Al Gore, Green Business, and Unions-The Unholy Trinity
How about that masseuse who said Al Gore tried to pick up on her in a Portland OR hotel room? I think it is pretty obvious she was after some money. And if Al was grabbing at her, he has no taste. Who goes after a 54 year old masseuse? She was a wrinkled up slag. If this accusation had any substance, it would have come out back when it happened two or three years ago. How long ‘til she has Gloria Allred as her attorney? Aw, geez!
Pardon me, but who gives a damn about that blowhard, Al Gore, anyway? He won a Nobel Prize based on fake science. The grand European Green Energy scheme he wanted implemented here in the U.S. is melting down in Europe as the governments can no longer afford to SUBSIDIZE the green industry. But that’s their problem.
The U.S. has bigger fish to fry here as we can no longer afford to subsidize unions. Thus, our economies of several states and municipalities are melting down. If something does not happen soon in the way of managing our future state expenditures to unions and their pensions, if we don’t stop kowtowing to them and granting them raises in economies where there should not be any raises, if we knuckle under this year in California and give up our social programs to pay the unionists, our nation is on a oil slicked road to ruin. Unions killed the auto manufacturing business. They are in the process of killing off our airlines. Now, our state and municipal governments are fighting with unions because funding their pay and their ridiculous pensions is way out of hand. That’s the choice our state lawmakers have to make. Do we cut out a variety of social programs and alienate the millions being served by them or do we take the brave step and start taking control from the unions? Do we manage our futures or hand our futures and our tax dollars to the unions?
In California, the state employees union is the strongest, biggest lobby in the state. Not one Democratic member of the state assembly will realistically go up against them and try to save the taxpayers’ money by negotiating on behalf of the PEOPLE rather than on behalf of the union. There are just too many campaign dollars to go around and they like those green backs from the unions. Isn’t that right State Senator Leland Yee? State Assm. Ira Ruskin? State Assm. Jerry Hill?
Now that the American people are getting wise to them, the unions need a new industry to make sure their armies of idiots have jobs. Unions love Green and want to dominate green business as they dominate the auto industry. I am predicting here and now, the Green Industry will flop around like a fish out of water for a long time before it becomes viable. Why??? Unions.
Jose Radzinsky, an immigrant from Uruguay, accidentally started a small solar installation company in San Jose Ca in 1996. His home in the Santa Cruz Mountains had no electricity. Instead of having the local utility extend electricity to his home for $200,000, he installed some solar panels on his home. His neighbors liked it, so he did their homes too. By 2006, he had a going business with 25 employees.
Jose had a cutting edge Green company on the forefront of the Green movement getting great contracts like placing photovoltaic panels on the schools in the Sunnyvale School District. To expand his business, he decided to start a school for training people to become solar panel installation techs. He submitted an application to the state to start the school. That is where Jose’s trouble started.
IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, appealed the state’s approval of the program. It seemed to the IBEW that they were the only organization in the state with the right to train workers in solar panel installation and claimed the solar industry had no need for this school. The union’s lawyers attacked the program for various technical shortcomings. The small business owner was beset with legal briefs and exhibits filed by the union lawyers.
Soon, other trade unions joined with the IBEW to stop Jose from starting his Solar Tech Installation School. Roofers, plumbers, sheet metal workers and other unions came forward in the proceedings to argue that the training of solar installers is solely in the purview of the unions and not the private business. None of these unions have a solar tech training school. It is just another example of unions throwing their weight around to kill a great idea because it might infringe on their power.
Today the California Apprenticeship Council will rule whether or not Jose can start his school and train people to increase the level of sun power in California’s energy usage. Will they be in favor of the small business owner with a dream for California? Or will they side with the dream killing, nightmarish unions?
Doing Business with Russia
Recently, Russian President Medvedev visited the Silicon Valley in Northern California to ask for help in developing entrepreneurship in Russia. Cisco promised a one billion dollar investment in high tech developments there. Let’s keep in mind that in the 2009 Corruption Perception Index, Russia was rated a 2.2 out of 10. Amazingly, Nigeria scores slightly better than Russia. To be quite colloquial, Cisco’s gonna loose it’s ass in Russia.
There is no law there. Corrupt politicians and police can have anyone arrested, tortured, and held indefinitely. If you are a corporate lawyer and you choose to bring charges of corruption against a politician, you should pack you bags and get the hell out of town as the next knock on your door is the secret police ready to take you in, forever. If they get you, they will send you to a place that makes Gitmo look like the Hilton.
I encourage you to read the story of Jamison Firestone, an American attorney working in Russia and how his firm, which was the law firm to the Hermitage Fund, was treated by the Russian government. http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_15361407
Russian President Dimitry Medvedev is a cute little fella who loves modern technology. The American press is enamored with him because he uses email. Oooo, big deal. He has no power. The Russian President is a figure head. Putin the Prime Minister holds all the power. I doubt Medvedev can go to the bathroom without Putin’s permission.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Random Thoughts on California and Helen Thomas
California Kicks-off Two Big Races
The Primary is over
Governor’s mansion: It is Meg Whitman’s race to lose. If she plays her cards right, focusing on Jerry’s first two terms as Gov and his much less than astounding time as Mayor of Oakland, she could do it. She also needs to play up the disgust of the electorate with the giant union pension contracts that are strangling our cities, county, and state. Jerry Brown never saw a union contract he didn’t love. Even in San Jose, union might is waning. Any missteps by Meg and Jerry gets 4 years, heaven help us all. If that happens, California becomes the New Oakland.
Carly and Babs vie for the U.S. Senate Seat:Someone said the contest between Carly Fiorina and Babs Boxer will be a Cat Fight. Cat Fight? Baby, that’s a WWF No Holds Barred No Referee Cage Match looking for a place to happen. Who will be the first to fling a folding chair during the first debate? “Fiorina’s pounding Boxer, a right, a left, a right again. Fiorina is grabbing Boxer by her 70’s haircut, pulling her down and bouncing her face off her bony knees. Boxer is down! Fiorina goes to edge of the ring to play to the crowd; exhorting cheers. Look out! Boxer is up and has a folding chair!” That would be soooo much fun.
Helen Thomas
I knew she was a pain in the ass to many presidents, but I didn't know she was a Nazi. I was surprised by the cmoplete lack of decorum she showed in her recent comments on Israel (or Palestine as Helen so fondly refers to it).
Rabbi David Nesenoff is an independent filmmaker from Long Island and he runs the website RabbiLive.com. He approached Helen Thomas outside the White House after attending events for Jewish Heritage Day on May 27. He said he was there with his teenage son and a friend. They approached Thomas to talk.
Asked whether she had any comments on Israel, Thomas said, "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine." She continued, "Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not Germany, it's not Poland," she continued. Asked where they should go, she answered, "They should go home."
"Where's home?" Nesenoff asked.
"Poland, Germany and America, everywhere else," Thomas replied.
"Those remarks were offensive and reprehensible," Presidential Spokesperson Gibbs said during the Monday press briefing, saying that Thomas's comments "do not reflect certainly most of the people here and certainly not those of the administration."
"Helen Thomas announced Monday that she is retiring, effective immediately," read a statement from Hearst Newspapers on Monday. "Her decision came after her controversial comments about Israel and the Palestinians were captured on videotape and widely disseminated on the Internet."
Thomas said in a statement that, "I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.’’
After hearing her yesterday, and assessing the commentary she has had in the past and how she has badgered Presidents regarding Israel for years, it is pretty evident that she was a biased ingrate with little regard for Jews. A sad end to such a storied career.
Had her reportage slanted UPI over the years prior to her resignation in 2000? Helen Thomas, former President of the White House Press Corps, leading anti Israel extremist I guess. How has her slanted and skewed view of the world effected younger reporters whom she had taken under her wing? The guys at MSNBC and John Stewart make jokes about there being a liberal slant to the news, as if Fox news and other conservative commentators were nuts or, worse, accusing the media of a liberal conspiracy. “Bias, no way! How foolish.” This is an American wake up call. It behooves us to look upon all mainstream news sources with a critical eye and search out varied sources for our news. If you reglularly get your news from FOX, take a look at CNN or the NY Times. It won't kill you. If you are a regular NY Times or Yahoo News addict, check out FOX or the Wall Street Journal once in a while to see the other side. Let's remember that we live in a big country where opinions are free to grow like leaves on trees. I read NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman a couple of times a week. I even agree with him... sometimes.
