In honor of our Canadian friends!
Oct 102011
Oct 102011
I remember, as a child singing, “America the Beautiful” and feeling proud to live in a beautiful land. Is I grew and traveled about, I have been in every state in the US at one time or another, except Alaska and Hawaii. I often thrilled at the beauty I saw. But I’ve seen ugly things too, where people have despoiled the land in order to rip out its treasures for profit. In their wisdom, past leaders have set aside tracts of land as a heritage for our children, grandchildren, and beyond. However, the Republican Party seeks to ravage that heritage. Here is an example of what they are trying to destroy.
The 50,000 drivers who cruise daily along Interstate 25 between Denver and Colorado Springs drive through ranch and farm land, marked by dramatic buttes and wild animals, a vista that might have been very different but for a little-known federal program.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which Congress created in 1965, helped pay for this open space, along with large swaths of land in other areas across the country. But there is a fight looming in Washington as Congress plans to drastically cut the program’s budget, and President Obama, who had accepted cuts in the past, appears ready to oppose them.
The White House has warned it will veto the House Interior spending bill, in part because of its cuts to the conservation fund program. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a telephone interview that the bill would bring conservation “as close to zero as it’s been in modern times.”
The fund is supposed to receive $900 million each fiscal year out of U.S. offshore oil and gas revenues to pay for federal land acquisitions. But with the exception of fiscal 1998, its funding has consistently fallen well short of that mark. The 2011 operating plan provided $300.5 million, and although Obama asked for $900 million for fiscal 2012, the pending House appropriations bill for Interior allocates just under $95 million… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Washington Post>
What Republicans really want is to provide their criminal corporate cronies the opportunity to profit from despoiling that land.
Years ago I lived in Denver and have seen that country. The photo doesn’t do it justice. I fully support Obama’s intent to veto this bill and encourage you to do likewise.
Oct 102011
I seriously doubt that Herman Cain has any chance of winning the GOP nomination, and is the flavor of the month, as Republicans thrash about desperately looking for anyone but Romney. But since the main stream media seldom calls Cain on his lies, and since the Republican Party is unpredictable, because they sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind, lets take 999 apart.
The centerpiece of former pizza czar Herman Cain’s presidential campaign is his “999″ plan, which would slash taxes on the wealthy, drive up deficits to the worst point since World War II, and force low-income Americans to pay a massive nine times their current tax rate. In an interview this morning with CNN’s Candy Crowley, Cain even said food and clothing would not be exempt from the 9 percent national sales tax he would put in place if elected president. Indeed, he said it would be “fair” for a poor person to pay as much in sales taxes as Crowley does…
…Watch it:
Because he says his plan would lower the income tax for some Americans — and, by his calculations, leave people with more money to spend — Cain seems to think his plan would leave low-income Americans with more money. He is wrong. Presently, the bottom quintile of earners pays about 2 percent of their income in federal taxes. Under Cain’s plan, their taxes would increase all the way up to 18 percent… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
Let’s look at a typical minimum wage earner. The Federal minimum is $5.25 per hour or $903 per month. Under the current system that worker pays no Federal income tax, but does pay a 6.2% social security premium so that leaves $847. Subtract from that state income or sales tax. A person cannot live on that.
Under the 999 plan, the worker still pays for social security and pays a 9% income tax of $81, leaving $766. On that $766 the worker pays a 9% sales tax of $69, leaving $697. Subtract from that state income and sales tax. I dare Cain to try to live on that!
What Cain’s plan actually does is takes at least $150 per month from each of America’s working poor, and provides a huge tax break for millionaires, billionaires and corporate criminals.
Another consequence of Cain’s 999 plan is to cut the federal revenue stream by approximately 50%, putting our nation into bankruptcy.
999 is InsaniTEA.
Correction: I miscopied the federal minimum wage. It is $ 7.25, still not enough to live on.
Oct 102011
Yesterday I meditated on the Ellipsoid Orb, but the Orb did not bless me. On a positive note, Pastor Orton of the Denver congregation may have be defrocked. I’m current on replies. Tomorrow, I’ll be spending much of the day at an appointment.
Jig Zone Puzzle:
Today it took me 3:30 (average 4:24). To do it, click here. How did you do?
Religious Agony:
Short Takes:
From AP/Google: Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann said Sunday that her unsuccessful fight against raising the federal debt ceiling kept her away from New Hampshire for nearly four months, but she’s still committed to winning over voters in the key early primary state.
How absurd! I’ll have a load of that for the front lawn!
From Raw Story: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) suggested Sunday that the Occupy Wall Street protests were the fault of President Barack Obama for “sowing class envy and social unrest.”
How absurd! I’ll have a load of that for the front lawn too!
From Crooks and Liars: Nancy Pelosi defends OWS demonstrators.
It sounds like Nancy had a load of that for the front lawn!
Cartoon:
Oct 092011
The American Jobs Act (AJA) is giving Republican politicians fits. The majority of Democrats support it. The majority if Independents support it. Even the majority of Republicans support it. Still, they cling to their mantra of lies that it will not produce jobs, that it will harm the economy, and it will increase the deficit. Bit would the AJA perform as Obama has claimed? Here’s what the nonpartisan CBO has to say.
President Obama has made a variety of claims about the American Jobs Act, most notably the fact that the bill would boost the economy — and be fully paid for. How do those claims stand up to scrutiny? According to the non-partisan CBO, pretty well.
The Congressional Budget Office on Friday confirmed that President Obama’s jobs bill would be fully paid for over ten years and also gave its seal of approval to a Senate Democrat version that includes a surtax on millionaires. […]
CBO also said that the bill “could have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years.”
