punk on politics

There are 237 millionaires in congress. John Kerry has an average net worth of $208 million. Darrell Issa, $251 million. Regular folks.

Obama’s Disregard For Media Reaches New Heights At Nuclear Summit DANA MILBANK - Washington Post

This is the consequence of the trend in media to disdain facts for sensoids, and allow media to be controlled by a very few corporations, whose most profitable strategy is to promote sensoid battles, rather than substantive discussions.

World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.

They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.

In the middle of it all was Obama — occupant of an office once informally known as “leader of the free world” — putting on a clinic for some of the world’s greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama’s eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: “I’m going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session.”

Reporters for foreign outlets, admitted for the first time to the White House press pool, got the impression that the vaunted American freedoms are not all they’re cracked up to be.

Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency got this lesson in press freedom when trying to cover Obama’s opening remarks as part of that limited pool: “The foreign reporters/cameramen were escorted out in under two minutes, just as the leaders were about to begin, and Obama was going to make remarks… . Sorry, it is what it is.”

Alamiri’s counterparts from around the world wrote of similar experiences in their pool reports. Arabic-language MBC TV’s Nadia Bilbassy had this to say of Obama’s meeting with the Jordanian king: “We were there for around 30 seconds, not enough even to notice the color of tie of both presidents. I think blue for the king.”

The Press Trust of India, at Obama’s meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, “In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave.” The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was “ushered out about 30 seconds” after arriving for Obama’s meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. A reporter with Turkey’s TRT-Turk went to Obama’s meeting with the president of Armenia, but “we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds.”

Even the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, was more talkative with the press than Obama. Michelle Jamrisko, with Japan’s Kyodo News, noted in her pool report that Hu, at his session with Obama, spoke to the Chinese media in Chinese, while Obama limited himself mostly to “say hello to the cameras” and “thank you everybody.”

Obama’s official schedule for Tuesday would have pleased China’s Central Committee. Excerpts: “The President will attend the Heads of Delegation working lunch. This lunch is closed press… . The President will meet with Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey. This meeting is closed press… . The President will attend Plenary Session II of the Nuclear Security Summit. This session is closed press.”

Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said these were the most restricted such meetings they had ever seen. They complained to both the administration and White House Correspondents’ Association, which will discuss the matter Thursday with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage.

Over the weekend, Obama broke with years of protocol and slipped off to a soccer game without the “protective” pool that is always in the vicinity of the president in case the unthinkable occurs. Obama joked about it later to Pakistan’s prime minister, saying reporters “were very upset.”

In “bilateral” meetings with foreign leaders, presidents usually take questions, or at least trade statements. But at most of Obama’s, there were only written “readouts.” Canada: “The president and the prime minister noted the enduring strength of our bilateral partnership.” India: “The two leaders vowed to continue to strengthen the robust relationship between the people of their countries.” Pakistan: “President Obama began by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan.”

Finally, away from other leaders, Obama took reporters’ questions for 20 minutes. They were tough and skeptical questions that punctured the banal readouts: pointing out that the nonproliferation agreements weren’t binding, noting China’s equivocation on sanctions against Iran, and pressing Obama on the failure to curb North Korea’s weapons. The Post’s Scott Wilson asked Obama if he would call on Israel, which skipped the summit, to declare its nuclear weapons.

“I’m not going to comment on their program,” Obama said.

Not surprising. But it’s still important that the questions are asked.

And then we can see if it will work. Our politician’s, with their heads so far up their asses, can’t get past arguing about shit long enough to actually vote on it. Fucking vote already, and let the chips fall where they may. The Republicans want to hold it up but say it will only help them if the Dems pass it, so let it pass then. The Dems are too scared of their own shadows to take action on anything, even though they are the majority for risk of losing the majority. Neither one gives a fuck about yours or my health, let alone our health care options. They only care about being re-elected. The biggest problem I have with this bill is that it will take 10 years of taxes for 6 years of services. What the what? Nothing is going to change until 2014 no matter when they pass it, but additional taxes will be paid for those 4 years. That could only make sense to politicians!