Helen Thomas is entitled to her point of view and may express it freely here. However, her soapbox has been yanked from under her feet for all time.
One last thought on Thomas: When she left the UPI in 2000 to become a columnist for Hearst, why was she still accorded the front seat of the White House Press Room? Why was she still allowed to ask the first question at each presidential press conference after leaving UPI? I thought GW Bush did the right thing in bypassing her questions in press conferences starting in 2003. She was no longer a reporter and did not deserve to be among the press corps at the time. Thomas should have gone to pasture, instead, she used her questioning opportunities to go on long accusatory political diatribes. By 2003, it was also apparent by her line of questioning that she was biased against American participation in the Arab world. I don't understand her love for those who would happily commit genocide once more against the Jewish people. I am not a Jew and I am not always the biggest backer of Israeli policies in the MidEast. However, I have to agree with White House Spokesman Gibbs, those were reprehensible and indefensible comments from someone many Americans had grown to trust. If our President really wants to kick some ass these days, perhaps he could start with Helen Thomas.
Some people are like Slinkys, they are more fun when you push them down some stairs.
The Primary is over
Governor’s mansion: It is Meg Whitman’s race to lose. If she plays her cards right, focusing on Jerry’s first two terms as Gov and his much less than astounding time as Mayor of Oakland, she could do it. She also needs to play up the disgust of the electorate with the giant union pension contracts that are strangling our cities, county, and state. Jerry Brown never saw a union contract he didn’t love. Even in San Jose, union might is waning. Any missteps by Meg and Jerry gets 4 years, heaven help us all. If that happens, California becomes the New Oakland.
Carly and Babs vie for the U.S. Senate Seat:Someone said the contest between Carly Fiorina and Babs Boxer will be a Cat Fight. Cat Fight? Baby, that’s a WWF No Holds Barred No Referee Cage Match looking for a place to happen. Who will be the first to fling a folding chair during the first debate? “Fiorina’s pounding Boxer, a right, a left, a right again. Fiorina is grabbing Boxer by her 70’s haircut, pulling her down and bouncing her face off her bony knees. Boxer is down! Fiorina goes to edge of the ring to play to the crowd; exhorting cheers. Look out! Boxer is up and has a folding chair!” That would be soooo much fun.
Helen Thomas
I knew she was a pain in the ass to many presidents, but I didn't know she was a Nazi. I was surprised by the cmoplete lack of decorum she showed in her recent comments on Israel (or Palestine as Helen so fondly refers to it).
Rabbi David Nesenoff is an independent filmmaker from Long Island and he runs the website RabbiLive.com. He approached Helen Thomas outside the White House after attending events for Jewish Heritage Day on May 27. He said he was there with his teenage son and a friend. They approached Thomas to talk.
Asked whether she had any comments on Israel, Thomas said, "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine." She continued, "Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not Germany, it's not Poland," she continued. Asked where they should go, she answered, "They should go home."
"Where's home?" Nesenoff asked.
"Poland, Germany and America, everywhere else," Thomas replied.
"Those remarks were offensive and reprehensible," Presidential Spokesperson Gibbs said during the Monday press briefing, saying that Thomas's comments "do not reflect certainly most of the people here and certainly not those of the administration."
"Helen Thomas announced Monday that she is retiring, effective immediately," read a statement from Hearst Newspapers on Monday. "Her decision came after her controversial comments about Israel and the Palestinians were captured on videotape and widely disseminated on the Internet."
Thomas said in a statement that, "I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.’’
After hearing her yesterday, and assessing the commentary she has had in the past and how she has badgered Presidents regarding Israel for years, it is pretty evident that she was a biased ingrate with little regard for Jews. A sad end to such a storied career.
Had her reportage slanted UPI over the years prior to her resignation in 2000? Helen Thomas, former President of the White House Press Corps, leading anti Israel extremist I guess. How has her slanted and skewed view of the world effected younger reporters whom she had taken under her wing? The guys at MSNBC and John Stewart make jokes about there being a liberal slant to the news, as if Fox news and other conservative commentators were nuts or, worse, accusing the media of a liberal conspiracy. “Bias, no way! How foolish.” This is an American wake up call. It behooves us to look upon all mainstream news sources with a critical eye and search out varied sources for our news. If you reglularly get your news from FOX, take a look at CNN or the NY Times. It won't kill you. If you are a regular NY Times or Yahoo News addict, check out FOX or the Wall Street Journal once in a while to see the other side. Let's remember that we live in a big country where opinions are free to grow like leaves on trees. I read NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman a couple of times a week. I even agree with him... sometimes.
Helen Thomas is entitled to her point of view and may express it freely here. However, her soapbox has been yanked from under her feet for all time.
One last thought on Thomas: When she left the UPI in 2000 to become a columnist for Hearst, why was she still accorded the front seat of the White House Press Room? Why was she still allowed to ask the first question at each presidential press conference after leaving UPI? I thought GW Bush did the right thing in bypassing her questions in press conferences starting in 2003. She was no longer a reporter and did not deserve to be among the press corps at the time. Thomas should have gone to pasture, instead, she used her questioning opportunities to go on long accusatory political diatribes. By 2003, it was also apparent by her line of questioning that she was biased against American participation in the Arab world. I don't understand her love for those who would happily commit genocide once more against the Jewish people. I am not a Jew and I am not always the biggest backer of Israeli policies in the MidEast. However, I have to agree with White House Spokesman Gibbs, those were reprehensible and indefensible comments from someone many Americans had grown to trust. If our President really wants to kick some ass these days, perhaps he could start with Helen Thomas.
Some people are like Slinkys, they are more fun when you push them down some stairs.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Disarming America
The California State Assembly has recently passed a new law that would end the open carrying of pistols in the state. Currently, California law allows persons legally allowed to own a weapon to carry an unloaded pistol openly in a holster. Ammunition is to be carried separately from the weapon but can be on the same belt or in a pocket. The new law will end this practice once and for all.
I can hear "yea" and "wheeee" coming from the anti-gunners out there. This is really much ado about nothing. The open carry law has been on the books for many years. It was not until recently that gun rights advocates took to the streets carrying their guns to shed a little light upon the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms. Of course, where there are gun advocates, there are those who feel that private ownership of weapons is barbaric and an affront to a decent society.
The ultimate goal of the anti-gun crowd is to outlaw the private ownership of projectile firing weapons. You would still be able to use a baseball bat to protect your home and family - provided that it is not a metal bat, as those may be outlawed too.
The FBI estimates there are over 200 million privately held guns in 40% of the households in the US. To wrest control of all of these weapons is a gargantuan undertaking. There is a certain percentage who would give up their weapons willingly. But there is also a more significant percentage who would rather have their guns pried from their cold dead fingers rather than give them up willingly. Let's consider how the Weimar Republic of Germany eliminated private gun ownership.
By 1938, the Weimar Republic already had many laws on the books that anti-gunners advocate now. You had to have a special license from the police to own and carry a weapon. The German state police had carte blanch over all ownership decisions. This unlimited police control is the foundation of "Brady II," the gun legislation being promoted by the gun control lobby since 1994. The German Gun Control program was all the Nazi's needed to insure that Jews and others who were not trusted by the state to be good Germans would be disarmed and helpless.
In 1938 Germany passed their special "1938 Weapons Law," stating that Jews could no longer possess firearms. Possesion of a firearm by a Jew would result in death or 20 years of incarceration. In accordance with the new law, Police entered Jewish homes and confiscated pistols, rifles, and even old swords and sabers owned by WWI veterans. On Nov. 8, 1938, the New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:
The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.1
On November 9, 1938, the Nazi government initiated "Kristallnacht," where thousands of unarmed, helpless Jews were attacked by government sanctioned mobs. Certainly, if the Jews had firearms, the mobs would have thought twice about destroying their businesses and homes. I have heard some nuts say the Jews did nothing to protect or defend themselves in the Holocaust. What can you do when you have been disarmed and there are masses of people with torches and clubs willing to bash you into the next week? Or quasi military organizations like the SS or the Gestapo armed with automatic weapons comes around to take you away? There was some resistance, but those who resisted were killed or maimed. No, there was little that Germany's Jews could do to defend themselves in the face of State directed genocide.
Of course, at this time in Germany, they had full gun registration. If you were a German citizen and not a Jew, you could still own a gun. However, the German legislature was the first to distinguish between military and sporting arms. So, ownership of pistols and semi automatic rifles were prohibited. Every weapon in possession by the citizenry was recorded.
As the pendulum in the battles of WWII swung to the allies side, Germany was forced to play its trump card. Finally, in 1942, the state went forward and initiated confiscation of all firearms. Paranoia of their leader and others in positions of power drove them to take away all firearms for fear of a popular uprising.
The path to gun control is paved with good intentions. Registering weapons does nothing to keep them out of the hands of those who would use them to harm us. It does give the government a "Black List" to move upon when the time comes for confiscation. As an American gun owner, I do not fear my government. My government, technically, fears me and all the other millions of gun owners.
Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall-NY, Member of the House of Representatives from 1939 to 1953, explained: "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the Ogpu, and the Cheka."9
Rep. John W. Patman-TX, Member of the House from 1928 to 1976, added: "The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can properly protect themselves. . . ."
One must fear the government that wants to take their gun. Now, the State of California wishes to infringe upon our Second Amendment Right because some ninnies in Starbucks feel threatened by citizens exercising their personal right to carry an unloaded weapon. Schwarzenegger's political career is shot to hell. He is becoming more of a Kennedy daily. I bet that ninny signs the open carry restriction bill.
I can hear "yea" and "wheeee" coming from the anti-gunners out there. This is really much ado about nothing. The open carry law has been on the books for many years. It was not until recently that gun rights advocates took to the streets carrying their guns to shed a little light upon the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms. Of course, where there are gun advocates, there are those who feel that private ownership of weapons is barbaric and an affront to a decent society.
The ultimate goal of the anti-gun crowd is to outlaw the private ownership of projectile firing weapons. You would still be able to use a baseball bat to protect your home and family - provided that it is not a metal bat, as those may be outlawed too.
The FBI estimates there are over 200 million privately held guns in 40% of the households in the US. To wrest control of all of these weapons is a gargantuan undertaking. There is a certain percentage who would give up their weapons willingly. But there is also a more significant percentage who would rather have their guns pried from their cold dead fingers rather than give them up willingly. Let's consider how the Weimar Republic of Germany eliminated private gun ownership.
By 1938, the Weimar Republic already had many laws on the books that anti-gunners advocate now. You had to have a special license from the police to own and carry a weapon. The German state police had carte blanch over all ownership decisions. This unlimited police control is the foundation of "Brady II," the gun legislation being promoted by the gun control lobby since 1994. The German Gun Control program was all the Nazi's needed to insure that Jews and others who were not trusted by the state to be good Germans would be disarmed and helpless.
In 1938 Germany passed their special "1938 Weapons Law," stating that Jews could no longer possess firearms. Possesion of a firearm by a Jew would result in death or 20 years of incarceration. In accordance with the new law, Police entered Jewish homes and confiscated pistols, rifles, and even old swords and sabers owned by WWI veterans. On Nov. 8, 1938, the New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:
The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.1
On November 9, 1938, the Nazi government initiated "Kristallnacht," where thousands of unarmed, helpless Jews were attacked by government sanctioned mobs. Certainly, if the Jews had firearms, the mobs would have thought twice about destroying their businesses and homes. I have heard some nuts say the Jews did nothing to protect or defend themselves in the Holocaust. What can you do when you have been disarmed and there are masses of people with torches and clubs willing to bash you into the next week? Or quasi military organizations like the SS or the Gestapo armed with automatic weapons comes around to take you away? There was some resistance, but those who resisted were killed or maimed. No, there was little that Germany's Jews could do to defend themselves in the face of State directed genocide.
Of course, at this time in Germany, they had full gun registration. If you were a German citizen and not a Jew, you could still own a gun. However, the German legislature was the first to distinguish between military and sporting arms. So, ownership of pistols and semi automatic rifles were prohibited. Every weapon in possession by the citizenry was recorded.
As the pendulum in the battles of WWII swung to the allies side, Germany was forced to play its trump card. Finally, in 1942, the state went forward and initiated confiscation of all firearms. Paranoia of their leader and others in positions of power drove them to take away all firearms for fear of a popular uprising.
The path to gun control is paved with good intentions. Registering weapons does nothing to keep them out of the hands of those who would use them to harm us. It does give the government a "Black List" to move upon when the time comes for confiscation. As an American gun owner, I do not fear my government. My government, technically, fears me and all the other millions of gun owners.
Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall-NY, Member of the House of Representatives from 1939 to 1953, explained: "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the Ogpu, and the Cheka."9
Rep. John W. Patman-TX, Member of the House from 1928 to 1976, added: "The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can properly protect themselves. . . ."
One must fear the government that wants to take their gun. Now, the State of California wishes to infringe upon our Second Amendment Right because some ninnies in Starbucks feel threatened by citizens exercising their personal right to carry an unloaded weapon. Schwarzenegger's political career is shot to hell. He is becoming more of a Kennedy daily. I bet that ninny signs the open carry restriction bill.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Arizona - Drawing a Line in the Sand
Arizona passed SB 1070 and raised a real national ruckus. The media describes it as a "National Firestorm" and are making big dollars selling ad time by keeping it as a top story every night. True, there are many who feel the law is wrong, discriminatory, and opens a door to racial profiling. There are many who believe Arizona cops will be playing like the Gestapo, taking unsuspecting Latinos off the street to an uncertain future. When you read the law you discover that police must have a reason to ask for ID, they cannot just "profile" someone and take them into custody. To date, the President nor our Fearless Leader of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, have read the bill. Here, read the bill for yourself: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
70% of Arizonans believe strongly in this law. Over 50% of Americans support the law. Over the past 8 years, drug related crime has increased in Arizona. Phoenix has become the kidnap capital of the North America. Mexican druglords run raids to kill rivals and other associates as far north as Phoenix. Ranchers on the border live in fear for the lives of their families as drug cartel couriers armed with assault rifles cross their lands constantly. In April in Pinal County, directly south of Phoenix, there were 64 high speed car chases. 100% of the perpetrators were illegal immigrants.
Here is how Sheriff Babeu of Pinal County described it:
"Last month (April) alone, just in one patrol region, we had sixty-four pursuits. That means people who were driving a vehicle, failed to yield, took off like a bat out of hell, running red lights, creating traffic wrecks, numerous people were killed in these wrecks over the last several months, and who are these people? Not one of them was a U.S. citizen."
How did we get here?
Democrats didn’t want to do anything with immigration as many in their party like the open borders concept. Here is Marcella Aviles, the Executive Director of San Jose's Mexican Heritage Plaza’s take on open borders.: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14996692 Some Democrats believe it is criminal not to let Latinos into our country. They are so downtrodden in Mexico and Guatemala et al they crave the many freedoms that America has to offer. They have rights as a human being to decide where they wish to live and they wish to live here. America needs to accept the fact that our population growth will come from the south and our nation will become more Hispanic. There are still others who believe that California, Arizona, and Nevada still belong to Mexico and these people crossing the border are only moving into another state of their own country. The Democrats see power coming from across the border. If these folks can be made into citizens, they will become union members, community activists, and serve to grow the democratic voting block.
The Republicans have had no appetite to do anything about the border until now. For many years, illegal labor helped build the homes and downtowns of San Diego, LA, Phoenix, Tucson, the Bay Area. Big business and the Republicans looked the other way. Big Business, more specifically-real estate developers, have spent a lot of time preventing any immigration legislation. You can’t build brick homes in Texas and pay a union wage! You can’t build a 500 home subdivision and pay prevailing wage to all workers. That is not economically feasible. Homes would be way too expensive. The way to make it work is to have a big chunk of your workforce working below prevailing wages. Thus, the defacto rules were to allow illegals into the country with a nod and a wink to border enforcement.
The growth of illegal immigration has been pretty steady since 1986 when Reagan allowed a “path to citizenship.” Crime has increased dramatically as a result. My best friend is a defense attorney in San Mateo County. Most of his business on the public defender side is illegal immigrants. Thus we pay Public Defenders something like $400 per hour to defend people who should not be here. Their crimes cost us more in insurance payments. Heck, California has the highest uninsured drivers’ premiums in the country. We pay more in taxes to pay for the additional corrections personnel and jail improvements and expansions. That’s not to mention the billions in subsidies spent nationwide on welfare, food, housing, and medical treatments for those living here illegally. Annually, there is legislation in the Cal Assembly to officially make our state bilingual. Is everyone ready to force your kids to learn Spanish in school? Well, teachers love it. That’s at least one more teacher per school for which we can all pay.
Legislation I’d like to see: Place the National Guard on the borders. They take all illegal immigrants crossing the border to a concentration station on the border where they can be fingerprinted, photographed and shipped by bus back across the border. If they are caught again, jail time, then back across the border. Caught smuggling people or drugs? You go to immigrant jail. Not a normal federal jail. It’s more like a Mexican jail, but nastier.
No path to citizenship for anyone with a past criminal record either here or in Mexico or in the miserable country they hail from. Back across the border they go and into our criminal database.
Those wishing to become citizens shall pay a substantial fine for living illegally in our country. Hey, they skated on paying taxes for years, they ought to pay up a bit before we welcome them with open arms. After they pay their fine and complete the other legalities of immigration, they get a green card. Now they must take English and civics classes and have a passing grade of 75% or better to be considered for their citizenship tests. I will not stand to have a bunch of radicals here as Reagan allowed in his 1986 Cart Blanche Amnesty. I don’t want a bunch of Sandinistas and other central American radicals given sanctuary here. They don’t like democracy in their country and they don’t like it here.
What I am getting to is, the Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of allowing this flow of illegal immigrants into this country for different reasons. If our government fails to provide a safe living environment for those living in our border states, then it is up to those states to protect their citizens. The Federal gov has failed us if states are enacting laws like SB 1070. Arizona is standing up for the rights of its citizens to live in a secure environment. The Republicans have grabbed hold of this issue and have a real tiger by the tail. They have captured the imagination of much of the nation. I hope they do something constructive with it.
70% of Arizonans believe strongly in this law. Over 50% of Americans support the law. Over the past 8 years, drug related crime has increased in Arizona. Phoenix has become the kidnap capital of the North America. Mexican druglords run raids to kill rivals and other associates as far north as Phoenix. Ranchers on the border live in fear for the lives of their families as drug cartel couriers armed with assault rifles cross their lands constantly. In April in Pinal County, directly south of Phoenix, there were 64 high speed car chases. 100% of the perpetrators were illegal immigrants.
Here is how Sheriff Babeu of Pinal County described it:
"Last month (April) alone, just in one patrol region, we had sixty-four pursuits. That means people who were driving a vehicle, failed to yield, took off like a bat out of hell, running red lights, creating traffic wrecks, numerous people were killed in these wrecks over the last several months, and who are these people? Not one of them was a U.S. citizen."
How did we get here?
Democrats didn’t want to do anything with immigration as many in their party like the open borders concept. Here is Marcella Aviles, the Executive Director of San Jose's Mexican Heritage Plaza’s take on open borders.: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14996692 Some Democrats believe it is criminal not to let Latinos into our country. They are so downtrodden in Mexico and Guatemala et al they crave the many freedoms that America has to offer. They have rights as a human being to decide where they wish to live and they wish to live here. America needs to accept the fact that our population growth will come from the south and our nation will become more Hispanic. There are still others who believe that California, Arizona, and Nevada still belong to Mexico and these people crossing the border are only moving into another state of their own country. The Democrats see power coming from across the border. If these folks can be made into citizens, they will become union members, community activists, and serve to grow the democratic voting block.
The Republicans have had no appetite to do anything about the border until now. For many years, illegal labor helped build the homes and downtowns of San Diego, LA, Phoenix, Tucson, the Bay Area. Big business and the Republicans looked the other way. Big Business, more specifically-real estate developers, have spent a lot of time preventing any immigration legislation. You can’t build brick homes in Texas and pay a union wage! You can’t build a 500 home subdivision and pay prevailing wage to all workers. That is not economically feasible. Homes would be way too expensive. The way to make it work is to have a big chunk of your workforce working below prevailing wages. Thus, the defacto rules were to allow illegals into the country with a nod and a wink to border enforcement.
The growth of illegal immigration has been pretty steady since 1986 when Reagan allowed a “path to citizenship.” Crime has increased dramatically as a result. My best friend is a defense attorney in San Mateo County. Most of his business on the public defender side is illegal immigrants. Thus we pay Public Defenders something like $400 per hour to defend people who should not be here. Their crimes cost us more in insurance payments. Heck, California has the highest uninsured drivers’ premiums in the country. We pay more in taxes to pay for the additional corrections personnel and jail improvements and expansions. That’s not to mention the billions in subsidies spent nationwide on welfare, food, housing, and medical treatments for those living here illegally. Annually, there is legislation in the Cal Assembly to officially make our state bilingual. Is everyone ready to force your kids to learn Spanish in school? Well, teachers love it. That’s at least one more teacher per school for which we can all pay.
Legislation I’d like to see: Place the National Guard on the borders. They take all illegal immigrants crossing the border to a concentration station on the border where they can be fingerprinted, photographed and shipped by bus back across the border. If they are caught again, jail time, then back across the border. Caught smuggling people or drugs? You go to immigrant jail. Not a normal federal jail. It’s more like a Mexican jail, but nastier.
No path to citizenship for anyone with a past criminal record either here or in Mexico or in the miserable country they hail from. Back across the border they go and into our criminal database.
Those wishing to become citizens shall pay a substantial fine for living illegally in our country. Hey, they skated on paying taxes for years, they ought to pay up a bit before we welcome them with open arms. After they pay their fine and complete the other legalities of immigration, they get a green card. Now they must take English and civics classes and have a passing grade of 75% or better to be considered for their citizenship tests. I will not stand to have a bunch of radicals here as Reagan allowed in his 1986 Cart Blanche Amnesty. I don’t want a bunch of Sandinistas and other central American radicals given sanctuary here. They don’t like democracy in their country and they don’t like it here.
What I am getting to is, the Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of allowing this flow of illegal immigrants into this country for different reasons. If our government fails to provide a safe living environment for those living in our border states, then it is up to those states to protect their citizens. The Federal gov has failed us if states are enacting laws like SB 1070. Arizona is standing up for the rights of its citizens to live in a secure environment. The Republicans have grabbed hold of this issue and have a real tiger by the tail. They have captured the imagination of much of the nation. I hope they do something constructive with it.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
TARP Supported Banks Blamed for Lack of Lending in Multi-Racial Communities
May 13, 2010
TARP-Supported Banks Reduced Lending Dramatically, New Data Show National report finds re-emerging redlining patterns in seven cities as banks pull out of prime mortgage lending in communities of color May 13, 2010
CHICAGO-A report released today by a multi-state collaboration of regional research, policy and advocacy organizations documents the dramatic decrease in low-cost home loans made between 2006 and 2008, and highlights that communities of color were hardest hit by the drop-off in lending.
The entire release is available below after Otto's comments.
____________________________________________________
Otto's comments:
The numbers most of these affordable housing advocates use( BTW-they are referred to as researchers in the press release) are the HMDA (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act) numbers. However, the findings they came up with are basically unreal.
Banks do not abandon neighborhoods of color. CRA (the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977) sees that banks serve each neighborhood's credit needs equally and in a colorblind fashion. What is taking place in these neighborhoods is a result of our current economy. In neighborhoods where home values have dropped and unemployment has increased, it is difficult to refinance loans. Many neighborhoods of color had the value of the homes artificially increased due to the "go go" real estate environment we had from 2003 thru 2007. If a neighborhood had a high turn over in home sales, many homes are now valued less than the mortgage they carry. Thus making it impossible to refi.
Also, there are fewer loan options as sub prime lending has basically gone away. Let's keep in mind that many loans in these neighborhoods were sub prime loans where lenders were willing to accept alternative forms of credit and income verification. These alternatives are no longer viable. New regulations and supervisory oversight have eliminated them. Lenders have learned a hard lesson and will not make subprime loans any longer. Lenders must fully underwrite loans. There are no more stated income or "Liar" loans. Loan to value ratios for purchases and refi's has dropped to 80%. Mortgage insurers are pulling out of entire states. All of these factors make it more difficult for anyone, much less a person of color, to refinance their home.