All told, the American Jobs Bill, the CBO concluded, would reduce the deficit by $3 billion over the next 10 years, and that doesn’t factor in potential savings associated with increased revenue from a healthier economy.
The CBO’s findings don’t come as a big surprise — Democrats tend to take arithmetic seriously when crafting legislation — but they leave Republicans with no excuses for failure. The bill that’s on the table, as objective matter, creates jobs, cuts taxes, is fully paid for, and reduces the deficit. As far as Congress is concerned, that’s not a bad combination of qualities.
And on the other hand, we have the Republicans’ alternative jobs plan, which doesn’t really exist beyond vague and ineffective platitudes… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Washington Monthly>
It doesn’t take rocket science to figure this out. The Republicans, not the CBO, are lying. Why should they not support a bill that creates jobs, cuts taxes, is fully paid for, and reduces the deficit? It’s really quite simple. Republicans do not represent the people who will get jobs. Republicans do not represent the people whose taxes it will cut. Republicans do not represent us, the 99% that this bill will benefit. Republicans represent the 1%, the millionaires that received all the benefits of socialism for the rich and are asked to give a small portion of that largesse back.
Oct 092011
It would seem a simple enough task for a company’s CEO to certify that his company is conducting business legally, without violating a specific law. It would seem fair that the CEO should be accountable if his company breaks that law. Banksters are saying the exact opposite.
Regulators are considering holding Wall Street chief executives legally liable if they allow certain types of proprietary trading on their watch.
Regulators due to reveal the Volcker rule proposal next week are expected to ask whether CEOs should have to certify, or "attest," that their bank has put in place the proper systems to make sure no proprietary trading is taking place.
The idea is that holding CEOs personally accountable will add a strong deterrent effect to the Volcker rule.
The rule, called for in last year’s Dodd-Frank financial oversight law, bans banks from trading for their own profit in securities, derivatives and some other financial instruments.
The bank industry is already balking at the legal burden and compliance headache that would come with a CEO certification… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Huffington Post>
There is only one valid reason for Banksters to oppose this law. They don’t want to get caught. There are two possibilities. First, the CEO does not know what is happening, because he is unable to control his firm. If that is the case, the bank needs to ne broken up, because it is too big to manage. Second, and most likely, the CEO knows damn well what’s going on. If that is the case, the bank needs to be broken up, because its executives consider themselves above the law.
I don’t have to tell you which party will support the banksters.
Oct 092011
I haven’t spent much time on the Keystone XL pipeline, except to voice opposition, because that issue has received lots of coverage due to the many high profile arrests of environmentally conscious celebrities outside the White House. However, I was very disappointed to learn that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), produced for Hillary Clinton’s State Department, was fraudulently prepared and probably not worth the paper it’s written on.
The State Department has admitted their environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline was conducted by a contractor paid for by the pipeline company itself, a potentially illegal conflict of interest first reported by ThinkProgress Green. The Canadian tar sands company TransCanada has applied to construct a major pipeline through the United States to pump tar sands crude to Texas refineries for the international oil market, and is awaiting approval by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. The State Department’s approval hinges upon a positive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), required by the National Environmental Policy Act to assess whether the pipeline is in the national interest.
A State Department official has admitted to the New York Times that the EIS was conducted by a company chosen and paid by TransCanada itself, flouting NEPA’s conflict-of-interest rules:
[Kerri-Ann Jones, the assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs] said that TransCanada had managed the bidding process and recommended three candidates with Cardno Entrix topping the list. The department vetted Cardno Entrix by consulting with other agencies like the Bureau of Land Management. TransCanada pays the consultant directly, but would not reveal the amount.
That Entrix was contracted by TransCanada to conduct the EIS first reported by ThinkProgress Green, now confirmed by the New York Times… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
This is an outrage. The pipeline should not be approved, by law, until and unless cleared by a valid EIS, prepared by scientists who are not paid to parrot the company’s lies. In my opinion, an honest EIS would disqualify the Keystone XL pipeline. I encourage environmental groups to file suit to prevent approval of the pipeline based on a bogus EIS.
Oct 092011
Yesterday I rested. I did a few chores, but spent most of the day relaxing and catching up on some research. I’m current on replies. Today is a holy day in the Church of the Ellipsoid Orb, and I will be meditating on the Chargers’ visit to the Broncos’ cathedral.
Jig Zone Puzzle:
Today it took me 4:10 (average 4:50). To do it, click here. How did you do?
Short Takes:
From NY Times: A Texas pastor introduced Rick Perry at a major conference of Christian conservatives here on Friday as “a genuine follower of Jesus Christ” and then walked outside and attacked Mitt Romney’s religion, calling the Mormon Church a cult and stating that Mr. Romney “is not a Christian.”
The comments by the pastor, Robert Jeffress of Dallas, injected a potentially explosive issue into the presidential campaign: the belief held by many evangelicals that Mormons are not Christians.
I was wondering how long it would take for Perry to play the Mormon card. Those Republicans do love to hate.
From LA Times: Declaring the need to expand educational opportunity, Gov. Jerry Brown announced Saturday that he has signed legislation making illegal immigrants eligible to receive state financial aid to attend California universities and community colleges.
Brown said he signed the California Dream Act because it makes sense to allow high-achieving students access to college financial aid.
I support the Dream Act. Kids that have lived here virtually all their lives have benefited from having an education. That benefit should be developed and used here.
From Crooks and Liars: Alan Grayson explains OWS.
As usual, Alan is spot on.
Cartoon:
