markets will start eyeing state (and local) balance sheets more critically -- demanding higher rates or even refusing to lend. California won't be the only one trying to get by on IOUs.
But beyond this tale of woe lies a golden opportunity to reform state governments and redress the imbalance of power between elected officials and public-employee unions.
Absent endless federal subsidies, states will simply no longer be able to afford to give the unions everything that they want. And governors -- many of them newly elected Republicans -- will realize that they can't even afford to honor agreements their big-spending predecessors OK'd.
The GOP Congress should then amend the federal bankruptcy law to provide for a way -- now absent -- for states to declare bankruptcy. (Municipalities can do so under current law, but states have no such relief.)
Here's the key: The reforms must require that states abrogate their public-employee union agreements in the bankruptcy process, just as private corporations like Delta and Chrysler have done. The wage hikes, the work rules, the pension plans all go out the window.
Few states will have the starch to cut benefits for those now receiving them. But most will cut pensions for current workers and all will slice them for future employees. Even the threat will be a powerful bargaining tool.
And beyond the fiscal adjustments, the power of the municipal- and public-employee unions will be broken.
Voters throughout America will loudly applaud if Congress tells the profligate states, "Work it out on your own. Don't look to us for a bailout."
President Obama could veto the bankruptcy reforms -- but a Republican Congress need do nothing to assist states in their plight until he relents. All of the political and financial leverage will be on Congress' side.
The result could be the greatest revolution in state and local governance since public-employee unions came on the scene. The public and the voters would get their local governments back, and the grip of public unions will be weakened. It would be the state and local equivalent of President Ronald Reagan's tough stand against the air-traffic controllers' strike.
Politically, the unions that fund and fuel the Democratic Party would be emasculated, dramatically shifting the national balance of power.
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's prediction about socialism will have come true for America's states: "Sooner or later, they run out of other peoples' money."
by DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on August 10, 2010
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Federal workers beat private sectot jobs
Federal workers earning double their private counterparts PAY RATES
By Dennis Cauchon
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.
"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.
Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.
Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.
"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.
Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.
What the data show:
•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.
•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.
•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.
see the complete article at USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
see the complete article here
By Dennis Cauchon
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.
"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.
Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.
Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.
"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.
Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.
What the data show:
•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.
•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.
•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.
see the complete article at USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
see the complete article here
Friday, August 06, 2010
Virginia Nun killed by illegal alien driver out on dui bail
Virginia Nun killed by illegal alien driver out on dui bail. where is DHS/ ICE?
see complete story at
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Nun-Killed-in-VA-Crash-99736059.html
see the complete story
see complete story at
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Nun-Killed-in-VA-Crash-99736059.html
see the complete story
General Motors To Invest $500M In Mexico Plant
More Obama Jobs Creation: General Motors To Invest $500M In Mexico Plant
That's the new and improved -- Obama government-run -- General Motors for you.
MEXICO CITY (Dow Jones)--U.S. automobile giant General Motors Co. said Tuesday it plans to invest close to $500 million in its Ramos Arizpe plant in northern Mexico to produce a new line of engines as well as a new vehicle.
Of that amount, the company is investing $284 million to manufacture eight-cylinder engines with spark-ignition direct-injection technology, known as SIDI, Grace Lieblein, chief executive of GM de Mexico, said at an event.
"We estimate that these technologies allow for a 9% improvement in fuel efficiency from current engines," Lieblein said, adding that the investment will directly create 390 jobs in Coahuila state, where Ramos Arizpe is located.
Another $215 million will go toward upgrading the factory's production lines to build a new vehicle for the domestic and international markets, she said, noting that the investment will be key to maintaining 400 jobs.
Assembly of the vehicle, which wasn't named, is set to begin in the last quarter of 2011. GM plans for it to "give long-term viability to this plant by gradually substituting some production volumes."
Lieblein said General Motors has invested $4.1 billion in Mexico over the last four years.
That's the new and improved -- Obama government-run -- General Motors for you.
MEXICO CITY (Dow Jones)--U.S. automobile giant General Motors Co. said Tuesday it plans to invest close to $500 million in its Ramos Arizpe plant in northern Mexico to produce a new line of engines as well as a new vehicle.
Of that amount, the company is investing $284 million to manufacture eight-cylinder engines with spark-ignition direct-injection technology, known as SIDI, Grace Lieblein, chief executive of GM de Mexico, said at an event.
"We estimate that these technologies allow for a 9% improvement in fuel efficiency from current engines," Lieblein said, adding that the investment will directly create 390 jobs in Coahuila state, where Ramos Arizpe is located.
Another $215 million will go toward upgrading the factory's production lines to build a new vehicle for the domestic and international markets, she said, noting that the investment will be key to maintaining 400 jobs.
Assembly of the vehicle, which wasn't named, is set to begin in the last quarter of 2011. GM plans for it to "give long-term viability to this plant by gradually substituting some production volumes."
Lieblein said General Motors has invested $4.1 billion in Mexico over the last four years.
Laura Ingraham info
Laura Ingraham info
click to visit the Laura Ingraham web site
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) On May 20, 2010, Laura Ingraham received a package from an anonymous source that will change the history of the United States and the legacy of President Barack Obama. While retrieving her automobile from the underground garage at the Watergate complex (where she had just enjoyed her weekly pedicure), Ingraham discovered a manila envelope on the hood of her car. When she picked it up, a deep baritone voice called out from a nearby stairwell: "Just read it. You’ll know what to do." The shadowy figure then disappeared into the darkness without another word.
The envelope contained copies of what appeared to be diary entries written by President Barack Obama, his family, and high-ranking administration officials. Because the "diaries" are so revealing, Ingraham felt compelled to release them to the American public and the citizens of the world.
Major media outlets love to describe the president as "no drama Obama," but The Obama Diaries tells a different tale. Through these "diary entries," readers will see past the carefully constructed Obama faÇade to the administration’s true plans to "remake America."
In The Obama Diaries, Ingraham hilariously skewers the president and his minions. She takes aim at:
•the cynical "razzle-dazzle" marketing of Obama’s radical agenda
•the use of the Obama "brand" and family to obscure Obama’s true aims
•Michelle Obama’s gardening and anti-obesity initiative; and much more.
Informative and hugely entertaining, The Obama Diaries will inspire both laughter and critical thinking about the future of the nation and the man currently at the helm.
Excerpts from Laura Ingraham’s The Obama Diaries
Obama on Sarah Palin:
"Hell, doesn’t Palin have anything better to do than criticize me? Shouldn’t she be back home shooting some endangered wolf species from a helicopter?" (April 9, 2010)
Michelle on being First Lady:
"I’ll be damned if all this fabulosity is going to go to waste reading Dr. Seuss to snot-nosed kids all day." (January 23, 2009)
Vice President Joe Biden on Michelle Obama:
"She’s kind of like a black Hillary Clinton. I mean that in a good way." (May 5, 2009)
Obama on his visit to the Vatican:
"If I can ingratiate myself with a few more of these red-hats, the pope thing might not be a bad follow-up to the presidency." (July 10, 2009)
The Obama Diaries
click to visit the Laura Ingraham web site
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) On May 20, 2010, Laura Ingraham received a package from an anonymous source that will change the history of the United States and the legacy of President Barack Obama. While retrieving her automobile from the underground garage at the Watergate complex (where she had just enjoyed her weekly pedicure), Ingraham discovered a manila envelope on the hood of her car. When she picked it up, a deep baritone voice called out from a nearby stairwell: "Just read it. You’ll know what to do." The shadowy figure then disappeared into the darkness without another word.
The envelope contained copies of what appeared to be diary entries written by President Barack Obama, his family, and high-ranking administration officials. Because the "diaries" are so revealing, Ingraham felt compelled to release them to the American public and the citizens of the world.
Major media outlets love to describe the president as "no drama Obama," but The Obama Diaries tells a different tale. Through these "diary entries," readers will see past the carefully constructed Obama faÇade to the administration’s true plans to "remake America."
In The Obama Diaries, Ingraham hilariously skewers the president and his minions. She takes aim at:
•the cynical "razzle-dazzle" marketing of Obama’s radical agenda
•the use of the Obama "brand" and family to obscure Obama’s true aims
•Michelle Obama’s gardening and anti-obesity initiative; and much more.
Informative and hugely entertaining, The Obama Diaries will inspire both laughter and critical thinking about the future of the nation and the man currently at the helm.
Excerpts from Laura Ingraham’s The Obama Diaries
Obama on Sarah Palin:
"Hell, doesn’t Palin have anything better to do than criticize me? Shouldn’t she be back home shooting some endangered wolf species from a helicopter?" (April 9, 2010)
Michelle on being First Lady:
"I’ll be damned if all this fabulosity is going to go to waste reading Dr. Seuss to snot-nosed kids all day." (January 23, 2009)
Vice President Joe Biden on Michelle Obama:
"She’s kind of like a black Hillary Clinton. I mean that in a good way." (May 5, 2009)
Obama on his visit to the Vatican:
"If I can ingratiate myself with a few more of these red-hats, the pope thing might not be a bad follow-up to the presidency." (July 10, 2009)
The Obama Diaries
Thursday, August 05, 2010
THE COMING CATASTROPHE: STATE GOVERNMENTS
THE COMING CATASTROPHE: STATE GOVERNMENTS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on August 5, 2010
As Congress reconvenes next week to pass a $26 billion bailout of state and local governments entombed in their own deficits, we witness a foretaste of the crisis that will be the central event of the first half of next year: the collapse of state governments.
As long as the Democrats control Congress, they will continue to rubber-stamp Obama's requests for bailouts of profligate states. But when the Republicans take control, they will be less than forthcoming. Republicans will ask the central question: Why should taxpayers from states that have cut their budgets and observed spending restraint, pay for the extravagances of the other states? Why should forty-seven states have to pay for California, New York, and Michigan?
State government employment has risen by 16 percent since 1995 and overly generous Medicaid and other spending has climbed alongside it. Pension obligations, initially incurred as a cheap alternative to pay raises for public workers, are increasingly driving state budgets over the brink.
State and local governments and school boards are hostages to the public employee labor unions that control their finances through their contracts and their politics with their donations and votes. These nominally democratic government bodies are as much under the sway of their union captors as the auto companies are of the UAW.
When a Republican Congress turns off the spigot of federal bailouts, the municipal and state bond markets are going to take the hint and stop buying state paper at any interest rate. California will find its debt has become unmarketable and will come begging Congress for relief. First it will seek federal money and then its demands will escalate into a federal guarantee of its state debt.
The Greek financial crisis will come to our shores in the form of state bankruptcies.
Hopefully, Republicans will not be so weak-kneed as they are in the face of the current shortfall and next week's demand for aid. With two Senators caving in, the Democrats were able to pass their aid bill and send it to the House next week.
The Republican solution to state financial distress should be simple: The Party should insist on a change in the federal bankruptcy law providing for a procedure for state bankruptcy (none now exists). This process must call for abrogation of all state and local public employee union contracts as is usually done in private sector bankruptcies. By freeing states and local governments (including school boards) of their union obligations on wages, work rules, staffing, and pensions, they have a chance to survive and, indeed, to prosper. But merely subsidizing these massive expenditures just prolongs the misery of the states in question.
The collapse of overspending state governments must trigger the diminution of the power unions hold over their budgets and their politics. Their coming bankruptcies offer an opportunity for reform and the Republican Congress - backed by newly elected Republican state governments - give us precisely the opportunity we need to effectuate it.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!__
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on August 5, 2010
As Congress reconvenes next week to pass a $26 billion bailout of state and local governments entombed in their own deficits, we witness a foretaste of the crisis that will be the central event of the first half of next year: the collapse of state governments.
As long as the Democrats control Congress, they will continue to rubber-stamp Obama's requests for bailouts of profligate states. But when the Republicans take control, they will be less than forthcoming. Republicans will ask the central question: Why should taxpayers from states that have cut their budgets and observed spending restraint, pay for the extravagances of the other states? Why should forty-seven states have to pay for California, New York, and Michigan?