Until I figure out this html and other codes, please follow punkonpolitics on twitter @punkonpolitics. thank you.

So I’ve had a day to digest the…..drum roll please……”HEALTH CARE SUMMIT”. This was the worst shit I have seen in years. To start, let’s get a lay of the land, the setting. They are in the Blair House which is located across the street from the White House and the table is set up with a 30’ foot divide between the two sides. It’s a giant square, just like each of the attendees. Right into it now. From what I could tell, and I watched every one the motherfuckin’ eight hours of this (I know, my problem, not yours) circus, is that both sides, Democrat and Republican want control. Control of America. Control of the money. Control of the power. Control of your ass. Notice there are no independent thinkers included. Just your everyday run of the mill Dems and GOPers. That sucks! And they suck all the oxygen from actual humans who could use it to make a positive impact in the world. They both want control, want it so bad. The Democrats, who are in control of congress by means of a majority want control, but are too scared to take it. Since they have the majority, they know if they vote on a health care bill and pass it then they will be on the hook for it. So they would rather not have to vote on it. They would rather create an atmosphere where the republicans seem to be holding up a vote. The Dems are all pussies and should have their voter registrations revoked. The Republicans on the other hand are the minority, which they hate, because they know they are right about everything. They know they know better than you about how to take care of you, and don’t want to vote because they don’t want to have something pass that may actually work because then they won’t be able to get control of the government if the Dems have something that benefits the Americans they were both elected to serve. If America were to improve while the Dems were in control, the Republicans would never be able to snatch back the reigns. Sounds ridiculous to the “every” man, but completely justifiable to them. And this is why America is so fucked. It is time for people to start paying attention. Get up off your sofa and start making waves. If you’re not willing to stand up, then shut up! Make something happen that is positive for you and your children’s children. And to answer the topic question. it was shit on a stick, and they weren’t wearing a striped uniform when they served it to you.

SAN FRANCISCO

Political speculation swirls. Meg Whitman, billionaire former eBay CEO and leading candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in California, supposedly prefers not to run in tandem with Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, who is seeking the Republican Senate nomination to run against the three-term Democrat Barbara Boxer.

Fiorina, who advised John McCain’s presidential campaign, was mentioned as his possible running mate. Whitman supposedly thinks two female former tech tycoons on the ticket would be one too many. Furthermore, Whitman supposedly harbors national ambitions, perhaps as 2012 vice presidential running mate with Mitt Romney, her business mentor and current supporter. If in 2012 Gov. Whitman is wallowing in this state’s multiplying disasters, she might not want Fiorina in Washington surrounded by television cameras and unencumbered by executive responsibilities.

So Whitman supposedly persuaded a rival for the gubernatorial nomination — Tom Campbell, a former congressman of large talents but slender means — to switch to the Senate race, leaving her opposed only by Steve Poizner, another rich refugee from Silicon Valley. This may have been a bit too clever because Poizner can now make this a binary choice: Who is most conservative?

Campbell leads Fiorina 30 to 25 in the Field Poll, with 39 percent undecided. A third candidate, Chuck DeVore, a state assemblyman from Southern California (Orange County), had just 6 percent, but he might be the nominee.

California’s electorate is about 45 percent Democratic, 31 percent Republican, 20 percent “decline to state” and about 5 percent affiliated with minor parties. The June primary will be open to Republicans and “decline to states,” but probably about 15 percent of those unaffiliated voters who will participate in the primary will request Republican ballots. So, incandescent conservatives among California’s 5.2 million Republicans are apt to determine the Senate nominee. The most conservative candidate is DeVore, 47, an aerospace executive and lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.

Last year, Campbell supported Proposition 1A, which would have extended for two years the largest state tax increase in U.S. history. This lost 2 to 1; it lost in every county and even in this collectivist city. Campbell also favored increasing the gas tax by 32 cents. Fiorina has cited the “cap-and-trade” legislation of John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) as praiseworthy bipartisanship. DeVore has no such deviations from conservative orthodoxy.