Overall, the bar for borrowers has been raised pretty dramatically. In 2006, a borrower needed a 680 Fico Credit Score to access a prime home loan. As of 2008 and 2009, due to the increases in foreclosures and consumer defaults, most banks raised the bar to a 740 Fico. This locked out many of the borrowers who had previously been able to access loans.
This report fails to mention the significant drop in lending in all neighborhoods. Refinance lending has dropped ridiculously since 2006. That drop is across the board and for all neighborhoods, not just those of color. Home purchases are up, refi's are nearly non existent.
Let's consider who commissioned the report. The organizations listed at the end of the report are not exactly known for being "bank friendly." These organizations have a partisan and adversarial realtionship with banks and have every reason to manipulate certain information to make banks look bad. If these orgs deemed all banks to be fair lenders and each bank provided loans on an even colorblind basis, they would jeopardize their government and foundation funding and cease to exist. I could more easily accept this report if it came from an org that was well known for its evenhanded treatment of banks.
It wasn't that the TARP funded banks reduced lending. It was a function of our economy. There were simply fewer good loans to go after.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here is the full text of the press release:
TARP-Supported Banks Reduced Lending Dramatically, New Data Show National report finds re-emerging redlining patterns in seven cities as banks pull out of prime mortgage lending in communities of color May 13, 2010
CHICAGO-A report released today by a multi-state collaboration of regional research, policy and advocacy organizations documents the dramatic decrease in low-cost home loans made between 2006 and 2008, and highlights that communities of color were hardest hit by the drop-off in lending.
Read the report: http://bit.ly/p4ymre
The report, Paying More for the American Dream IV, examines the mortgage lending patterns of banks, including the nation's four largest financial institutions, in seven metropolitan areas in the United States: Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York City, and Rochester, NY.
"After inflicting harm on neighborhoods of color through years of problematic subprime and option ARM loans, banks are now pulling back at a time when communities are most in need of responsible loans and investment," said Geoff Smith, Senior Vice President of Woodstock Institute. "We are concerned that we have gone from a period of reverse redlining to a period of re-redlining."
Key findings include:
* Prime mortgage lending in communities of color declined more than twice as much as it did in predominantly white communities. While prime lending decreased between 2006 and 2008 in all seven metropolitan areas, the decline in lending was much greater in neighborhoods where people of color comprised 80% or more of the residents. Neighborhoods of color experienced a 60.3% decrease in lending, compared to a 28.4% decrease in lending in white neighborhoods, where people of color comprised less than 10% of the residents.
* The drop in prime lending for neighborhoods of color was even steeper for refinance loans that allow borrowers to take advantage of lower interest rates or access home equity. Such lending declined by 66.4% in neighborhoods of color, but declined by a mere 13.9% in white neighborhoods.
* Between 2006 and 2008 the share of prime refinance loans made in communities of color dropped 35% whereas the share of these loans made in predominantly white communities increased 11%.
* The nation's four largest banks-Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo-demonstrated similar lending patterns, targeting white communities for new refinance loans while pulling out of neighborhoods of color. Prime refinance lending by these four banks in white communities increased by 32.2% between 2006 and 2008, but decreased in neighborhoods of color by 33.1%.
"It is troubling that banks that took TARP funds made significantly fewer loans in the very neighborhoods most in need of credit," said Barbara van Kerkhove, Researcher/Policy Analyst at Empire Justice Center. "Part of the rationale for giving taxpayer funds to the banks was so they would lend and invest in our neighborhoods."
Recommendations include:
* Expanding and modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) so financial institutions cannot evade its goal of increasing lending, investment and services in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safety and soundness.
* Creating a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) to protect families and communities from abusive financial products and to prevent a future crisis from further destabilizing already struggling families and their communities.
* Updating the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) to include additional data necessary to keep pace with changes in the financial services industry and to achieve its stated goal of helping to identify discrimination in lending.
* Prioritizing fair lending enforcement in lending and loan modification programs to ensure that historically redlined neighborhoods are not subjected to continuing redlining practices.
* Repairing neighborhoods hard hit by foreclosure by working to keep families in their homes, mitigating the harmful effects of foreclosure, and significantly increasing investment in neighborhoods so that residents, small businesses and community institutions can thrive.
Collaboration:
The Paying More for the American Dream series is a collaborative effort of the California Reinvestment Coalition, Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, Empire Justice Center, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, Ohio Fair Lending Coalition, and Woodstock Institute. This is the collaboration's fourth annual report examining systematic inequalities in the housing finance system and their impact on lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color. The first report, released in March 2007, examined disparities in mortgage pricing by several of the country's largest mortgage lenders that offered both prime and subprime loans. The second report, released in March 2008, looked at the geographic lending patterns of a set of defunct subprime lenders whose loans largely fueled the wave of foreclosures that is currently devastating communities across the country and found that these loans were highly concentrated in communities of color and lower-income communities. The third report, released in April 2009, analyzed and compared the lending patterns of lenders that were covered by the Community Reinvestment Act with lenders that were not covered by the CRA.
# # #
For more information or to arrange interviews, please contact one of the following collaborative organizations:
Charles Bromley, Ohio Fair Lending Coalition
(216) 410-3879
Tom Callahan, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance
(617) 822-9100
Alexis Iwanisziw, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project
(212) 680-5100
Tram Nguyen or Kevin Stein, California Reinvestment Coalition
(415) 864-3980
Adam Rust, Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina
(919) 667-1557 x31
Geoff Smith, Woodstock Institute
(312) 368-0310
Barbara van Kerkhove, Empire Justice Center
(585) 295-5815
Katie Buitrago | Policy and Communications Associate Woodstock Institute
29 E Madison Suite 1710 | Chicago, Illinois 60602 T 312/368-0310 x2031 | F 312/368-0316 www.woodstockinst.org | kbuitrago@woodstockinst.org
Advancing Economic Security and Community Prosperity
###
It seems our government’s thought police are on high alert but Homeland security is asleep at the switch. Last year, Napolitano said the greater threat to us is not from Muslim extremists but from returning military troops forming militias. Let’s see, Jihad Jane, Nidal Hasan, and Najibullah Zazi…..and now to include our new buddy Faisal—The score is Taliban 4 Militia 1 (and that 1 is questionable. Those Hutaree guys sounded like a bunch of idiots, not trained militants. BTW- I don’t know if you have been following it but, the government’s case in the Hutaree deal is a bit shaky. They may have moved too soon.)
TARP-Supported Banks Reduced Lending Dramatically, New Data Show National report finds re-emerging redlining patterns in seven cities as banks pull out of prime mortgage lending in communities of color May 13, 2010
CHICAGO-A report released today by a multi-state collaboration of regional research, policy and advocacy organizations documents the dramatic decrease in low-cost home loans made between 2006 and 2008, and highlights that communities of color were hardest hit by the drop-off in lending.
The entire release is available below after Otto's comments.
____________________________________________________
Otto's comments:
The numbers most of these affordable housing advocates use( BTW-they are referred to as researchers in the press release) are the HMDA (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act) numbers. However, the findings they came up with are basically unreal.
Banks do not abandon neighborhoods of color. CRA (the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977) sees that banks serve each neighborhood's credit needs equally and in a colorblind fashion. What is taking place in these neighborhoods is a result of our current economy. In neighborhoods where home values have dropped and unemployment has increased, it is difficult to refinance loans. Many neighborhoods of color had the value of the homes artificially increased due to the "go go" real estate environment we had from 2003 thru 2007. If a neighborhood had a high turn over in home sales, many homes are now valued less than the mortgage they carry. Thus making it impossible to refi.
Also, there are fewer loan options as sub prime lending has basically gone away. Let's keep in mind that many loans in these neighborhoods were sub prime loans where lenders were willing to accept alternative forms of credit and income verification. These alternatives are no longer viable. New regulations and supervisory oversight have eliminated them. Lenders have learned a hard lesson and will not make subprime loans any longer. Lenders must fully underwrite loans. There are no more stated income or "Liar" loans. Loan to value ratios for purchases and refi's has dropped to 80%. Mortgage insurers are pulling out of entire states. All of these factors make it more difficult for anyone, much less a person of color, to refinance their home.