State government employment has risen by 16 percent since 1995 and overly generous Medicaid and other spending has climbed alongside it. Pension obligations, initially incurred as a cheap alternative to pay raises for public workers, are increasingly driving state budgets over the brink.
State and local governments and school boards are hostages to the public employee labor unions that control their finances through their contracts and their politics with their donations and votes. These nominally democratic government bodies are as much under the sway of their union captors as the auto companies are of the UAW.
When a Republican Congress turns off the spigot of federal bailouts, the municipal and state bond markets are going to take the hint and stop buying state paper at any interest rate. California will find its debt has become unmarketable and will come begging Congress for relief. First it will seek federal money and then its demands will escalate into a federal guarantee of its state debt.
The Greek financial crisis will come to our shores in the form of state bankruptcies.
Hopefully, Republicans will not be so weak-kneed as they are in the face of the current shortfall and next week's demand for aid. With two Senators caving in, the Democrats were able to pass their aid bill and send it to the House next week.
The Republican solution to state financial distress should be simple: The Party should insist on a change in the federal bankruptcy law providing for a procedure for state bankruptcy (none now exists). This process must call for abrogation of all state and local public employee union contracts as is usually done in private sector bankruptcies. By freeing states and local governments (including school boards) of their union obligations on wages, work rules, staffing, and pensions, they have a chance to survive and, indeed, to prosper. But merely subsidizing these massive expenditures just prolongs the misery of the states in question.
The collapse of overspending state governments must trigger the diminution of the power unions hold over their budgets and their politics. Their coming bankruptcies offer an opportunity for reform and the Republican Congress - backed by newly elected Republican state governments - give us precisely the opportunity we need to effectuate it.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!__
GM to Build New Vehicle at Plant in Ramos Arispe Mexico
GM to Build New Vehicle at Plant in Mexico
yout tax dollars at work ?
Will invest $500 million at plant in Ramos Arispe
General Motors will invest $500 million to produce a new vehicle and eight-cylinder engines in a plant in northeastern Mexico, a company spokesman said on August 4.
The decision was announced at a meeting on August 3 between GM management and Mexican officials, the spokesman said, without giving details of the new vehicle.
The investment in the GM plant in Ramos Arispe, Coahuila state, would generate 390 jobs, he added.
General Motors has been present in Mexico since 1935, where it has some 11,000 workers, four factories, an engineering center and a test circuit.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
By Agence France-Presse
this new items appeared on the glenn beck show 8/5/10
www.glennbeck.com
yout tax dollars at work ?
Will invest $500 million at plant in Ramos Arispe
General Motors will invest $500 million to produce a new vehicle and eight-cylinder engines in a plant in northeastern Mexico, a company spokesman said on August 4.
The decision was announced at a meeting on August 3 between GM management and Mexican officials, the spokesman said, without giving details of the new vehicle.
The investment in the GM plant in Ramos Arispe, Coahuila state, would generate 390 jobs, he added.
General Motors has been present in Mexico since 1935, where it has some 11,000 workers, four factories, an engineering center and a test circuit.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
By Agence France-Presse
this new items appeared on the glenn beck show 8/5/10
www.glennbeck.com
$10K Powerball lotto winner in Kennewick Washington
$10K Powerball lotto winner in Kennewick
08/03/10 Lynn Shook won a $10,000 Powerball jackpot.
The Yoke's Fresh Market 1410 W 27TH AVE in Kennewick sold this Powerball winning ticket.
click to see more Washington lotto info data and stats
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
see that confused California Rep Pete Stark only atheist in Congress
see that confused California Rep Pete Stark
http://www.goldengateminutemen.org/
is Rep Pete Stark the only atheist in Congress ?
Citizenship is for you, me, our children and selected immigrants from other Nations. Our mission is to STOP the illegal immigration epidemic
by holding politicians accountable to Federal immigration laws, and educating our fellow citizens to do the same.
http://www.goldengateminutemen.org/
is Rep Pete Stark the only atheist in Congress ?
Citizenship is for you, me, our children and selected immigrants from other Nations. Our mission is to STOP the illegal immigration epidemic
by holding politicians accountable to Federal immigration laws, and educating our fellow citizens to do the same.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Illegal immigrant crashes DUI, killing Va. Catholic nun plus injures 2 others
Police: Illegal immigrant crashes, killing Va. nun
WASHINGTON – An illegal immigrant awaiting a deportation ruling has been charged with killing a nun and critically injuring two others in a drunken driving crash that has sparked criticism of how immigration enforcement is handled.
A local official in the Virginia suburb where the crash happened and a congressman from another state have criticized federal officials for not removing the suspect from the country after previous arrests, and even U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano questioned why his deportation was taking so long. A spokeswoman for the nuns' order, meanwhile, said they're upset that the tragedy is being politicized.
Twenty-three-year-old Carlos Martinelly Montano, who police say is illegally in the country, is charged with drunken driving, involuntary manslaughter and felony driving on a revoked license after the accident on Sunday in Virginia's Prince William County. Montano was arrested two times before and charged with drunken driving, according to county police, and has also been arrested in separate incidents for other traffic-related offenses. Police say Montano, who is from Bolivia, was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement after at least one arrest, and a prosecutor said he knew of at least one other occasion he'd been referred to immigration officials.
The Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday that Montano was released in 2008, pending an immigration judge's review of his case. As of August 2010, a judge had not ruled on his deportation.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called the crash a "terrible thing" when asked about the incident during an unrelated news conference at D.C. police headquarters Tuesday. Napolitano said she immediately asked officials to look into the situation.
"This is a horrible case," said Napolitano, whose department includes ICE. "Why is it that this individual was still out driving? He was in removal proceedings. Why were the removal proceedings taking so long?"
Prince William County's top elected leader and a Kentucky congressman, both Republicans, criticized federal immigration officials for not deporting Montano.
"As the facts surrounding this tragic case continue to come to light, I think it demonstrates the need for ICE to be more efficient and effective in their deportation duties," Kentucky Congressman Hal Rogers said in an e-mailed statement.
Corey Stewart, the chairman of Prince William County's Board of Supervisors, says the accident highlights the need for federal immigration reform. Stewart championed and implemented one of the nation's strictest county-level anti-illegal immigration policies. The local law requires that police inquire about the immigration status of all people arrested on suspicion of violating a state or local law. He says it's "extremely frustrating" that even with the county's policy, not all those turned over to ICE are removed from the country.
"We handed him over to the feds assuming he would be deported, but instead federal authorities released him back into the neighborhood and he killed a nun," Stewart said. "We feel like we are beating our heads against the wall."
A Catholic nun and spokeswoman for the Benedictine Sisters of Virginia says sisters of the three nuns involved in the accident have always stayed out of the debate over immigration. Sister Glenna Smith says the Catholic nuns have always provided social services — including adult literacy courses and counseling — regardless of immigration status, and they are upset the tragedy has become fodder for policy debate.
"The Benedictine Sisters are dismayed and saddened that this tragedy has been politicized and become an apparent forum for the illegal immigration agenda," Smith said. "It is not optional for us to choose mercy and forgiveness. We know this young man will be brought to justice, that's appropriate, and we hope he will learn to make better choices."
Montano's car crossed a median Sunday morning when it hit the car carrying three nuns, police said. Sixty-six-year-old Sister Denise Mosier was pronounced dead on the scene, and two other nuns — Sister Charlotte Lange and Sister Connie Ruth Lupton — were critically injured and remained in a hospital on respirators Tuesday, according to Smith.
It wasn't clear from jail records if Montano had an attorney.
By KATHLEEN MILLER, Associated Press Writer Kathleen Miller, Associated Press Writer
Tue Aug 3, 6:54 pm ET
WASHINGTON – An illegal immigrant awaiting a deportation ruling has been charged with killing a nun and critically injuring two others in a drunken driving crash that has sparked criticism of how immigration enforcement is handled.
A local official in the Virginia suburb where the crash happened and a congressman from another state have criticized federal officials for not removing the suspect from the country after previous arrests, and even U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano questioned why his deportation was taking so long. A spokeswoman for the nuns' order, meanwhile, said they're upset that the tragedy is being politicized.
Twenty-three-year-old Carlos Martinelly Montano, who police say is illegally in the country, is charged with drunken driving, involuntary manslaughter and felony driving on a revoked license after the accident on Sunday in Virginia's Prince William County. Montano was arrested two times before and charged with drunken driving, according to county police, and has also been arrested in separate incidents for other traffic-related offenses. Police say Montano, who is from Bolivia, was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement after at least one arrest, and a prosecutor said he knew of at least one other occasion he'd been referred to immigration officials.
The Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday that Montano was released in 2008, pending an immigration judge's review of his case. As of August 2010, a judge had not ruled on his deportation.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called the crash a "terrible thing" when asked about the incident during an unrelated news conference at D.C. police headquarters Tuesday. Napolitano said she immediately asked officials to look into the situation.
"This is a horrible case," said Napolitano, whose department includes ICE. "Why is it that this individual was still out driving? He was in removal proceedings. Why were the removal proceedings taking so long?"
Prince William County's top elected leader and a Kentucky congressman, both Republicans, criticized federal immigration officials for not deporting Montano.
"As the facts surrounding this tragic case continue to come to light, I think it demonstrates the need for ICE to be more efficient and effective in their deportation duties," Kentucky Congressman Hal Rogers said in an e-mailed statement.
Corey Stewart, the chairman of Prince William County's Board of Supervisors, says the accident highlights the need for federal immigration reform. Stewart championed and implemented one of the nation's strictest county-level anti-illegal immigration policies. The local law requires that police inquire about the immigration status of all people arrested on suspicion of violating a state or local law. He says it's "extremely frustrating" that even with the county's policy, not all those turned over to ICE are removed from the country.
"We handed him over to the feds assuming he would be deported, but instead federal authorities released him back into the neighborhood and he killed a nun," Stewart said. "We feel like we are beating our heads against the wall."
A Catholic nun and spokeswoman for the Benedictine Sisters of Virginia says sisters of the three nuns involved in the accident have always stayed out of the debate over immigration. Sister Glenna Smith says the Catholic nuns have always provided social services — including adult literacy courses and counseling — regardless of immigration status, and they are upset the tragedy has become fodder for policy debate.
"The Benedictine Sisters are dismayed and saddened that this tragedy has been politicized and become an apparent forum for the illegal immigration agenda," Smith said. "It is not optional for us to choose mercy and forgiveness. We know this young man will be brought to justice, that's appropriate, and we hope he will learn to make better choices."
Montano's car crossed a median Sunday morning when it hit the car carrying three nuns, police said. Sixty-six-year-old Sister Denise Mosier was pronounced dead on the scene, and two other nuns — Sister Charlotte Lange and Sister Connie Ruth Lupton — were critically injured and remained in a hospital on respirators Tuesday, according to Smith.
It wasn't clear from jail records if Montano had an attorney.
By KATHLEEN MILLER, Associated Press Writer Kathleen Miller, Associated Press Writer
Tue Aug 3, 6:54 pm ET
is Rep Pete Stark the only atheist in Congress ?
is Rep Pete Stark the only atheist in Congress ?
Pete Stark, Jr is a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives,
representing California's 13th congressional district in southwestern Alameda County. The 13th district includes Alameda, Union City, Hayward, Newark, San Leandro and Fremont, as well as parts of Oakland and Pleasanton.
Stark said................
"[I am a] Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being. I look forward
to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social service." Statement from Stark, January 2007
Pete Stark, Jr is a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives,
representing California's 13th congressional district in southwestern Alameda County. The 13th district includes Alameda, Union City, Hayward, Newark, San Leandro and Fremont, as well as parts of Oakland and Pleasanton.
Stark said................
"[I am a] Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being. I look forward
to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social service." Statement from Stark, January 2007
Summertime Blues by Senator John Mccain Senator Tom Coburn
There They Go Again: Two Senators Continue False and Misleading Attacks on Recovery Act
This morning two senators—John McCain and Tom Coburn—released their third report critiquing 100 Recovery Act projects. And just like the last two, this one was an inaccurate and misleading attack on programs that are putting Americans to work across the nation. I’ll present some details in a moment, but it’s very unfortunate that, once again, instead of trying to help create the conditions for stronger growth, to help build on the momentum of the Recovery Act, McCain and Coburn spend their valuable time cooking up phony critiques and, with their Republican colleagues, blocking votes of even bipartisan measures to help small businesses.