No right-to-life candidate has won statewide since 1998 (for secretary of state). A crusty contributor who has been supporting California Republicans since Richard Nixon in the 1960s recently told DeVore, who is pro-life, that social issues should be peripheral. DeVore replied that when the GOP was born in the 1850s, it resembled the Whig Party except for a large social issue — slavery, the practice of allowing some people to choose the status of other people. DeVore thinks abortion involves the same practice.

Boxer supports an “absolute right” to abortion — public funding, partial-birth abortions, no requirement of parental notification, all positions opposed by majorities. But because of California’s parlous fiscal condition and other emergencies — a water shortage aggravated by government solicitude for a supposedly endangered smelt has caused the destruction of tens of thousands of fruit and nut trees — social issues will, DeVore thinks, lose some saliency.

Boxer is arguably the most liberal senator, and her job approval is less than 50 percent. DeVore thinks voters generally are biased against someone seeking a fourth term — California has had only three four-term senators — if there is a credible opponent.

Furthermore, DeVore believes some ballot initiatives this November might help him. If there is another vote on gay marriage, that could energize conservatives. And a referendum on “paycheck protection” (requiring unions to seek members’ permission to spend dues on political activities) would cause labor to spend many millions that would thus be unavailable for the Senate contest.

When addressing Tea Party audiences, DeVore asks how many of his listeners have ever been politically active before. Only about 10 percent raise their hands. Conservatives everywhere were dispirited by the Bush administration; California conservatives are doubly demoralized as the failed Schwarzenegger experiment expires. Politics is supposed to be fun, and for California conservatives, voting for DeVore would be the first fun in many a moon.

But would it be futile? California has not elected a Republican senator since 1988 (Pete Wilson). Massachusetts, however, had not elected one since 1972.

Treasury statement on Senator Corker (R), “We welcome Senator Corker’s decision to work on a bipartisan basis with Chairman Dodd (D) to pass financial reform that will end to big to fail and stop abusive practices that hurt American families”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Adding a $1 per pack tax to cigarettes could raise more than $9 billion a year for states, health advocates said on Wednesday, and a poll released with the study shows Americans would support such a tax.

The poll, conducted by International Communications Research, found 60 percent of voters would support the tax to help struggling states and would prefer it over other tax increases or budget cuts.

“An increase in tobacco tax rates is not only sound public health policy but a smart and predictable way to help boost the economy and generate long-term health savings for states facing deepening budget deficits,” said John Seffrin, chief executive of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

“We have irrefutable evidence that raising the tobacco tax lowers smoking rates among adults and deters millions of children from picking up their first cigarette,” Seffrin said in a statement.

The report was released by the Cancer Action Network, the advocacy arm of the American Cancer Society, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

All these non-profit groups have long supported taxing tobacco more as a way to discourage smoking.

The report, available here, projects the revenue that each state could earn by increasing cigarette taxes, based on research that shows a 10 percent cigarette tax increase reduces total consumption by 4 percent.

It projects that a $1 a pack cigarette tax would prompt 1.2 million adult smokers to quit.

“In 2007, Texas increased its cigarette tax by $1 per pack from 41 cents to $1.41 per pack,” the report reads. The next year, cigarette tax revenues nearly tripled from $523 million to $1.5 billion, despite a 21 percent decline in sales.

Analysts agree that higher taxes prompt many to quit, although some smokers merely switch to cheaper brands. In October, cigarette makers Philip Morris America Inc and Reynolds American Inc blamed the economy and a new 62 cent per pack federal tax for declining sales.

Federal taxes now total $1.01. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says the average U.S. cost for a pack of cigarettes is $5.15.

VOTER SUPPORT

The groups also surveyed 847 registered voters and found 60 percent favor raising the tobacco tax to help state budgets while 38 percent were opposed..

The survey, with a margin of error of three points, found that 72 percent of voters opposed increases in state sales and 80 percent rejected higher gasoline taxes.