Overall, the bar for borrowers has been raised pretty dramatically. In 2006, a borrower needed a 680 Fico Credit Score to access a prime home loan. As of 2008 and 2009, due to the increases in foreclosures and consumer defaults, most banks raised the bar to a 740 Fico. This locked out many of the borrowers who had previously been able to access loans.
This report fails to mention the significant drop in lending in all neighborhoods. Refinance lending has dropped ridiculously since 2006. That drop is across the board and for all neighborhoods, not just those of color. Home purchases are up, refi's are nearly non existent.
Let's consider who commissioned the report. The organizations listed at the end of the report are not exactly known for being "bank friendly." These organizations have a partisan and adversarial realtionship with banks and have every reason to manipulate certain information to make banks look bad. If these orgs deemed all banks to be fair lenders and each bank provided loans on an even colorblind basis, they would jeopardize their government and foundation funding and cease to exist. I could more easily accept this report if it came from an org that was well known for its evenhanded treatment of banks.
It wasn't that the TARP funded banks reduced lending. It was a function of our economy. There were simply fewer good loans to go after.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here is the full text of the press release:
TARP-Supported Banks Reduced Lending Dramatically, New Data Show National report finds re-emerging redlining patterns in seven cities as banks pull out of prime mortgage lending in communities of color May 13, 2010
CHICAGO-A report released today by a multi-state collaboration of regional research, policy and advocacy organizations documents the dramatic decrease in low-cost home loans made between 2006 and 2008, and highlights that communities of color were hardest hit by the drop-off in lending.
Read the report: http://bit.ly/p4ymre
The report, Paying More for the American Dream IV, examines the mortgage lending patterns of banks, including the nation's four largest financial institutions, in seven metropolitan areas in the United States: Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York City, and Rochester, NY.
"After inflicting harm on neighborhoods of color through years of problematic subprime and option ARM loans, banks are now pulling back at a time when communities are most in need of responsible loans and investment," said Geoff Smith, Senior Vice President of Woodstock Institute. "We are concerned that we have gone from a period of reverse redlining to a period of re-redlining."
Key findings include:
* Prime mortgage lending in communities of color declined more than twice as much as it did in predominantly white communities. While prime lending decreased between 2006 and 2008 in all seven metropolitan areas, the decline in lending was much greater in neighborhoods where people of color comprised 80% or more of the residents. Neighborhoods of color experienced a 60.3% decrease in lending, compared to a 28.4% decrease in lending in white neighborhoods, where people of color comprised less than 10% of the residents.
* The drop in prime lending for neighborhoods of color was even steeper for refinance loans that allow borrowers to take advantage of lower interest rates or access home equity. Such lending declined by 66.4% in neighborhoods of color, but declined by a mere 13.9% in white neighborhoods.
* Between 2006 and 2008 the share of prime refinance loans made in communities of color dropped 35% whereas the share of these loans made in predominantly white communities increased 11%.
* The nation's four largest banks-Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo-demonstrated similar lending patterns, targeting white communities for new refinance loans while pulling out of neighborhoods of color. Prime refinance lending by these four banks in white communities increased by 32.2% between 2006 and 2008, but decreased in neighborhoods of color by 33.1%.
"It is troubling that banks that took TARP funds made significantly fewer loans in the very neighborhoods most in need of credit," said Barbara van Kerkhove, Researcher/Policy Analyst at Empire Justice Center. "Part of the rationale for giving taxpayer funds to the banks was so they would lend and invest in our neighborhoods."
Recommendations include:
* Expanding and modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) so financial institutions cannot evade its goal of increasing lending, investment and services in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safety and soundness.
* Creating a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) to protect families and communities from abusive financial products and to prevent a future crisis from further destabilizing already struggling families and their communities.
* Updating the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) to include additional data necessary to keep pace with changes in the financial services industry and to achieve its stated goal of helping to identify discrimination in lending.
* Prioritizing fair lending enforcement in lending and loan modification programs to ensure that historically redlined neighborhoods are not subjected to continuing redlining practices.
* Repairing neighborhoods hard hit by foreclosure by working to keep families in their homes, mitigating the harmful effects of foreclosure, and significantly increasing investment in neighborhoods so that residents, small businesses and community institutions can thrive.
Collaboration:
The Paying More for the American Dream series is a collaborative effort of the California Reinvestment Coalition, Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, Empire Justice Center, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, Ohio Fair Lending Coalition, and Woodstock Institute. This is the collaboration's fourth annual report examining systematic inequalities in the housing finance system and their impact on lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color. The first report, released in March 2007, examined disparities in mortgage pricing by several of the country's largest mortgage lenders that offered both prime and subprime loans. The second report, released in March 2008, looked at the geographic lending patterns of a set of defunct subprime lenders whose loans largely fueled the wave of foreclosures that is currently devastating communities across the country and found that these loans were highly concentrated in communities of color and lower-income communities. The third report, released in April 2009, analyzed and compared the lending patterns of lenders that were covered by the Community Reinvestment Act with lenders that were not covered by the CRA.
# # #
For more information or to arrange interviews, please contact one of the following collaborative organizations:
Charles Bromley, Ohio Fair Lending Coalition
(216) 410-3879
Tom Callahan, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance
(617) 822-9100
Alexis Iwanisziw, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project
(212) 680-5100
Tram Nguyen or Kevin Stein, California Reinvestment Coalition
(415) 864-3980
Adam Rust, Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina
(919) 667-1557 x31
Geoff Smith, Woodstock Institute
(312) 368-0310
Barbara van Kerkhove, Empire Justice Center
(585) 295-5815
Katie Buitrago | Policy and Communications Associate Woodstock Institute
29 E Madison Suite 1710 | Chicago, Illinois 60602 T 312/368-0310 x2031 | F 312/368-0316 www.woodstockinst.org | kbuitrago@woodstockinst.org
Advancing Economic Security and Community Prosperity
###
It seems our government’s thought police are on high alert but Homeland security is asleep at the switch. Last year, Napolitano said the greater threat to us is not from Muslim extremists but from returning military troops forming militias. Let’s see, Jihad Jane, Nidal Hasan, and Najibullah Zazi…..and now to include our new buddy Faisal—The score is Taliban 4 Militia 1 (and that 1 is questionable. Those Hutaree guys sounded like a bunch of idiots, not trained militants. BTW- I don’t know if you have been following it but, the government’s case in the Hutaree deal is a bit shaky. They may have moved too soon.)
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
VAT & Obama's Next Supreme Court Pick
VAT
Our President is floating the idea of a VAT or Value Added Tax. The idea being that we cannot fix our current deficit and maintain programmatical spending with the current level of revenue. With this type of tax, our government would be allowed to tax consumer goods at each level of production. This could drastically increase the cost of all consumer goods and depress retail sales. A VAT could change the landscape of consumer sales. Our consumer economy, as we have known it, may disappear. What will emerge from this morass of taxation is unknown.
A Value Added Tax starts with the raw materials. Let's use 1% (one percent) as our basis. How many outside manufacturers are there for a new American car? Well, in the VAT world, each manufacturer would have to charge a 1% value added tax for each part it sold to the manufacturer. So that is 1% on the stereo, 1% on the auto glass, 1% on the tires, 1% on the brakes, 1% on the raw materials. You get the idea, right? Oh, let's not forget that all the companies supplying these subcontractors charge a 1% VAT on their materials as well. The stereo manufacturer has to pay for chip sets, CD drives, speaker wire and speakers for their auto stereos. There is a 1% VAT on each of these items.
How much will this "Value Added" add to the price of a typical American automobile? Value is an interesting term. Generally, most American cars are currently considered to be a good "Value." If the costs of American manufactured autos goes up 10% due to increased taxation and inflation, will they still be a good value? If simple items are priced out of reach of the average consuming American family, is the VAT a fair and equitable tax?
Ask any European who lives here what they think of the VAT in their country. You may learn that escaping the unfair VAT is the reason they came to the U.S. The VAT will effect everyone. No one will be able to avoid paying it.
Supreme Court
There was an article today on Yahoo News asking "Why are there 9 justices?" The article gave an interesting history of how the court was shaped during the 19th century until the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the limit at 9 and it has not changed since.
The article failed to acknowledge the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 also known as the "Court Packing Plan." In this particular case, the Supreme Court invalidated a large part of FDR's New Deal in 1935. FDR wasted no time in his attempt to pack the court with several new justices who saw things his way. The bill would have given the president the power to appoint a new justice for every justice over the age of 70 1/2 up to a maximum of 6. This would have given FDR the power to place up to six additional pro-New Deal justices on the court and change the course of the U.S. history.
This is a fine example of a politician trying to politicize the court to their own ends. According to FDR, prior to his presidency, the Republican Party controlled the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. By enactment of the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, the President could count on better treatment for his administration's economic policies that may had previously been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Doesn't that seem like stacking the deck and cheating in some ways? "I don't get my way so I change the way the judiciary works." That seemed simple to FDR. He had just been reelected in 1936 with one of the largest electoral majorities ever seen in history at the time. It should have been a slam dunk for him to get this passed. However, there was an extreme backlash from the American public in regard to this bill. In the end, the idea was negatively viewed by the press. The public's view of the bill was generally running from 41% to 49% negative. People who viewed the bill favorably averaged only 39% at best. But the ensuing battle among democrats in the senate with the Republicans watching from the sidelines doomed the bill and any chance of passage died along with the Senate Majority leader at the time, Joseph T. Robinson.
I think what we discovered from FDR's failure to stack the court was that Americans prefer a level playing field.
Certainly, we know that our president will nominate someone who holds most of his same values to heart. Should we assume that our next justice will be cautious of allowing business to function without strong regulation? The new justice may be more inclined to allowing government bureaucracy to grow unfettered. The justice will support women's right to abortion and will not likely favor the 2nd Amendment to the constitution. I don't wish to use generalized labels like "left wing" or "liberal." As with the retiring Justice Stevens, you cannot judge a book by it's cover. A justice may be appointed by a Republican based upon conservative dogma at the time. That justice may have a paradigm change in their personal politics or judicial viewpoint after many years on the bench and find themselves siding with a different group of justices than they had previously.
With SCOTUS, anything can happen. No one expected Pres. GW Bush to have an extra pick after he nominated Justice Roberts. A very short time after Roberts' appointment, Rehnquist died. Roberts then became the Chief Justice and Justice Alito was later confirmed. Several current Justices are over 70 years old. It is early in Obama's administration. Obama could conceivably get one additional pick over the next couple of years.
Our President is floating the idea of a VAT or Value Added Tax. The idea being that we cannot fix our current deficit and maintain programmatical spending with the current level of revenue. With this type of tax, our government would be allowed to tax consumer goods at each level of production. This could drastically increase the cost of all consumer goods and depress retail sales. A VAT could change the landscape of consumer sales. Our consumer economy, as we have known it, may disappear. What will emerge from this morass of taxation is unknown.
A Value Added Tax starts with the raw materials. Let's use 1% (one percent) as our basis. How many outside manufacturers are there for a new American car? Well, in the VAT world, each manufacturer would have to charge a 1% value added tax for each part it sold to the manufacturer. So that is 1% on the stereo, 1% on the auto glass, 1% on the tires, 1% on the brakes, 1% on the raw materials. You get the idea, right? Oh, let's not forget that all the companies supplying these subcontractors charge a 1% VAT on their materials as well. The stereo manufacturer has to pay for chip sets, CD drives, speaker wire and speakers for their auto stereos. There is a 1% VAT on each of these items.
How much will this "Value Added" add to the price of a typical American automobile? Value is an interesting term. Generally, most American cars are currently considered to be a good "Value." If the costs of American manufactured autos goes up 10% due to increased taxation and inflation, will they still be a good value? If simple items are priced out of reach of the average consuming American family, is the VAT a fair and equitable tax?
Ask any European who lives here what they think of the VAT in their country. You may learn that escaping the unfair VAT is the reason they came to the U.S. The VAT will effect everyone. No one will be able to avoid paying it.
Supreme Court
There was an article today on Yahoo News asking "Why are there 9 justices?" The article gave an interesting history of how the court was shaped during the 19th century until the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the limit at 9 and it has not changed since.
The article failed to acknowledge the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 also known as the "Court Packing Plan." In this particular case, the Supreme Court invalidated a large part of FDR's New Deal in 1935. FDR wasted no time in his attempt to pack the court with several new justices who saw things his way. The bill would have given the president the power to appoint a new justice for every justice over the age of 70 1/2 up to a maximum of 6. This would have given FDR the power to place up to six additional pro-New Deal justices on the court and change the course of the U.S. history.
This is a fine example of a politician trying to politicize the court to their own ends. According to FDR, prior to his presidency, the Republican Party controlled the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. By enactment of the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, the President could count on better treatment for his administration's economic policies that may had previously been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Doesn't that seem like stacking the deck and cheating in some ways? "I don't get my way so I change the way the judiciary works." That seemed simple to FDR. He had just been reelected in 1936 with one of the largest electoral majorities ever seen in history at the time. It should have been a slam dunk for him to get this passed. However, there was an extreme backlash from the American public in regard to this bill. In the end, the idea was negatively viewed by the press. The public's view of the bill was generally running from 41% to 49% negative. People who viewed the bill favorably averaged only 39% at best. But the ensuing battle among democrats in the senate with the Republicans watching from the sidelines doomed the bill and any chance of passage died along with the Senate Majority leader at the time, Joseph T. Robinson.
I think what we discovered from FDR's failure to stack the court was that Americans prefer a level playing field.
Certainly, we know that our president will nominate someone who holds most of his same values to heart. Should we assume that our next justice will be cautious of allowing business to function without strong regulation? The new justice may be more inclined to allowing government bureaucracy to grow unfettered. The justice will support women's right to abortion and will not likely favor the 2nd Amendment to the constitution. I don't wish to use generalized labels like "left wing" or "liberal." As with the retiring Justice Stevens, you cannot judge a book by it's cover. A justice may be appointed by a Republican based upon conservative dogma at the time. That justice may have a paradigm change in their personal politics or judicial viewpoint after many years on the bench and find themselves siding with a different group of justices than they had previously.
With SCOTUS, anything can happen. No one expected Pres. GW Bush to have an extra pick after he nominated Justice Roberts. A very short time after Roberts' appointment, Rehnquist died. Roberts then became the Chief Justice and Justice Alito was later confirmed. Several current Justices are over 70 years old. It is early in Obama's administration. Obama could conceivably get one additional pick over the next couple of years.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thoughts on Domestic Terrorism and Israel
Well, the FBI has put an end to the Hutaree in Michigan and not a day too soon. They wanted to start a Christian Right Revolution by killing cops. They were getting ready to roll when the FBI shut them down. Bravo FBI! There are loons on each end of the political spectrum. Let's hope the FBI is looking both to their right and to their left.
The Hutaree were caught as they could not maintain any secrecy or oeprational control over their program. They essentially blabbed to others and advertised themselves on the web. I thank goodness the FBI was on top of this. These Hutaree guys were a serious threat to innocent people; particularly to the police, the policemen's families, and and those who would be caught in their crossfire. The fine work of FBI criminologists, profilers, and others in the Federal service brought these fellows down. They are now in cells wondering where they went wrong.
Knowing what a fine job the FBI has done in relation to investigating and stopping domestic terrorism, why has the FBI been taken off the Ft. Hood Shooting Case against Maj. Hassan? Is not the FBI charged with investigating and fighting terrorism in this courntry? Why aren't their experts working the case? Why have they ceded the case to the Army's DCI? DCI has zero expertise in domestic terrorism and other terrorist acts on our soil. They are much more suited to investigating drunken officers and sexual harrassment.
Also, why doesn't our current administration call this (The Ft. Hood Killings) an act of terrorism? It is truly the largest taking of American lives on American soil by a terrorist since 9/11. Title VIII, Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act defines acts of terrorism and this, according to the Pat Act, is an act of terrorism.
Is our administration so enamored with Islam that we are afraid to call these acts by their true name, terrorism? We need to call a spade a spade. I think our current administration has gone over the top in their obsequiousness towards Moslems. The recent dust up with Israel is a fine example. It seems the Administration never says anything when the Palestinians do something untoward, but let Israel get out of line, they are all over that action.
I once thought that Israel was a fascist country holding the Palestinians down with a Steel Boot over their necks. I will admit that my “Israeli Fascist” thoughts came from a Palestinian girl I dated in the early 80’s. She was hot. Oh, the things we will do to get a piece! We broke up after a while, or more realistically she broke it off with me.
Let’s take a little larger view of the Palestinian/Israelis issue and consider some of their history. The following historical background is from a good friend who is well acquainted with the issues of Israel vs. Palestine: Until the late 70s, Israel was considered the little country that stood up to its big, bad neighbors who wanted to see it destroyed. The Arabs, around that time, realized that they couldn't really defeat Israel themselves militarily, especially when Egypt negotiated their separate peace. It was around this time that the Palestinians began their campaign to get their "homeland" back. The other Arab countries realized that they could use the Palestinians as a proxy to get at Israel. Many funded Palestinian terrorism. The Palestinians at that time were united under Yasir Arafat. As long as he could steal some of the money that Arab supporters gave the Palestinians, he was happy to keep up the fight with Israel. Keep in mind, no one wanted the Palestinians in their country. I believe the Egyptians and the Jordanians kicked them out. The Palestinians had Arab support long as they were sticking it to Israel and they didn't reside in any of their countries.
The whole reason Yasir Arafat stayed in power was because of the Palestinians antagonism toward Israel. He used Israel as a scapegoat to keep himself in power. When the Israeli prime minister during the Clinton administration, Ehud Barak, was willing to trade land for peace, President Clinton was able to get Arafat to sit down and negotiate. When it looked like they were about to have a deal Arafat realized he would lose his reason for holding power and access to the cash he was skimming. He found a way to weasel out of it and that was as close as the Israelis and Palestinians ever came to peace. End of Quote.
So, it has been agreements and frameworks rather than actual peace deals. I do find it interesting that there is very little economic aid from the Saudis, Jordanians, and the rest of the Arab League. The majority of economic aid to the Palestinians comes from the U.S. and the EU. The Arabs talk a good game and they all want to see a solution but are not willing to put up for it beyond weapons. Let’s keep in mind, weapons are cheap compared to economic aid. An AK-47 can be used over and over again and can be parted out when the barrels wear. RPG launchers and rocket launchers are reusable. Cheap! Cheap! Cheap! “C’mon down to Crazy Ahmed’s Gun Palace & Falafel Hut and get your Kalashnikov today. I’ll even throw in 500 rounds of 7.62x39mm ammo on the house! Can I get any crazier? Sign today, kill Israelis tomorrow! Bring in the kids and they can play at our Knesset Shooting Gallery while the parents shop for the latest in weapons and explosive gear. Are your Teens a little too old for the shooting gallery? They can hang out in Hakim Hezbollah’s Intifada Insanity where they can learn to make Molotov Cocktails while reciting the most brutal scriptures from the Koran. You want a peace deal? Peace deals, schmeace deals! Crazy Ahmed has the real deal for you! C’mon down to 4590 Gaza Strip, next to the collapsed hospital. I’m CRAAAZZZYYY!”
Palestinian bumper stickers: My kid is a crack shot at Muhammed Omar Mussof Middle School; My kid killed your honor student; My kid has killed more Israelis than your kid
I loved it when the Palestinians dug a tunnel to Egypt and the Egyptian army shut it down so fast their tiny Hamas heads spun underneath their turbans. ”Hey, I thought they liked us!”
Maybe the Iranians can let the Palestinians relocate to Iran....
The Hutaree were caught as they could not maintain any secrecy or oeprational control over their program. They essentially blabbed to others and advertised themselves on the web. I thank goodness the FBI was on top of this. These Hutaree guys were a serious threat to innocent people; particularly to the police, the policemen's families, and and those who would be caught in their crossfire. The fine work of FBI criminologists, profilers, and others in the Federal service brought these fellows down. They are now in cells wondering where they went wrong.
Knowing what a fine job the FBI has done in relation to investigating and stopping domestic terrorism, why has the FBI been taken off the Ft. Hood Shooting Case against Maj. Hassan? Is not the FBI charged with investigating and fighting terrorism in this courntry? Why aren't their experts working the case? Why have they ceded the case to the Army's DCI? DCI has zero expertise in domestic terrorism and other terrorist acts on our soil. They are much more suited to investigating drunken officers and sexual harrassment.
Also, why doesn't our current administration call this (The Ft. Hood Killings) an act of terrorism? It is truly the largest taking of American lives on American soil by a terrorist since 9/11. Title VIII, Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act defines acts of terrorism and this, according to the Pat Act, is an act of terrorism.
Is our administration so enamored with Islam that we are afraid to call these acts by their true name, terrorism? We need to call a spade a spade. I think our current administration has gone over the top in their obsequiousness towards Moslems. The recent dust up with Israel is a fine example. It seems the Administration never says anything when the Palestinians do something untoward, but let Israel get out of line, they are all over that action.
I once thought that Israel was a fascist country holding the Palestinians down with a Steel Boot over their necks. I will admit that my “Israeli Fascist” thoughts came from a Palestinian girl I dated in the early 80’s. She was hot. Oh, the things we will do to get a piece! We broke up after a while, or more realistically she broke it off with me.
Let’s take a little larger view of the Palestinian/Israelis issue and consider some of their history. The following historical background is from a good friend who is well acquainted with the issues of Israel vs. Palestine: Until the late 70s, Israel was considered the little country that stood up to its big, bad neighbors who wanted to see it destroyed. The Arabs, around that time, realized that they couldn't really defeat Israel themselves militarily, especially when Egypt negotiated their separate peace. It was around this time that the Palestinians began their campaign to get their "homeland" back. The other Arab countries realized that they could use the Palestinians as a proxy to get at Israel. Many funded Palestinian terrorism. The Palestinians at that time were united under Yasir Arafat. As long as he could steal some of the money that Arab supporters gave the Palestinians, he was happy to keep up the fight with Israel. Keep in mind, no one wanted the Palestinians in their country. I believe the Egyptians and the Jordanians kicked them out. The Palestinians had Arab support long as they were sticking it to Israel and they didn't reside in any of their countries.
The whole reason Yasir Arafat stayed in power was because of the Palestinians antagonism toward Israel. He used Israel as a scapegoat to keep himself in power. When the Israeli prime minister during the Clinton administration, Ehud Barak, was willing to trade land for peace, President Clinton was able to get Arafat to sit down and negotiate. When it looked like they were about to have a deal Arafat realized he would lose his reason for holding power and access to the cash he was skimming. He found a way to weasel out of it and that was as close as the Israelis and Palestinians ever came to peace. End of Quote.
So, it has been agreements and frameworks rather than actual peace deals. I do find it interesting that there is very little economic aid from the Saudis, Jordanians, and the rest of the Arab League. The majority of economic aid to the Palestinians comes from the U.S. and the EU. The Arabs talk a good game and they all want to see a solution but are not willing to put up for it beyond weapons. Let’s keep in mind, weapons are cheap compared to economic aid. An AK-47 can be used over and over again and can be parted out when the barrels wear. RPG launchers and rocket launchers are reusable. Cheap! Cheap! Cheap! “C’mon down to Crazy Ahmed’s Gun Palace & Falafel Hut and get your Kalashnikov today. I’ll even throw in 500 rounds of 7.62x39mm ammo on the house! Can I get any crazier? Sign today, kill Israelis tomorrow! Bring in the kids and they can play at our Knesset Shooting Gallery while the parents shop for the latest in weapons and explosive gear. Are your Teens a little too old for the shooting gallery? They can hang out in Hakim Hezbollah’s Intifada Insanity where they can learn to make Molotov Cocktails while reciting the most brutal scriptures from the Koran. You want a peace deal? Peace deals, schmeace deals! Crazy Ahmed has the real deal for you! C’mon down to 4590 Gaza Strip, next to the collapsed hospital. I’m CRAAAZZZYYY!”
Palestinian bumper stickers: My kid is a crack shot at Muhammed Omar Mussof Middle School; My kid killed your honor student; My kid has killed more Israelis than your kid
I loved it when the Palestinians dug a tunnel to Egypt and the Egyptian army shut it down so fast their tiny Hamas heads spun underneath their turbans. ”Hey, I thought they liked us!”
Maybe the Iranians can let the Palestinians relocate to Iran....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)