Let’s start with the bigger picture. Just last week two prominent, independent economists released a rigorous study on how actions by the government (and the Federal Reserve), including the Recovery Act, helped to end the Great Recession. One of the authors—Mark Zandi—was one of McCain’s top advisers during his presidential bid. He and Alan Blinder (a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve) found that the Recovery Act has created or saved about 2.7 million jobs so far, and shaved about a point and a half off of the unemployment rate.
These jobs are the result of over 70,000 projects in action around the country, of grants to states supporting jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters, of tax cuts for working households, loans to small businesses, and investments in innovative new industries producing advanced batteries, clean energy, and much more. They’ve helped reverse a situation where last year, we were losing millions of private sector jobs; in the first half of this year, we’ve added 593,000 private sector jobs.
Now, we’re always glad to take a second look at projects when concerns are raised. In fact, there’s never been a stimulus program of this magnitude with anywhere near the amount of oversight that’s been brought to bear on the Recovery Act. And when we find a problem, we fix it. We’ve shut down hundreds of projects that weren’t delivering the goods.
But the inaccuracy of McCain/Coburn in this regard renders this report just as unreliable as the last two. We followed up the projects in those reports, and found half of their claims to be flat-out false or misleading. Many of the others criticized worthwhile, job-creating projects. Check out this link and you’ll see that news outlets like CNN have debunked their claims in the past, often by simply going to the folks who were working on the project and learning about it:
In the current report, our review so far finds that five of the 100 projects are not even Recovery Act projects. And others are just blatantly wrong on the facts. Take for example an award that McCain and Coburn describe as “funding a WNBA Practice Facility,” when in fact the award is building a tribal government center that will create education and health facilities while also creating hundreds of jobs. Moreover, the tribe has agreed to disallow any commercial use of the facility.
One of their top critiques in the new report is a clean energy program in California that’s put about 50 people to work so far, expects to create 1,500 construction jobs, and then 500 permanent green jobs after that. Gov. Schwarzenegger praised the program, as did the Chamber of Commerce. What would McCain and Coburn say to these workers? That they shouldn’t have this opportunity? That they should go back to the jobless roles? That building a clean energy future is the wrong way to go?
What ideas does Senator Coburn have to offer to the 35,000 people working in Oklahoma who wouldn’t be there without the Recovery Act? What about the 64,000 Arizonans at work because of the Act?
Instead of answers, we’re left with a partisan attack contradicted by one of the author’s own former advisers. But that’s not all. We’re also left with a choice.
The President has shown he is willing to work with anyone who will join us to figure out new ways to create more jobs. The Vice-President spends each week making sure we’re squeezing job out of every Recovery Act dollar. Meanwhile, Republicans are blocking an up or down vote on a package of bipartisan proposals that would cut taxes for small businesses and allow them access to capital through community banks. It’s incredible, when you think about it: last week as they were working to turn out this hit-job of a report, these same two senators were voting against helping small businesses expand and create jobs.
Yes, we must carefully evaluate our progress, but we must do so without partisan thumbs on the scale. In that regard, the report these two senators are touting today is not a road map forward. To the contrary, it is one back to the failed policies that got us into this mess. We’ve tried that route. We cannot afford to go back there again.
Jared Bernstein is Chief Economic Advisor to the Vice President
Posted by Jared Bernstein on August 03, 2010 at 09:53 AM EDT
This morning two senators—John McCain and Tom Coburn—released their third report critiquing 100 Recovery Act projects. And just like the last two, this one was an inaccurate and misleading attack on programs that are putting Americans to work across the nation. I’ll present some details in a moment, but it’s very unfortunate that, once again, instead of trying to help create the conditions for stronger growth, to help build on the momentum of the Recovery Act, McCain and Coburn spend their valuable time cooking up phony critiques and, with their Republican colleagues, blocking votes of even bipartisan measures to help small businesses.
Let’s start with the bigger picture. Just last week two prominent, independent economists released a rigorous study on how actions by the government (and the Federal Reserve), including the Recovery Act, helped to end the Great Recession. One of the authors—Mark Zandi—was one of McCain’s top advisers during his presidential bid. He and Alan Blinder (a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve) found that the Recovery Act has created or saved about 2.7 million jobs so far, and shaved about a point and a half off of the unemployment rate.
These jobs are the result of over 70,000 projects in action around the country, of grants to states supporting jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters, of tax cuts for working households, loans to small businesses, and investments in innovative new industries producing advanced batteries, clean energy, and much more. They’ve helped reverse a situation where last year, we were losing millions of private sector jobs; in the first half of this year, we’ve added 593,000 private sector jobs.
Now, we’re always glad to take a second look at projects when concerns are raised. In fact, there’s never been a stimulus program of this magnitude with anywhere near the amount of oversight that’s been brought to bear on the Recovery Act. And when we find a problem, we fix it. We’ve shut down hundreds of projects that weren’t delivering the goods.
But the inaccuracy of McCain/Coburn in this regard renders this report just as unreliable as the last two. We followed up the projects in those reports, and found half of their claims to be flat-out false or misleading. Many of the others criticized worthwhile, job-creating projects. Check out this link and you’ll see that news outlets like CNN have debunked their claims in the past, often by simply going to the folks who were working on the project and learning about it:
In the current report, our review so far finds that five of the 100 projects are not even Recovery Act projects. And others are just blatantly wrong on the facts. Take for example an award that McCain and Coburn describe as “funding a WNBA Practice Facility,” when in fact the award is building a tribal government center that will create education and health facilities while also creating hundreds of jobs. Moreover, the tribe has agreed to disallow any commercial use of the facility.
One of their top critiques in the new report is a clean energy program in California that’s put about 50 people to work so far, expects to create 1,500 construction jobs, and then 500 permanent green jobs after that. Gov. Schwarzenegger praised the program, as did the Chamber of Commerce. What would McCain and Coburn say to these workers? That they shouldn’t have this opportunity? That they should go back to the jobless roles? That building a clean energy future is the wrong way to go?
What ideas does Senator Coburn have to offer to the 35,000 people working in Oklahoma who wouldn’t be there without the Recovery Act? What about the 64,000 Arizonans at work because of the Act?
Instead of answers, we’re left with a partisan attack contradicted by one of the author’s own former advisers. But that’s not all. We’re also left with a choice.
The President has shown he is willing to work with anyone who will join us to figure out new ways to create more jobs. The Vice-President spends each week making sure we’re squeezing job out of every Recovery Act dollar. Meanwhile, Republicans are blocking an up or down vote on a package of bipartisan proposals that would cut taxes for small businesses and allow them access to capital through community banks. It’s incredible, when you think about it: last week as they were working to turn out this hit-job of a report, these same two senators were voting against helping small businesses expand and create jobs.
Yes, we must carefully evaluate our progress, but we must do so without partisan thumbs on the scale. In that regard, the report these two senators are touting today is not a road map forward. To the contrary, it is one back to the failed policies that got us into this mess. We’ve tried that route. We cannot afford to go back there again.
Jared Bernstein is Chief Economic Advisor to the Vice President
Posted by Jared Bernstein on August 03, 2010 at 09:53 AM EDT
Monday, August 02, 2010
The American Patriot's Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America
The American Patriot's Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America
Description of the The American Patriot's Bible
THE ONE BIBLE THAT SHOWS HOW 'A LIGHT FROM ABOVE' SHAPED OUR NATION. Never has a version of the Bible targeted the spiritual needs of those who love our country more than The American Patriot's Bible. This extremely unique Bible shows how the history of the United States connects the people and events of the Bible to our lives in a modern world. The story of the United States is wonderfully woven into the teachings of the Bible and includes a beautiful full-color family record section, memorable images from our nation's history and hundreds of enlightening articles which complement the New King James Version Bible text.
as mentioned on the glennbeck.com tv show n fox
The American Patriot's Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Troops need you web site
Troops Need You
Q. Can I contribute to a specific unit or troop?
A. Of course, Troops Need You personalizes the support relationship. Just go to the profile of the unit or troop you want to support and become their Battle Buddy by contributing there. Or, go to the donate page and contribute to the general fund.
Q. I already send care packages to troops. How is this different?
A. Troops Need You enables Americans to go beyond the care package and the bumper sticker, by delivering supplies that make a difference in their mission and their lives.
What is your question? Send to TroopsNeedYou (at) gmail.com
visit the Troops need you web site
http://troopsneedyou.com/
Q. Can I contribute to a specific unit or troop?
A. Of course, Troops Need You personalizes the support relationship. Just go to the profile of the unit or troop you want to support and become their Battle Buddy by contributing there. Or, go to the donate page and contribute to the general fund.
Q. I already send care packages to troops. How is this different?
A. Troops Need You enables Americans to go beyond the care package and the bumper sticker, by delivering supplies that make a difference in their mission and their lives.
What is your question? Send to TroopsNeedYou (at) gmail.com
visit the Troops need you web site
http://troopsneedyou.com/
Saturday, July 31, 2010
will Rep. Maxine Waters go to the shithouse ?
Meeting Between OneUnited and Treasury Officials
In September 2008, Rep. Waters asked then-Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson to hold a meeting for minority-owned banks that had suffered from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac losses. The Treasury Department complied and held a session with approximately a dozen senior banking regulators, representatives from minority-owned banks and their trade association.
Officials of OneUnited Bank, one of the largest black-owned banks in the country, which also has close ties to Rep. Waters, attended the meeting along with Rep. Waters’ chief of staff. Kevin Cohee, chief executive officer of OneUnited, used the meeting as an opportunity to ask for bailout funds. Former Bush White House officials stated they were surprised when OneUnited officials asked for bailout funds because they understood the meeting had been arranged to discuss the losses minority-owned banks endured when the federal government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In December 2008, Rep. Waters intervened again, asking Treasury to host another meeting to ensure minority-owned banks received part of the $700 billion allocated under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Within two weeks, on December 19, 2008, OneUnited secured $12.1 million in bailout funds.
Rep. Waters did not disclose her financial ties to OneUnited Bank to Treasury officials in her letters requesting meetings between regulators and bank officials. Treasury officials claimed that although OneUnited also requested a meeting with regulators regarding Fannie and Freddie Mac losses, it wasn’t until Rep. Waters intervened that the Treasury approved a meeting.
In September 2008, Rep. Waters asked then-Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson to hold a meeting for minority-owned banks that had suffered from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac losses. The Treasury Department complied and held a session with approximately a dozen senior banking regulators, representatives from minority-owned banks and their trade association.
Officials of OneUnited Bank, one of the largest black-owned banks in the country, which also has close ties to Rep. Waters, attended the meeting along with Rep. Waters’ chief of staff. Kevin Cohee, chief executive officer of OneUnited, used the meeting as an opportunity to ask for bailout funds. Former Bush White House officials stated they were surprised when OneUnited officials asked for bailout funds because they understood the meeting had been arranged to discuss the losses minority-owned banks endured when the federal government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In December 2008, Rep. Waters intervened again, asking Treasury to host another meeting to ensure minority-owned banks received part of the $700 billion allocated under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Within two weeks, on December 19, 2008, OneUnited secured $12.1 million in bailout funds.
Rep. Waters did not disclose her financial ties to OneUnited Bank to Treasury officials in her letters requesting meetings between regulators and bank officials. Treasury officials claimed that although OneUnited also requested a meeting with regulators regarding Fannie and Freddie Mac losses, it wasn’t until Rep. Waters intervened that the Treasury approved a meeting.
what / who is freedomworks ?
what / who is freedomworks ?
Founded in 1984, FreedomWorks is headquartered in Washington, DC, and has hundreds of thousands of grassroots volunteers nationwide. The organization is chaired by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey and the President is Matt Kibbe.
FreedomWorks members know that government goes to those who show up, and are leading the fight for lower taxes, less government, and more freedom. Join us!
What We Do
FreedomWorks recruits, educates, trains and mobilizes hundreds of thousands of volunteer activists to fight for less government, lower taxes, and more freedom.