“Each year in the United States, smoking-caused disease results in $96 billion in health care costs, much of which is paid by taxpayers through higher insurance premiums and government-funded health programs such as Medicaid,” the report argues

“Indeed, higher Medicaid costs are one of the reasons states are facing budget difficulties.”

The average state cigarette tax is $1.34 per pack, ranging from 7 cents a pack in tobacco-growing South Carolina to $3.46 in Rhode Island.

“It is disheartening the report’s authors are suggesting legislators position tax increases as a way to address health issues while the report clearly describes tax increases as a way to fix budgets and score political points with voters,” Philip Morris USA said in a statement.

“The report neglects to mention the fact that cigarette tax increases rarely generate all of the revenue they are projected to raise — creating more budget problems down the road.”

The government wants to give businesses hiring new employees a tax credit of $5000.00. Hmmm….lets think here. Let’s use a typical small business as an example. First off, a typical small business in the current economic climate is probably running lean due to cost cutting measures or a lack of business / sales. If they are lean due to cost cutting, providing them with a $5000.00 tax credit to, let’s say hire a new employee at $10.00 per hour, does not make sense. That $10.00 per hour employee, which is an entry level position, will cost the company approx. $21,000.00 for wages. They may also be on the hook for another $5000.00 - $6000.00 per year for health insurance, plus payroll taxes of about $2000.00 which means this entry level employee will cost approximately $28,000.00 per year. If you’re a small business owner, are you going to spend $28k to get $5k? I don’t think so. Whether you’re running lean or slow, those numbers don’t make sense. This program has been created by someone who has never had to worry about the cash flow of a small business. Their head is wedged up the ass of the government way of doing business which allows them to print more money when they don’t have any coming in!

See an article on this issue from the Hill.com below.

Senate payroll tax credit could trigger battle with House

By Jay Heflin

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is praising the Senate for including a payroll tax credit in its jobs package, but it could set up a battle in his House Democratic caucus.

Economic conditions are ripe for a provision that serves as an incentive for employers to expand their workforces, in Hoyer’s eyes. The economy is growing again, and surveys indicate growing confidence by business.

“The economists that talked to us [said] a jobs tax credit would in fact be very effective,” Hoyer said at his weekly press conference this week. “There seems to be a sense that this is an environment where this will be really helpful.”

At the same time, Hoyer acknowledged resistance within his party from those who worry the tax break might only be used by companies already planning to hire additional workers.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center agreed with this assessment and reduced the credit to a political ploy by Democrats to maintain their majority after November’s election.

“[A] cynic might say it is an effort to bail out terrified Democrats by paying companies to hire new workers before the November elections,” writes Howard Gleckman in a Jan. 29 blog, TaxVox. Gleckman is a senior research associate who splits his time between the Urban Institute and the Tax Policy Center.

“It might even help Democrats take credit for hiring that was going to happen anyway,” he writes.

Separately, there’s worry among some Democrats that their leaders in the Senate are overloading a jobs package with tax breaks for business.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) described business tax breaks as more of the “same old, same old” this week.

The Senate could introduce a $104 billion jobs bill shortly that includes a payroll tax credit for businesses that accept new hires between Feb. 3, 2010 and Jan. 1, 2011. The provision emerged from a proposal by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and is similar to the suggestion by President Barack Obama to give businesses a $5,000 tax credit for each new worker added to its payroll.

A draft of the bill also calls for a $1,000 increase for hiring-related tax credits. To qualify, workers must be hired in 2010 and be employed for at least 52 consecutive weeks. The credit cannot be used in years prior to the bill’s enactment. But the draft offers no guidance on applying unused portions of the credit to future years, indicating outlays for the bill could extend beyond the current year.

The bill is presently expected to cost $85 billion the first year and $19 billion the second year. But lobbyists say Senate leaders want to trim its price tag to win Republican support for the legislation.

Once the Senate unveils its bill the House will follow suit with a similar proposal, staffers said.  Talks between chamber leaders have taken place on the bill to help ensure a bicameral consensus and quick passage of the package.