Why We Do It
FreedomWorks believes individual liberty and the freedom to compete increases consumer choices and provides individuals with the greatest control over what they own and earn.
How We Do It
FreedomWorks' aggressive, real-time campaigns activate a growing and permanent volunteer grassroots army to show up and demand policy change.
www.freedomworks.org
Founded in 1984, FreedomWorks is headquartered in Washington, DC, and has hundreds of thousands of grassroots volunteers nationwide. The organization is chaired by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey and the President is Matt Kibbe.
FreedomWorks members know that government goes to those who show up, and are leading the fight for lower taxes, less government, and more freedom. Join us!
What We Do
FreedomWorks recruits, educates, trains and mobilizes hundreds of thousands of volunteer activists to fight for less government, lower taxes, and more freedom.
Why We Do It
FreedomWorks believes individual liberty and the freedom to compete increases consumer choices and provides individuals with the greatest control over what they own and earn.
How We Do It
FreedomWorks' aggressive, real-time campaigns activate a growing and permanent volunteer grassroots army to show up and demand policy change.
www.freedomworks.org
Friday, July 30, 2010
73% say government too powerful, who is Cass Sunstein
73% say government too powerful
Glenn Beck: POLL -- 73% say gov too powerful
GLENN: There is a new poll that is out. 62% of Americans think that the United States as a civilization is in decline. Does the government have too much power? 73% say yes. And yet, more power is coming their way. Listen to this: According to an internal U.S. citizenship and immigration service memo, it was obtained by the national review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact meaningful immigration reform absent of legislative action. Translation? How do we give amnesty to people without having to go through congress?
What did I say a year and a half ago? Congress is going to become irrelevant. We are there. This memorandum offers administrative relief options to reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization. Also in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, U.S. CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidelines and regulations. Eastbound regulations, who oversees the regulations? Who is the one that has a ‑‑ I'm trying to remember his name, the most dangerous man in America that I've been called insane by Republicans for saying it. The most dangerous man in America is... Cass Sunstein. Why? Because he is the regulatory czar. He's the guy that will set all the regulations. What is this memo? Don't worry. You have levers. You can just turn the knob here, turn the knob here and turn the knob here and then you can, in effect, grant amnesty to people.
Now, there is a statement that has been released by the Department of Homeland Security, and here it is. Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with any official action or policy of the government.
Hey, can I ask you a question? Is it just me, Stu? Help me out on this. Do we generate a lot of memos that are very complex that show how to do things that we would be diametrically opposed to?
STU: Not typically. It would not be a main goal of ours.
GLENN: Do you know of anybody in any business that does that? Pat, do you know anybody?
PAT: I don't think so.
GLENN: You know what? Our ‑‑ here, let me give our lawyer friend, the biggest pain in the neck, Joe Kerry, who of course ‑‑
PAT: You know what he's going to ‑‑ well, look...
GLENN: Well, I'll tell you what this means, I tell you ‑‑
PAT: It's just that...
GLENN: Chief of staff, our attorney, Joe Kerry. This is ‑‑ can you hold this conversation in confidence, Joe?
JOE: Absolutely.
GLENN: Okay, good. Joe, do you know, do you know businesses that draft complex memos on ways to do things that they are diametrically opposed to? Here it comes. Watch. Here's the attorney. He's thinking.
JOE: Well, I do think that businesses do look at things and say, okay, what are the options that we have. Who was the one that said, you know, I really didn't believe in all this stuff I wrote but we were just looking at it from an educational debate, we were just trying to look at all the angles and the sides on these issues.
GLENN: Goebbels?
STU: No.
GLENN: Who was it? I don't know. Who was it?
STU: Didn't Holdren say something like that?
JOE: Yeah, in the book that he came out in the Seventies.
GLENN: Do you believe that?
STU: Yeah, no.
GLENN: I don't believe that for a second.
STU: But, like, if you said, for example, what can we do to increase this business line and we had some sort of memo that went out that had a bunch of options, that doesn't mean you are agreeing with our options that we're supplying you.
GLENN: You wouldn't do this, you wouldn't do this: Hey, guys, we're struggling in our web business and what can we do in our web business. You would not produce a memo that says, "Porn: We should do Glenn Beck porn sites." You'd never do that.
STU: (Laughing).
GLENN: I'd fire you! I'd look at my business partner and I'd say, this guy does not get it.
STU: Right, yes.
GLENN: That's the point here. You don't issue memos and, you know, long complex memos that say, this one would be like, "And here are the pictures that we would post online and here's another link of the kind of stuff I'm thinking ‑‑ you wouldn't do that.
STU: Here are twelve resumes for the girls.
GLENN: And I've got a few of them chained in my basement right now. I'm taking photos just in case we decide to do that.
STU: They are clearly not diametrically opposed from going around the normal processes to get what they want done.
GLENN: Okay.
STU: There's certainly no ‑‑ there's no argument on that, is there? This is what they do.
GLENN: Internal memoranda: Help us do the thinking that leads to important changes. Yes. That's why you don't have, "We should do porn sites." They help us do the thinking that leads to important changes. Some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services side of USCIS. Nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, the Department of Homeland Security ‑‑ you ready? ‑‑ will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population.
See, now, this is something I've got a problem with. Something in that sentence sticks out to me: We will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigration population. Oh, well, I feel better. Then dismiss it. They are looking for ways with Cass Sunstein to grant amnesty, and they will do it one piece at a time. What are they doing with cap and trade? It's coming, one piece at a time. What are they doing with ‑‑ we didn't just turn into a dictatorship. We didn't ‑‑ we're not turning into a communist country. Nobody's voting on, "Hey, should we take all of the wealth and give it to somebody else?" We didn't even vote on that! And if we would have voted on redistribution of wealth, we would have said no. That's why they kept it under the table. That's why when I said healthcare is nothing more than redistribution of wealth, because that's what the president said, and then he denied it. Well, as soon as he starts to appoint somebody to redistribute healthcare, they talk about openly that it, of course, must, must be redistribution of wealth. Healthcare. He wouldn't have voted for it. They do it one piece at a time. That's why Cass Sunstein is so dangerous.
http://media.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/43671/
Glenn Beck: POLL -- 73% say gov too powerful
GLENN: There is a new poll that is out. 62% of Americans think that the United States as a civilization is in decline. Does the government have too much power? 73% say yes. And yet, more power is coming their way. Listen to this: According to an internal U.S. citizenship and immigration service memo, it was obtained by the national review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact meaningful immigration reform absent of legislative action. Translation? How do we give amnesty to people without having to go through congress?
What did I say a year and a half ago? Congress is going to become irrelevant. We are there. This memorandum offers administrative relief options to reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization. Also in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, U.S. CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidelines and regulations. Eastbound regulations, who oversees the regulations? Who is the one that has a ‑‑ I'm trying to remember his name, the most dangerous man in America that I've been called insane by Republicans for saying it. The most dangerous man in America is... Cass Sunstein. Why? Because he is the regulatory czar. He's the guy that will set all the regulations. What is this memo? Don't worry. You have levers. You can just turn the knob here, turn the knob here and turn the knob here and then you can, in effect, grant amnesty to people.
Now, there is a statement that has been released by the Department of Homeland Security, and here it is. Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with any official action or policy of the government.
Hey, can I ask you a question? Is it just me, Stu? Help me out on this. Do we generate a lot of memos that are very complex that show how to do things that we would be diametrically opposed to?
STU: Not typically. It would not be a main goal of ours.
GLENN: Do you know of anybody in any business that does that? Pat, do you know anybody?
PAT: I don't think so.
GLENN: You know what? Our ‑‑ here, let me give our lawyer friend, the biggest pain in the neck, Joe Kerry, who of course ‑‑
PAT: You know what he's going to ‑‑ well, look...
GLENN: Well, I'll tell you what this means, I tell you ‑‑
PAT: It's just that...
GLENN: Chief of staff, our attorney, Joe Kerry. This is ‑‑ can you hold this conversation in confidence, Joe?
JOE: Absolutely.
GLENN: Okay, good. Joe, do you know, do you know businesses that draft complex memos on ways to do things that they are diametrically opposed to? Here it comes. Watch. Here's the attorney. He's thinking.
JOE: Well, I do think that businesses do look at things and say, okay, what are the options that we have. Who was the one that said, you know, I really didn't believe in all this stuff I wrote but we were just looking at it from an educational debate, we were just trying to look at all the angles and the sides on these issues.
GLENN: Goebbels?
STU: No.
GLENN: Who was it? I don't know. Who was it?
STU: Didn't Holdren say something like that?
JOE: Yeah, in the book that he came out in the Seventies.
GLENN: Do you believe that?
STU: Yeah, no.
GLENN: I don't believe that for a second.
STU: But, like, if you said, for example, what can we do to increase this business line and we had some sort of memo that went out that had a bunch of options, that doesn't mean you are agreeing with our options that we're supplying you.
GLENN: You wouldn't do this, you wouldn't do this: Hey, guys, we're struggling in our web business and what can we do in our web business. You would not produce a memo that says, "Porn: We should do Glenn Beck porn sites." You'd never do that.
STU: (Laughing).
GLENN: I'd fire you! I'd look at my business partner and I'd say, this guy does not get it.
STU: Right, yes.
GLENN: That's the point here. You don't issue memos and, you know, long complex memos that say, this one would be like, "And here are the pictures that we would post online and here's another link of the kind of stuff I'm thinking ‑‑ you wouldn't do that.
STU: Here are twelve resumes for the girls.
GLENN: And I've got a few of them chained in my basement right now. I'm taking photos just in case we decide to do that.
STU: They are clearly not diametrically opposed from going around the normal processes to get what they want done.
GLENN: Okay.
STU: There's certainly no ‑‑ there's no argument on that, is there? This is what they do.
GLENN: Internal memoranda: Help us do the thinking that leads to important changes. Yes. That's why you don't have, "We should do porn sites." They help us do the thinking that leads to important changes. Some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services side of USCIS. Nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, the Department of Homeland Security ‑‑ you ready? ‑‑ will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population.
See, now, this is something I've got a problem with. Something in that sentence sticks out to me: We will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigration population. Oh, well, I feel better. Then dismiss it. They are looking for ways with Cass Sunstein to grant amnesty, and they will do it one piece at a time. What are they doing with cap and trade? It's coming, one piece at a time. What are they doing with ‑‑ we didn't just turn into a dictatorship. We didn't ‑‑ we're not turning into a communist country. Nobody's voting on, "Hey, should we take all of the wealth and give it to somebody else?" We didn't even vote on that! And if we would have voted on redistribution of wealth, we would have said no. That's why they kept it under the table. That's why when I said healthcare is nothing more than redistribution of wealth, because that's what the president said, and then he denied it. Well, as soon as he starts to appoint somebody to redistribute healthcare, they talk about openly that it, of course, must, must be redistribution of wealth. Healthcare. He wouldn't have voted for it. They do it one piece at a time. That's why Cass Sunstein is so dangerous.
http://media.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/43671/
Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto
Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto
Product Description
This groundbreaking manifesto is essential reading for tea party activists—or any American seeking to understand what the Tea Party is fighting for and what's next for the movement
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe have been on the front lines of one of the fastest-growing and most influential political phenomena in recent memory: the Tea Party movement. As the leaders of the advocacy organization FreedomWorks, they have helped guide and give voice to hundreds of thousands of activists from across the country and have a strong vision for the future of this powerful grassroots uprising.
United by a strong belief in limited government and individual liberty, Tea Party members are changing the American political landscape. Unlike mainstream media accounts that observe the Tea Party movement from the outside looking in, Give Us Liberty chronicles the roots and rise of a new breed of taxpayer activism in the voices of those who were there. Discover the personalities that drove the first meetings, the unknown candidates whose principled stand earned them unlikely victories, the march that gathered more than a million activists, and the bedrock beliefs that brought them together.
In this national call to action, Armey and Kibbe provide an intimate history of the movement, explain how citizens can join the cause, and chart the future of the Tea Party—and America. Give Us Liberty also contains a battle-tested, step-by-step guide to organizing and effecting change in any community.
Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto
Product Description
This groundbreaking manifesto is essential reading for tea party activists—or any American seeking to understand what the Tea Party is fighting for and what's next for the movement
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe have been on the front lines of one of the fastest-growing and most influential political phenomena in recent memory: the Tea Party movement. As the leaders of the advocacy organization FreedomWorks, they have helped guide and give voice to hundreds of thousands of activists from across the country and have a strong vision for the future of this powerful grassroots uprising.
United by a strong belief in limited government and individual liberty, Tea Party members are changing the American political landscape. Unlike mainstream media accounts that observe the Tea Party movement from the outside looking in, Give Us Liberty chronicles the roots and rise of a new breed of taxpayer activism in the voices of those who were there. Discover the personalities that drove the first meetings, the unknown candidates whose principled stand earned them unlikely victories, the march that gathered more than a million activists, and the bedrock beliefs that brought them together.
In this national call to action, Armey and Kibbe provide an intimate history of the movement, explain how citizens can join the cause, and chart the future of the Tea Party—and America. Give Us Liberty also contains a battle-tested, step-by-step guide to organizing and effecting change in any community.
Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto
Cass Sunstein’s Thought Police
Cass Sunstein’s Thought Police
January 27, 2010
A journalist I know who’s somewhat more receptive than I am to conspiracy theory told me about a high-ranking official in the Obama administration who advocates using federal agents–covert or overt, employees of the government or secretly remunerated independent experts–to “cognitively infiltrate” conspiracy groups in order to correct their “crippled epistemologies.”
The worst of it, she said, is that he defines conspiracists so loosely–as people who believe “that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event.” Practically any organization of political dissidents would qualify. Like, people who believe that the Vietcong didn’t really attack a US destroyer in the Tonkin Gulf, or that Nixon knew more about the Watergate break in than he admitted. Who believe that Cheney and Bush lied about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction during the build-up to Desert Storm, that JFK’s assassination didn’t happen as the Warren Commission said it did, and that American officials sold missiles to Iran to raise funds for Nicaraguan contras. Who’s to say that Birthers and Teabaggers and Truthers aren’t being targeted already? “Cognitive infiltration” may just be a fancy word for chat room trolls–but it’s downright Orwellian too, summoning visions of disinformation campaigns, agents provocateurs, and domestic spies.
The official is Cass Sunstein, the long-time University of Chicago law professor (he has since moved on to Harvard), who is currently serving as director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a department of the Office of Management and Budget. No obscure wonk, Sunstein is the author of countless books and articles; in fact he is a kind of a rock star in the left-leaning intellectual/policy world. He has been the consort of a number of extravagantly glamorous and brainy women (English professor Lisa Ruddick and classicist Martha Nussbaum; he met Samantha Power during the Obama campaign and married her in the summer of 2008) and is frequently touted as a potential Obama nominee for the Supreme Court.
Though he is detested as a wild-eyed leftist by the likes of Glenn Beck, who ridiculed him for his advocacy of animal rights and his supposed hostility to the Second Amendment, and at one point dubbed him “the most dangerous man in America,” the conservative establishment has generally been well-disposed towards him. “Mr. Sunstein…is no conservative–far from it,” wrote The Wall Street Journal. “But his writings on regulation and the herd mentality deserve a voice in the incoming Administration. From his new post as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs inside the White House, he would have an opportunity to put into practice some of the ideas he has written about as an academic.” (Click here to read the whole thing.) Sunstein has frequently come under fire from hard-line progressives, who are appalled by the same “minimialist” approach to regulation that won over the WSJ, not to mention his support for John Roberts’ appointment to the Supreme Court, his defense of John Yoo, his pragmatic opposition to prosecutions of members of the Bush administration, his support for FISA’s grant of retroactive immunity to telecoms, and his openness to Internet “censorship.”
Co-authored with Harvard Law School Professor Adrian Vermeule and published in The Journal of Political Philosophy in 2008 (it can be downloaded as a PDF file here), “Conspiracy Theory” is a 30-page-long academic paper that
1) Surveys scholarship on the etiology of conspiracy theories (it takes a social science approach, concluding that they are formulated within closed cognitive communities that have limited access to alternative sources of information, and whose beliefs are self-reinforced by peer pressure–in short, that they are a product of distorted thought systems rather than psychoses, hallucinations, or demagoguery alone) and
2) Contemplates whether or not governments should try to contain or neutralize such theories, if and when they are presumed to pose a genuine threat to public safety.
Islamic conspiracism abroad, for example, drives Al Qaeda recruitment and encourages suicide bombers. Domestically, a white supremacist who believes that the US government has been hijacked by Satanic Zionists might feel justified in, say, blowing up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. Haitians who believe that HAARP was the cause of their recent woes might threaten US aid workers. But Sunstein and Vermeule aren’t interested in law enforcement per se–rather, they are asking (and “Conspiracy Theory” is no White Paper; its tone is subjunctive throughout) whether governments can effectively neutralize false ideas (and their presumption is always that the conspiracy theories that need to be combated are objectively false) by injecting correct ones into the thought systems that sustain them; whether information can be an antidote for a thought contagion. Here’s how they put it:
see more at...........
http://arthurgoldwag.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/cass-sunsteins-thought-police/
January 27, 2010
A journalist I know who’s somewhat more receptive than I am to conspiracy theory told me about a high-ranking official in the Obama administration who advocates using federal agents–covert or overt, employees of the government or secretly remunerated independent experts–to “cognitively infiltrate” conspiracy groups in order to correct their “crippled epistemologies.”
The worst of it, she said, is that he defines conspiracists so loosely–as people who believe “that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event.” Practically any organization of political dissidents would qualify. Like, people who believe that the Vietcong didn’t really attack a US destroyer in the Tonkin Gulf, or that Nixon knew more about the Watergate break in than he admitted. Who believe that Cheney and Bush lied about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction during the build-up to Desert Storm, that JFK’s assassination didn’t happen as the Warren Commission said it did, and that American officials sold missiles to Iran to raise funds for Nicaraguan contras. Who’s to say that Birthers and Teabaggers and Truthers aren’t being targeted already? “Cognitive infiltration” may just be a fancy word for chat room trolls–but it’s downright Orwellian too, summoning visions of disinformation campaigns, agents provocateurs, and domestic spies.
The official is Cass Sunstein, the long-time University of Chicago law professor (he has since moved on to Harvard), who is currently serving as director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a department of the Office of Management and Budget. No obscure wonk, Sunstein is the author of countless books and articles; in fact he is a kind of a rock star in the left-leaning intellectual/policy world. He has been the consort of a number of extravagantly glamorous and brainy women (English professor Lisa Ruddick and classicist Martha Nussbaum; he met Samantha Power during the Obama campaign and married her in the summer of 2008) and is frequently touted as a potential Obama nominee for the Supreme Court.
Though he is detested as a wild-eyed leftist by the likes of Glenn Beck, who ridiculed him for his advocacy of animal rights and his supposed hostility to the Second Amendment, and at one point dubbed him “the most dangerous man in America,” the conservative establishment has generally been well-disposed towards him. “Mr. Sunstein…is no conservative–far from it,” wrote The Wall Street Journal. “But his writings on regulation and the herd mentality deserve a voice in the incoming Administration. From his new post as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs inside the White House, he would have an opportunity to put into practice some of the ideas he has written about as an academic.” (Click here to read the whole thing.) Sunstein has frequently come under fire from hard-line progressives, who are appalled by the same “minimialist” approach to regulation that won over the WSJ, not to mention his support for John Roberts’ appointment to the Supreme Court, his defense of John Yoo, his pragmatic opposition to prosecutions of members of the Bush administration, his support for FISA’s grant of retroactive immunity to telecoms, and his openness to Internet “censorship.”
Co-authored with Harvard Law School Professor Adrian Vermeule and published in The Journal of Political Philosophy in 2008 (it can be downloaded as a PDF file here), “Conspiracy Theory” is a 30-page-long academic paper that
1) Surveys scholarship on the etiology of conspiracy theories (it takes a social science approach, concluding that they are formulated within closed cognitive communities that have limited access to alternative sources of information, and whose beliefs are self-reinforced by peer pressure–in short, that they are a product of distorted thought systems rather than psychoses, hallucinations, or demagoguery alone) and
2) Contemplates whether or not governments should try to contain or neutralize such theories, if and when they are presumed to pose a genuine threat to public safety.
Islamic conspiracism abroad, for example, drives Al Qaeda recruitment and encourages suicide bombers. Domestically, a white supremacist who believes that the US government has been hijacked by Satanic Zionists might feel justified in, say, blowing up the Federal building in Oklahoma City. Haitians who believe that HAARP was the cause of their recent woes might threaten US aid workers. But Sunstein and Vermeule aren’t interested in law enforcement per se–rather, they are asking (and “Conspiracy Theory” is no White Paper; its tone is subjunctive throughout) whether governments can effectively neutralize false ideas (and their presumption is always that the conspiracy theories that need to be combated are objectively false) by injecting correct ones into the thought systems that sustain them; whether information can be an antidote for a thought contagion. Here’s how they put it:
see more at...........
http://arthurgoldwag.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/cass-sunsteins-thought-police/
oh no another bailout with taxpayers $$$ ?
Why Democrats are Pushing the $165 Billion Union Pension Bailout
by LaborUnionReport
Somewhere lurking in the hot, putrid halls of Congress this summer is a union bailout bill of epic proportions and long-term ramifications. Whether or not Democrats can ultimately push it (or something like it) into passage is yet to be determined. However, with rumors that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) signed on as a co-sponsor on Thursday, it would appear that the union bailout is quietly creeping along. If it passes, though, its ramifications surpass the mere $165 billion-plus price tag, as it will influence the political landscape for decades to come. In sum, Democrats need the bailout desperately and Republicans should shun it like the plague.
Likely to surpass the touted $165 billion it is estimated to cost, Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act (S. 3157) was introduced on March 23rd by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and is designed to bailout unions’ underfunded pension funds by transferring the liability of those funds onto the backs of the taxpayers.
Under these bills, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) would, at the request of the plans, have the authority to take over the pension obligations of employers who have withdrawn from the plans, and pay the benefits out of taxpayer dollars, says Furchtgott-Roth:
Once the PBGC shoulders that obligation, it would keep making payments until the last retiree or designated survivor dies.
Since many multiemployer plans are in financial difficulty, this legislation, if enacted, could dramatically increase the federal deficit, putting even more pressure on the American taxpayer and the economy.
Depending on events, it might add billions to government spending — current underfunding levels are estimated at $165 billion-bumping up future deficits. According to a June 24th article published in the Bureau of National Affairs Construction Labor Report (subscription required):
If enacted into law, the bill would convert a private funding shortfall for collectively bargained multi-employer plans into a public obligation, said Brett McMahon, vice president of Miller and Long Concrete Construction and an ABC member.
The legislation would transfer a portion of multiemployer pension funding obligations to a new insurance program that would be operated by the PBGC and paid for with taxpayer dollars instead of employer-paid premiums, F. Vincent Vernuccio, a spokesman for the trade group’s advocacy organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said during the call.
At the heart of the union pension problem are companies that, in many cases, agreed to put retirement money for union workers into “multi-employer plans” but have since gone out of business. As the unionized workers in multi-employer plans are still entitled to a pension, the remaining employers are left funding the pensions of workers who, in many cases, they never employed.
http://biggovernment.com/laborunionreport/2010/07/30/why-democrats-are-pushing-the-165-billion-union-pension-bailout/
by LaborUnionReport
Somewhere lurking in the hot, putrid halls of Congress this summer is a union bailout bill of epic proportions and long-term ramifications. Whether or not Democrats can ultimately push it (or something like it) into passage is yet to be determined. However, with rumors that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) signed on as a co-sponsor on Thursday, it would appear that the union bailout is quietly creeping along. If it passes, though, its ramifications surpass the mere $165 billion-plus price tag, as it will influence the political landscape for decades to come. In sum, Democrats need the bailout desperately and Republicans should shun it like the plague.
Likely to surpass the touted $165 billion it is estimated to cost, Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act (S. 3157) was introduced on March 23rd by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and is designed to bailout unions’ underfunded pension funds by transferring the liability of those funds onto the backs of the taxpayers.
Under these bills, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) would, at the request of the plans, have the authority to take over the pension obligations of employers who have withdrawn from the plans, and pay the benefits out of taxpayer dollars, says Furchtgott-Roth:
Once the PBGC shoulders that obligation, it would keep making payments until the last retiree or designated survivor dies.
Since many multiemployer plans are in financial difficulty, this legislation, if enacted, could dramatically increase the federal deficit, putting even more pressure on the American taxpayer and the economy.
Depending on events, it might add billions to government spending — current underfunding levels are estimated at $165 billion-bumping up future deficits. According to a June 24th article published in the Bureau of National Affairs Construction Labor Report (subscription required):
If enacted into law, the bill would convert a private funding shortfall for collectively bargained multi-employer plans into a public obligation, said Brett McMahon, vice president of Miller and Long Concrete Construction and an ABC member.
The legislation would transfer a portion of multiemployer pension funding obligations to a new insurance program that would be operated by the PBGC and paid for with taxpayer dollars instead of employer-paid premiums, F. Vincent Vernuccio, a spokesman for the trade group’s advocacy organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said during the call.
At the heart of the union pension problem are companies that, in many cases, agreed to put retirement money for union workers into “multi-employer plans” but have since gone out of business. As the unionized workers in multi-employer plans are still entitled to a pension, the remaining employers are left funding the pensions of workers who, in many cases, they never employed.
http://biggovernment.com/laborunionreport/2010/07/30/why-democrats-are-pushing-the-165-billion-union-pension-bailout/
Thursday, July 29, 2010
looks like Ellen DeGeneres voted off Idol show
looks like Ellen DeGeneres voted off American Idol show
she has little to no talent.
she has little to no talent.
what ever happen to Rep William Jefferson ?
what ever happen to Rep William Jefferson ?
is he in jail yet? or out on appeal ?
A former Louisiana congressman who famously stashed cash in his freezer was sentenced Friday to 13 years in prison for taking hundreds of thousands in bribes in exchange for using his influence to broker business deals in Africa.
The sentence handed down in suburban Washington was far less than the nearly 30 years prosecutors had sought for William Jefferson, a Democrat who represented parts of New Orleans for nearly 20 years.
Agents investigating the case found $90,000 wrapped in foil and hidden in boxes of frozen pie crusts in his freezer.
Prosecutors had asked a judge to follow federal guidelines and sentence him to at least 27 years. The defense asked for less than 10 years, arguing a stiffer sentence would be far longer than those imposed on congressmen convicted of similar crimes in recent years, none of whom was sentenced to more than a decade.
see more by MATTHEW BARAKAT Associated Press Writer
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=9074468
rep bill jefferson
is he in jail yet? or out on appeal ?
A former Louisiana congressman who famously stashed cash in his freezer was sentenced Friday to 13 years in prison for taking hundreds of thousands in bribes in exchange for using his influence to broker business deals in Africa.
The sentence handed down in suburban Washington was far less than the nearly 30 years prosecutors had sought for William Jefferson, a Democrat who represented parts of New Orleans for nearly 20 years.
Agents investigating the case found $90,000 wrapped in foil and hidden in boxes of frozen pie crusts in his freezer.
Prosecutors had asked a judge to follow federal guidelines and sentence him to at least 27 years. The defense asked for less than 10 years, arguing a stiffer sentence would be far longer than those imposed on congressmen convicted of similar crimes in recent years, none of whom was sentenced to more than a decade.
see more by MATTHEW BARAKAT Associated Press Writer
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=9074468
rep bill jefferson
most dangerous man in America ? Cass Sunstein
most dangerous man in America ? Cass Sunstein
I've told you before I think Cass Sunstein is the most dangerous man in America. And a lot of people will disagree with me because — well, maybe I'm wrong. Or they just dismiss him as — it's academic. Really?
He's Obama's regulatory "czar." He is the author of the book "Nudge." "Nudge" is basically a book that looks at Americans as a bunch of lab rats. And he knows all the tricks and all the levers to make them behave the way he wants them to. Just a little nudge here and little nudge there.
People still have a choice. Of course, they do. But they really don't. Here is an example. Do you remember when Sunstein tried to get all Americans to get out of their SUVs and stop doing that? Please, get rid of it. Go get a smaller one, an economical car. Save the planet from global warming.
Do you remember that? No?
Oh, yes — you're right. He never said that. Instead, we did "cash for clunkers." Just little cheese dangled in front of the cage. We started flocking, sending our SUVs to the scrap yard.
Now to make the Tea Parties look racist and radical, several sites are now popping up to actually advocate the infiltration of the Tea Parties, pretend to be one of them. Bring racist signs to
the rallies. Only a crazy loser whack-job will even think about doing this, but there are plenty of them out there. Crazy loser whack-jobs and Cass Sunstein.
Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com uncovered a paper Sunstein wrote way back in 2008, proposing,you know, hypothetically speaking, how to handle opposition groups. Now, keep in mind, Cass calls anything "anti- government" a conspiracy theory.
He proposed that, one, the government ban conspiracy theories. Ban them. Make them illegal. mean, that sounds like for conspiracy theory in itself.
see more at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591374,00.html
I've told you before I think Cass Sunstein is the most dangerous man in America. And a lot of people will disagree with me because — well, maybe I'm wrong. Or they just dismiss him as — it's academic. Really?
He's Obama's regulatory "czar." He is the author of the book "Nudge." "Nudge" is basically a book that looks at Americans as a bunch of lab rats. And he knows all the tricks and all the levers to make them behave the way he wants them to. Just a little nudge here and little nudge there.
People still have a choice. Of course, they do. But they really don't. Here is an example. Do you remember when Sunstein tried to get all Americans to get out of their SUVs and stop doing that? Please, get rid of it. Go get a smaller one, an economical car. Save the planet from global warming.
Do you remember that? No?
Oh, yes — you're right. He never said that. Instead, we did "cash for clunkers." Just little cheese dangled in front of the cage. We started flocking, sending our SUVs to the scrap yard.
Now to make the Tea Parties look racist and radical, several sites are now popping up to actually advocate the infiltration of the Tea Parties, pretend to be one of them. Bring racist signs to
the rallies. Only a crazy loser whack-job will even think about doing this, but there are plenty of them out there. Crazy loser whack-jobs and Cass Sunstein.
Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com uncovered a paper Sunstein wrote way back in 2008, proposing,you know, hypothetically speaking, how to handle opposition groups. Now, keep in mind, Cass calls anything "anti- government" a conspiracy theory.
He proposed that, one, the government ban conspiracy theories. Ban them. Make them illegal. mean, that sounds like for conspiracy theory in itself.
see more at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591374,00.html
Obama's SEC gets a free pass
Obama's SEC gets free pass
Audio Available: July 29, 2010
GLENN: Yesterday we found out that the SEC no longer has to take any Freedom of Information Act seriously. They don't have to, they don't have to respond to it. The SEC in the new financial regulation, the SEC does not have to respond to freedom information. So in other words, they can come
in and close down a business that they find dangerous, that they deem dangerous, they can close them down. These are the people that should have caught Bernie Madoff but did not. These are the people that should
have been looking into Freddie and Fannie but were not. These are the people that oversee all mergers, all acquisitions. These are the people for the antitrust. This is, this is the big agency that is supposed to
be the watchdog. They no longer have to respond to press inquiries.
Now, when we pushed them on this yesterday, their response was, well, but all the rules haven't been written yet.
This is just what the new financial regulation says, but the regulations haven't been imposed or put in yet. That's left to Cass Sunstein.
So now we have this from the SEC that we told you yesterday. Now here is even more disturbing news. They are trying to change four words in an existing law, and mark my words: This will happen.
They are trying to change now four words in the existing law that this existing law stops people from going in and seizing Internet records. Now, let me give you a scenario. Let's say my company, Mercury, where we have Internet records, you know, for all of our business. We also have all of our e-mails and everything else. Let's just say that the government
decides that I'm a threat to the United States and that there is some sort of, you know, "Well, Glenn Beck has been communicating with a gentleman in Canada and this gentleman in Canada has ties to a terrorist organization." Remember, they get to define a terrorist organization.
Here, let me use a better one. An NRA member uses their gun and shoots something. The United States government decides that they are going to make the NRA a terrorist organization. Don't think they wouldn't do it. They make the NRA a terrorist organization. Now, anybody who has contributed to the NRA could be in theory scooped up and held indefinitely without a
trial or a warrant. We already have that one going. They are already arguing for these things right now. It's how they define terrorist.
So let's say I'm -- because I write a letter to Wayne La Pierre and he writes me back, they say, you know what, Glenn Beck has been in communication with this terrorist organization. With this four-word change they now cannot only go into the NRA without a warrant, no judge involved,
on the president's word, they can go and take all Internet records and seize them, plus this new change in the law would force the NRA or me, my company, to not be able -- we would be bound by law,
we would not be able to disclose that the government had just done that. So they could come in
and take all of my e-mail, all of my Internet records, everything, seize it, and I couldn't come on the air the next day and say the government has taken everything. Four words changed in a law.
That's what they are trying to do today.
[NOTE: Transcript may have been edited to enhance readability - audio archive includes full
segment as it was originally aired]
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/43615/
Audio Available: July 29, 2010
GLENN: Yesterday we found out that the SEC no longer has to take any Freedom of Information Act seriously. They don't have to, they don't have to respond to it. The SEC in the new financial regulation, the SEC does not have to respond to freedom information. So in other words, they can come
in and close down a business that they find dangerous, that they deem dangerous, they can close them down. These are the people that should have caught Bernie Madoff but did not. These are the people that should
have been looking into Freddie and Fannie but were not. These are the people that oversee all mergers, all acquisitions. These are the people for the antitrust. This is, this is the big agency that is supposed to
be the watchdog. They no longer have to respond to press inquiries.
Now, when we pushed them on this yesterday, their response was, well, but all the rules haven't been written yet.
This is just what the new financial regulation says, but the regulations haven't been imposed or put in yet. That's left to Cass Sunstein.
So now we have this from the SEC that we told you yesterday. Now here is even more disturbing news. They are trying to change four words in an existing law, and mark my words: This will happen.
They are trying to change now four words in the existing law that this existing law stops people from going in and seizing Internet records. Now, let me give you a scenario. Let's say my company, Mercury, where we have Internet records, you know, for all of our business. We also have all of our e-mails and everything else. Let's just say that the government
decides that I'm a threat to the United States and that there is some sort of, you know, "Well, Glenn Beck has been communicating with a gentleman in Canada and this gentleman in Canada has ties to a terrorist organization." Remember, they get to define a terrorist organization.
Here, let me use a better one. An NRA member uses their gun and shoots something. The United States government decides that they are going to make the NRA a terrorist organization. Don't think they wouldn't do it. They make the NRA a terrorist organization. Now, anybody who has contributed to the NRA could be in theory scooped up and held indefinitely without a
trial or a warrant. We already have that one going. They are already arguing for these things right now. It's how they define terrorist.
So let's say I'm -- because I write a letter to Wayne La Pierre and he writes me back, they say, you know what, Glenn Beck has been in communication with this terrorist organization. With this four-word change they now cannot only go into the NRA without a warrant, no judge involved,
on the president's word, they can go and take all Internet records and seize them, plus this new change in the law would force the NRA or me, my company, to not be able -- we would be bound by law,
we would not be able to disclose that the government had just done that. So they could come in
and take all of my e-mail, all of my Internet records, everything, seize it, and I couldn't come on the air the next day and say the government has taken everything. Four words changed in a law.
That's what they are trying to do today.
[NOTE: Transcript may have been edited to enhance readability - audio archive includes full
segment as it was originally aired]
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/43615/
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
will Senator Kerry finally pay his taxes due on his yacht?
Kerry to pay yacht tax in effort to cast off
After a burst of unflattering media, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has agreed to pay about $500,000 in taxes for a luxury yacht that he docked outside the state.
Kerry issued a statement Tuesday evening – five days after the story broke – saying he would make a lump payment to the state he represents.
“We’ve reached out to the Massachusetts Department of Revenueand made clear that, whether owed or not, we intend to pay the equivalent taxes as if the boat’s home port were currently in Massachusetts. That payment is being made promptly.”
The former Democratic presidential candidate initially avoided about $440,000 in Massachusetts sales taxes and $70,000 in annual excise taxes by stationing his new $7 million luxury yacht in neighboring Rhode Island. That state repealed taxes on the sale and use of yachts in 1993, making it a tax haven for boaters.
After the Boston Herald broke the story last Friday, Kerry was literally chased by local reporters and ridiculed by political columnists. The story was starting to make it into the national media when Kerry suddenly announced he would voluntarily pay the tax.
The New Zealand-built yacht has been seen repeatedly in Massachusetts waters, potentially giving the state a claim to levy a tax. Kerry’s spokesman said the yacht was docked in Rhode Island mainly for maintenance and chartering purposes.
Jeffry Bartash
After a burst of unflattering media, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has agreed to pay about $500,000 in taxes for a luxury yacht that he docked outside the state.
Kerry issued a statement Tuesday evening – five days after the story broke – saying he would make a lump payment to the state he represents.
“We’ve reached out to the Massachusetts Department of Revenueand made clear that, whether owed or not, we intend to pay the equivalent taxes as if the boat’s home port were currently in Massachusetts. That payment is being made promptly.”
The former Democratic presidential candidate initially avoided about $440,000 in Massachusetts sales taxes and $70,000 in annual excise taxes by stationing his new $7 million luxury yacht in neighboring Rhode Island. That state repealed taxes on the sale and use of yachts in 1993, making it a tax haven for boaters.
After the Boston Herald broke the story last Friday, Kerry was literally chased by local reporters and ridiculed by political columnists. The story was starting to make it into the national media when Kerry suddenly announced he would voluntarily pay the tax.
The New Zealand-built yacht has been seen repeatedly in Massachusetts waters, potentially giving the state a claim to levy a tax. Kerry’s spokesman said the yacht was docked in Rhode Island mainly for maintenance and chartering purposes.
Jeffry Bartash
is SEC Exempt it From Public Disclosure ?
SEC Says New Financial Regulation Law Exempts it From Public Disclosure
By Dunstan Prial
So much for transparency.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.
That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."
The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”
By Dunstan Prial
So much for transparency.
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.
That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."
The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”
bordersheriffs.com web site for borders
ABOUT THE LEGACY FOUNDATION
The Legacy Foundation is 501(c)(3) organization based in Des Moines, Iowa. Its mission is to focus on state level policy matters, including constitutional and civil rights. The issues of immigration, border security, and illegal immigrants impacts all of the states across the country, and Legacy has a keen interest in making sure that the hands of state governments are not further tied by the Federal government as states step up to be the leader in this area.
see actual web site for border sheriffs
The Legacy Foundation is disappointed in the lawsuits brought by the ACLU and the US Department of Justice against Sheriffs Babeu, Dever and the state of Arizona. The Sheriffs needed financial resources to engage lawyers who believe in SB 1070 to make their best arguments for them. Legacy is happy to be able to provide this support, but needs donations from people passionate about the issue in order to do so. Your donation through Legacy's "BorderSheriffs.com" project will be used to pay for the legal defense of Sheriffs Babeu, Dever and SB 1070.
The Legacy Foundation is a non-partisan organization recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This organization does not support or endorse candidates for election. Contributions or gifts to The Legacy Foundation are tax-deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes to the fullest extent permitted by law. You did not receive and good or service in exchange for any part of this contribution.
The Legacy Foundation is 501(c)(3) organization based in Des Moines, Iowa. Its mission is to focus on state level policy matters, including constitutional and civil rights. The issues of immigration, border security, and illegal immigrants impacts all of the states across the country, and Legacy has a keen interest in making sure that the hands of state governments are not further tied by the Federal government as states step up to be the leader in this area.
see actual web site for border sheriffs
The Legacy Foundation is disappointed in the lawsuits brought by the ACLU and the US Department of Justice against Sheriffs Babeu, Dever and the state of Arizona. The Sheriffs needed financial resources to engage lawyers who believe in SB 1070 to make their best arguments for them. Legacy is happy to be able to provide this support, but needs donations from people passionate about the issue in order to do so. Your donation through Legacy's "BorderSheriffs.com" project will be used to pay for the legal defense of Sheriffs Babeu, Dever and SB 1070.
The Legacy Foundation is a non-partisan organization recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This organization does not support or endorse candidates for election. Contributions or gifts to The Legacy Foundation are tax-deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes to the fullest extent permitted by law. You did not receive and good or service in exchange for any part of this contribution.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
is Secure Communities for your town or city?
Secure Communities:
Identifying and Removing Criminal Aliens to Keep our Communities Safe
Secure Communities is ICE's comprehensive strategy to improve and modernize the identification and removal of criminal aliens from the United States. It helps ICE transform criminal alien immigration enforcement agency wide, while satisfying a congressional mandate to increase information sharing between federal agencies.
Strategic Goals
Identify aliens in law enforcement custody, through modernized technology, continual data analysis and timely information sharing;
Prioritize enforcement action to apprehend and remove criminal aliens who pose the greatest threat to public safety; and
Transform criminal alien immigration enforcement to efficiently identify, process and remove criminal aliens from the United States.
see more info on the secure communities program at ICE
Identifying and Removing Criminal Aliens to Keep our Communities Safe
Secure Communities is ICE's comprehensive strategy to improve and modernize the identification and removal of criminal aliens from the United States. It helps ICE transform criminal alien immigration enforcement agency wide, while satisfying a congressional mandate to increase information sharing between federal agencies.
Strategic Goals
Identify aliens in law enforcement custody, through modernized technology, continual data analysis and timely information sharing;
Prioritize enforcement action to apprehend and remove criminal aliens who pose the greatest threat to public safety; and
Transform criminal alien immigration enforcement to efficiently identify, process and remove criminal aliens from the United States.
see more info on the secure communities program at ICE
Monday, July 26, 2010
Secure Communities for your town ?
Colorado officials became interested in the program after an illegal immigrant from Guatemala with a long criminal record was accused of causing a car crash at a suburban Denver ice-cream shop, killing two women in a truck and a 3-year-old inside the store. Authorities say the illegal immigrant, Francis M. Hernandez, stayed off ICE's radar because he conned police with 12 aliases and two different dates of birth.
A task-force assembled after the crash recommended Secure Communities as a solution.
Under the program, the fingerprints of everyone who is booked into jail for any crime are run against FBI criminal history records and Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine who is in the country illegally and whether they've been arrested previously. Most jurisdictions are not included in the program, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been expanding the initiative.
Since 2007, 467 jurisdictions in 26 states have joined. ICE has said it plans to have it in every jail in the country by 2013. Secure Communities is currently being phased into the places where the government sees as having the greatest need for it based on population estimates of illegal immigrants and crime statistics.
A task-force assembled after the crash recommended Secure Communities as a solution.
Under the program, the fingerprints of everyone who is booked into jail for any crime are run against FBI criminal history records and Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine who is in the country illegally and whether they've been arrested previously. Most jurisdictions are not included in the program, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been expanding the initiative.
Since 2007, 467 jurisdictions in 26 states have joined. ICE has said it plans to have it in every jail in the country by 2013. Secure Communities is currently being phased into the places where the government sees as having the greatest need for it based on population estimates of illegal immigrants and crime statistics.
criminal and immigration records checked ? I thougjt was already being done
Those booked into jails get their criminal and immigration records checked
Deputy Paul Cook fingerprints an unidentified suspect during the booking process at the Arapahoe County Justice Center in Centennial, Colo., on Monday. The Secure Communities program runs the fingerprints of everyone who is booked into jail against FBI criminal history records and Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine who is in the country illegally and whether they've been arrested before. by IVAN MORENO
DENVER — The federal government is rapidly expanding a program to identify illegal immigrants using fingerprints from arrests, drawing opposition from local authorities and advocates who argue the initiative amounts to an excessive dragnet.
The program has gotten less attention than Arizona's new immigration law, but it may end up having a bigger impact because of its potential to round up and deport so many immigrants nationwide.
The San Francisco sheriff wanted nothing to do with the program, and the City Council in Washington, D.C., blocked use of the fingerprint plan in the nation's capital. Colorado is the latest to debate the program, called Secure Communities, and immigrant groups have begun to speak up, telling the governor in a letter last week that the initiative will make crime victims reluctant to cooperate with police "due to fear of being drawn into the immigration regime."
Under the program, the fingerprints of everyone who is booked into jail for any crime are run against FBI criminal history records and Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine who is in the country illegally and whether they've been arrested previously. Most jurisdictions are not included in the program, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been expanding the initiative.
Since 2007, 467 jurisdictions in 26 states have joined. ICE has said it plans to have it in every jail in the country by 2013. Secure Communities is currently being phased into the places where the government sees as having the greatest need for it based on population estimates of illegal immigrants and crime statistics.
Since everyone arrested would be screened, the program could easily deport more people than Arizona's new law, said Sunita Patel, an attorney who filed a lawsuit in New York against the federal government on behalf of a group worried about the program. Patel said that because illegal immigrants could be referred to ICE at the point of arrest, even before a conviction, the program can create an incentive for profiling and create a pipeline to deport more people.
. Chris Schneider / AP
"It has the potential to revolutionize immigration enforcement," said Patel.
Deputy Paul Cook fingerprints an unidentified suspect during the booking process at the Arapahoe County Justice Center in Centennial, Colo., on Monday. The Secure Communities program runs the fingerprints of everyone who is booked into jail against FBI criminal history records and Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine who is in the country illegally and whether they've been arrested before. by IVAN MORENO
DENVER — The federal government is rapidly expanding a program to identify illegal immigrants using fingerprints from arrests, drawing opposition from local authorities and advocates who argue the initiative amounts to an excessive dragnet.
The program has gotten less attention than Arizona's new immigration law, but it may end up having a bigger impact because of its potential to round up and deport so many immigrants nationwide.
The San Francisco sheriff wanted nothing to do with the program, and the City Council in Washington, D.C., blocked use of the fingerprint plan in the nation's capital. Colorado is the latest to debate the program, called Secure Communities, and immigrant groups have begun to speak up, telling the governor in a letter last week that the initiative will make crime victims reluctant to cooperate with police "due to fear of being drawn into the immigration regime."
Under the program, the fingerprints of everyone who is booked into jail for any crime are run against FBI criminal history records and Department of Homeland Security immigration records to determine who is in the country illegally and whether they've been arrested previously. Most jurisdictions are not included in the program, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been expanding the initiative.
Since 2007, 467 jurisdictions in 26 states have joined. ICE has said it plans to have it in every jail in the country by 2013. Secure Communities is currently being phased into the places where the government sees as having the greatest need for it based on population estimates of illegal immigrants and crime statistics.
Since everyone arrested would be screened, the program could easily deport more people than Arizona's new law, said Sunita Patel, an attorney who filed a lawsuit in New York against the federal government on behalf of a group worried about the program. Patel said that because illegal immigrants could be referred to ICE at the point of arrest, even before a conviction, the program can create an incentive for profiling and create a pipeline to deport more people.
. Chris Schneider / AP
"It has the potential to revolutionize immigration enforcement," said Patel.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Steve Penley as seen on Glenn Beck
Steve Penley, one of the most celebrated artists in America, is best known for his bold and vibrant paintings of historical and popular icons, including Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Andy Warhol. Other subjects include flower paintings, landscapes and urban street scenes. His art has been exhibited in museums and galleries across the country and around the world.
visit this artist web site Steve Penley
visit this artist web site Steve Penley
Rep. Charlie Rangel gets pissed at MSNBC reporter Luke Russert
Rangel angry when confronted by MSNBC reporter
Friday July 23, 2010
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is in trouble for ethics charges. He spoke to reporters about it, but didn't like a question from MSNBC's Luke Russert. Are Russert or Rangel pinheads or patriots?
Watch ...
Watch ...
Friday July 23, 2010
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is in trouble for ethics charges. He spoke to reporters about it, but didn't like a question from MSNBC's Luke Russert. Are Russert or Rangel pinheads or patriots?
Watch ...
Watch ...
who is Franklin Raines ?
who is Franklin Raines ?
The disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO resigned in 2004 amid a SEC investigation into the company's accounting practices. Raines inflated earnings, costing the company about $9 billion. Despite his actions, he walked away making close to $90 million in pay and stock during his five years at the company. A year after his resignation, a U.S. patent was approved for a 'System and method for residential emissions trading.' Both Raines and Fannie Mae were named on the patent. Raines currently sits on the board of trustees of Enterprise Community Partners. He formerly served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1996-1998 during the Clinton administration
see more info on franklin raines
The disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO resigned in 2004 amid a SEC investigation into the company's accounting practices. Raines inflated earnings, costing the company about $9 billion. Despite his actions, he walked away making close to $90 million in pay and stock during his five years at the company. A year after his resignation, a U.S. patent was approved for a 'System and method for residential emissions trading.' Both Raines and Fannie Mae were named on the patent. Raines currently sits on the board of trustees of Enterprise Community Partners. He formerly served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1996-1998 during the Clinton administration
see more info on franklin raines
Friday, July 23, 2010
RightOnline
On today's podcast, Americans for Prosperity's Erik Telford joins us to discuss the RightOnline conference coming up this weekend (July 23-24) in Las Vegas.
According to AFP, RightOnline "is an annual gathering of thousands of citizen activists, leading conservative voices, and the nation's foremost new media experts from across the country."
(Note: Liberal bloggers will also be holding their Netroots Nation in Vegas this weekend.)
This year's RightOnline will feature top conservative speakers, including Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senate candidate Sharron Angle, Reps. Mike Pence and Michelle Bachmann, RedState's Erick Erickson, HotAir's Ed Morrissey and more.
visit the RightOnline website
According to AFP, RightOnline "is an annual gathering of thousands of citizen activists, leading conservative voices, and the nation's foremost new media experts from across the country."
(Note: Liberal bloggers will also be holding their Netroots Nation in Vegas this weekend.)
This year's RightOnline will feature top conservative speakers, including Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senate candidate Sharron Angle, Reps. Mike Pence and Michelle Bachmann, RedState's Erick Erickson, HotAir's Ed Morrissey and more.
visit the RightOnline website
Kentucky 9/12 Project
Kentucky 9/12 Project and We Surround Them
This is a true grassroots movement based on 9 principles and 12 values (9/12), as well as an idea to bring us back to the people we were September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked when we were not from Red States or Blue States but the United States. When we were united as Americans, standing together to protect the greatest nation ever created..... This is the 9/12 Project!
visit the Kentuckey 912 Project website
as mentioned on glenn beck show and fox news
www.glennbeck.com
This is a true grassroots movement based on 9 principles and 12 values (9/12), as well as an idea to bring us back to the people we were September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked when we were not from Red States or Blue States but the United States. When we were united as Americans, standing together to protect the greatest nation ever created..... This is the 9/12 Project!
visit the Kentuckey 912 Project website
as mentioned on glenn beck show and fox news
www.glennbeck.com
Vacation Liberty School
Vacation Liberty School
Educating, enlightening, and exciting the Youth of America about the principles, beliefs, and fundamentals on which this country was founded "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." II Corinthians 3:17
see the Vacation Liberty School web site
as mentioned on the glenn beck show 7/23/10
www.glennbeck.com
Educating, enlightening, and exciting the Youth of America about the principles, beliefs, and fundamentals on which this country was founded "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." II Corinthians 3:17
see the Vacation Liberty School web site
as mentioned on the glenn beck show 7/23/10
www.glennbeck.com
RESET 2010.ORG is a nationwide grassroots
RESET 2010™
RESET 2010.ORG is a nationwide grassroots (GROs) initiative to replace members of Congress who, like computer viruses have corrupted the American political system.
RESET 2010.ORG is about Principles not Party:about American Exceptionalism:
Limited Government
Individual Liberty
Fiscal Responsibility
Lower Taxes
RESET2010.ORG represents ONE UNITED VOICE - it represents ACTION to return our Republic to the Representative form of government intended by our Founding Fathers -
visit the actual reset2010 web site
as mentioned on fox news / glenn beck show 7/23/10
www.glennbeck.com
RESET 2010.ORG is a nationwide grassroots (GROs) initiative to replace members of Congress who, like computer viruses have corrupted the American political system.
RESET 2010.ORG is about Principles not Party:about American Exceptionalism:
Limited Government
Individual Liberty
Fiscal Responsibility
Lower Taxes
RESET2010.ORG represents ONE UNITED VOICE - it represents ACTION to return our Republic to the Representative form of government intended by our Founding Fathers -
visit the actual reset2010 web site
as mentioned on fox news / glenn beck show 7/23/10
www.glennbeck.com
Thursday, July 22, 2010
will Rep. Charles Rangel wind up in the shit house?
WASHINGTON – A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, dealing a serious blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and complicating Democrats' election-year outlook.
The House ethics committee won't reveal the specific charges until next Thursday in a public meeting. However, sources familiar with the allegations, who were not authorized to discuss them publicly, said the charges against the 40-year Democrat were related to:
_Rangel's use of official stationery to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.
His use of four rent-subsidized apartment units in New York City. The city's rent stabilization program is supposed to apply to one's primary residence. One had been used as a campaign office, raising a separate question of whether the rent break was an improper gift.
Rangel's failure to report income as required on his annual financial disclosure forms. The committee had investigated his failure to report income from the lawmaker's rental unit at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. Rangel also belatedly disclosed hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment assets.
The charges by a four-member panel of the House ethics committee sends the case to a House trial. A separate panel of four Republicans and four Democrats will decide whether the violations can be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
see more from
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rangel_ethics;_ylt=Arv3lSP.d4wymRYls3_SsbcXIr0F;_ylu=X3oDMTMwaHI0bTFlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNzIzL3VzX3JhbmdlbF9ldGhpY3MEY2NvZGUDcmFuZG9tBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2hvdXNlcGFuZWxjaA--
The House ethics committee won't reveal the specific charges until next Thursday in a public meeting. However, sources familiar with the allegations, who were not authorized to discuss them publicly, said the charges against the 40-year Democrat were related to:
_Rangel's use of official stationery to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.
His use of four rent-subsidized apartment units in New York City. The city's rent stabilization program is supposed to apply to one's primary residence. One had been used as a campaign office, raising a separate question of whether the rent break was an improper gift.
Rangel's failure to report income as required on his annual financial disclosure forms. The committee had investigated his failure to report income from the lawmaker's rental unit at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. Rangel also belatedly disclosed hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment assets.
The charges by a four-member panel of the House ethics committee sends the case to a House trial. A separate panel of four Republicans and four Democrats will decide whether the violations can be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
see more from
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rangel_ethics;_ylt=Arv3lSP.d4wymRYls3_SsbcXIr0F;_ylu=X3oDMTMwaHI0bTFlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNzIzL3VzX3JhbmdlbF9ldGhpY3MEY2NvZGUDcmFuZG9tBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2hvdXNlcGFuZWxjaA--
Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2
Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2: Drugs, Guns, and 850 Illegal Aliens" is the Center for Immigration Studies' second web-based film on the impact of illegal alien activity in Arizona. The Center's first video on the subject, "Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border: Coyotes, Bears, and Trails," has received over 50,000 views to date. This new 10-minute mini-documentary raises the bar, featuring footage of both illegal-alien entry as well as gun- and drug-smuggling.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Black USDA official resigns dealing with white people
Black USDA official resigns after saying she only 'did enough' for white farmer
A black USDA official in Georgia has resigned after publicly admitting she didn't help a white man trying to save his farm to the "full force" of her power and instead referred him to "one of his own."
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack accepted Shirley Sherrod's resignation, saying there was "zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA."
But Sherrod, in an interview with CNN, said her remarks to the NAACP were being intentionally misconstrued by conservative groups stoking racial tensions.
see this comolete story at msnbc
A black USDA official in Georgia has resigned after publicly admitting she didn't help a white man trying to save his farm to the "full force" of her power and instead referred him to "one of his own."
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack accepted Shirley Sherrod's resignation, saying there was "zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA."
But Sherrod, in an interview with CNN, said her remarks to the NAACP were being intentionally misconstrued by conservative groups stoking racial tensions.
see this comolete story at msnbc
To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine
To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine
From the Inside Flap / America on the Brink
The Obama administration is conspiring to transform America. They want to remake our America—of free enterprise, faith, and personal freedom—into their America—of endless bureaucracy, secularism, and state control—despite overwhelming opposition from the American people.How is this possible? How has the Obama team succeeded in adopting widely despised policies like the massive stimulus bill and the healthcare takeover? How could such a radical president and his congressional leaders get elected and then take a center-right country in a socialist direction bitterly opposed by most Americans? Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has the answer: the Left have built a secular-socialist machine out of corruption, lust for power, and sheer ruthlessness, and are using it to steamroll over the will of the people. In this book, Gingrich reveals:
* How the secular-socialist machine gained power through deception and outright lies
* How the machine shuts the American people out of the legislative process
* Why some of our most powerful leaders seek to banish religion from public life
* How the machine uses taxpayer money to pay off its supporters and punish its opponents
* How we can replace, not reform, Obama’s socialist programs
Exposing the mortal threat now facing America, To Save America offers concrete strategies for dismantling the machine and replacing it with policies and institutions that work. But we must act fast, Gingrich warns, or our children will inherit a secular, socialist America transformed beyond recognition.
To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine
From the Inside Flap / America on the Brink
The Obama administration is conspiring to transform America. They want to remake our America—of free enterprise, faith, and personal freedom—into their America—of endless bureaucracy, secularism, and state control—despite overwhelming opposition from the American people.How is this possible? How has the Obama team succeeded in adopting widely despised policies like the massive stimulus bill and the healthcare takeover? How could such a radical president and his congressional leaders get elected and then take a center-right country in a socialist direction bitterly opposed by most Americans? Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has the answer: the Left have built a secular-socialist machine out of corruption, lust for power, and sheer ruthlessness, and are using it to steamroll over the will of the people. In this book, Gingrich reveals:
* How the secular-socialist machine gained power through deception and outright lies
* How the machine shuts the American people out of the legislative process
* Why some of our most powerful leaders seek to banish religion from public life
* How the machine uses taxpayer money to pay off its supporters and punish its opponents
* How we can replace, not reform, Obama’s socialist programs
Exposing the mortal threat now facing America, To Save America offers concrete strategies for dismantling the machine and replacing it with policies and institutions that work. But we must act fast, Gingrich warns, or our children will inherit a secular, socialist America transformed beyond recognition.
To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine
Obama like's a teenager with a credit card
Obama like's a teenager with a credit card
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Monday, July 19, 2010
Restoring Honor Rally 8/28 rally to restore honor
8/28/2010 EVENT DESCRIPTION
Restoring Honor Rally on 8/28/10
Throughout history America has seen many great leaders and noteworthy citizens change her course. It is through their personal virtues and by their example that we are able to live as a free people. On August 28, come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.
Join the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and many more for this non-political event that pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.
Our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous. Help us restore the values that founded this great nation. On August, 28th, come join us in our pledge to restore honor at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.
see more 8/28 Restoring honor event from Glenn Beck
Restoring Honor Rally on 8/28/10
Throughout history America has seen many great leaders and noteworthy citizens change her course. It is through their personal virtues and by their example that we are able to live as a free people. On August 28, come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.
Join the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and many more for this non-political event that pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.
Our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous. Help us restore the values that founded this great nation. On August, 28th, come join us in our pledge to restore honor at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.
see more 8/28 Restoring honor event from Glenn Beck
Friday, July 16, 2010
Beck on black liberation / is Obama a member?
Beck on black liberation / is Obama a member?
Glenn Beck explains why he's worried about the controversial movement
see more at..........
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4283547/beck-on-black-liberation-theology/
Glenn Beck explains why he's worried about the controversial movement
see more at..........
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4283547/beck-on-black-liberation-theology/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)